Stu's Views

This is one of the weeks that reminds me why I decided to study public policy and why I get frustrated and concerned that more people don't pay attention to goings-on in Washington. Three significant bills made their way toward passage in Congress. Collectively they will have impacts of hundreds of billions of dollars on the economy. A fair number of people will lose jobs and others will gain jobs. Roads will be built and the environment will be dirtier.

Probably the most important bill that passed this week was the ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The bill will reduce barriers to trade betweent he US and some of our neighbors to the south. Consumer goods will become cheaper and some American jobs will migrate overseas (or over land, my geography is not that good). On balance, I am for free trade agreements, although I like them better with some environmental protections and job retraining programs built in. In addition to the benefit to consumers, the development of Central American economies is a good thing for this country. Richer countries are known to develop preferences for environmental protection and often for democracy.

The transportation bill (still being held up at the moment) is an old-fashioned Congressional bill. Mixed in with obviously necessary highway projects are tons of projects that individual members of Congress wanted for their districts. Commonly labeled "pork" some of these projects are good things and some are wastes of money. But it is trades like this made on the floors of Congress that make our legislative process work and while Presidents of both parties love to decry pork, they know that it is a necessary part of the system.

The one bad bill (in my view) this week was the energy. Some of the most egregious provisions (particularly the one immunizing corporations from lawsuits resulting from MBTE damages) were omitted but the bill is still a blatant giveaway to the oil, coal, and gas industries. Giveaways, like those in the roads bill, that lead directly to jobs and public works don't bother me nearly as much as unnecessary benefits to profitable firms. The Bush Administration has been pushing for this bill for five years. Finally their friends will reap the rewards associated with having your buddies in high office.

Ironically there is a benefit to few people paying attention to these significant laws being passed. The bills are largely all victories for the President. However unlike the battle over the Roberts confirmation and the Rove scandal, few people will notice these victories. That means Bush's approval, now pushing 40% will probably stay low and his bigger goals, particularly privatizing social security will remain out of reach . . . for now.

The AFL-CIO headed seemingly irretrievably toward a massive split yesterday. The Teamsters, SEIU (service workers union), UFCW, (food and commercial workers) and UNITE (hotel and restaurant workers) are leaving the union over a dispute regarding the allocation of union resources.

There is of course the requisite battle of egos between Andy Stern of SEIU and James Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters on one hand and AFL-CIO president John Sweeney on the other. However the issues behind the split are real and furthermore are crucial to the maintenance of organized labor as a poltiical force in this country. Stern and Hoffa want more money devoted to organizing new workers. While Sweeney has increased resources for organizing, he wants to maintain a sizable warchest for maintenance of the AFL-CIO as a whole and for political lobbying and contributions.

Interest groups have three things to give politicians. One is information (the Department of Labor is trying to do x, this is bad because . . .). The other two are money and votes. This dispute is over whether the causes espoused by labor would be better served by devoting more money to political campaigns or getting more voters in unions.

Union money is indeed critical to the Democratic Party. With the Howard Dean inspired movement toward individual contributions, union money is becoming less critical however. Meanwhile Republicans have no need for union money. Being able to add millions of members on the other hand would help elect Democrats and would force the Republicans to move toward the political center.

In 1935 John L. Lewis led unions representing miners, steelworkers, and other manual laborers out of the trade-dominated AFL which could not adjust to the new workforce. Labor became the pre-eminent liberal force in American politics shortly thereafter (The AFL and CIO reunited in 1955). The workforce again has changed to a service oriented and ethnically and lingustically diverse workforce. The labor movement must change accordingly. While yesterday's split may weaken labor in the short run it holds the promise of 1935 and making it stronger in the long run.

When lying awake after a 5 am baby feeding, I tend to have trouble falling back asleep. Among the things I think about are baseball lineups. The latest one racing through my mind are the best players since I've been following baseball (1977).

First Base: There is no question in my mind that the best hitting first baseman I've seen is Frank Thomas. For about five years, he was the best hitter since Ted Williams. However he is a mediocre fielder and his career has been curbed by injury. So I'll cheat here, I'll make Thomas my dh and Eddie Murray will be my first baseman. A lot of honorable mentions: Mattingly, Bagwell, McGwire, and Palmiero all are pretty close to Murray.

Second Base: It comes down to Ryne Sandberg and Craig Biggio (Morgan would be a shoo-in but his best years were before 1977 and Alomar deterirorated too quickly). The numbers favor Biggio but I'm going with Sandberg. He was the more fearsome hitter and carried the Cubs. It's a close call though.

Shortstop: This was my hardest position. If A-Rod stayed at shortstop he would have retired to arguments over whether he or Honus Wagner was the best ever. However he only has 8 full seasons at shortstop. How do you compare that with Cal Ripken's prolonged excellence? I'll put Ripken at shortstop for now but when A-Rod retires with more than 600 homers he'll need a spot on this team so Ripken may have to sit down. Tejada also will be heard from before all is said and done.

Third Base: No brainer. Mike Schmidt is the best third baseman of all time and enough of his career was after 1977 to make him eligible. George Brett and Wade Boggs get honorable mentions.

Catcher: Piazza or Pudge? Pudge or Piazza? Piazza is the best hitting catcher in history but he was mediocre at best behind the plate. Pudge Rodriguez is a very good hitter and a top notch catcher. I'm hesitating even as I type this. I'm going with Piazza but boy is it a tough call.

Outfield: I thought picking three would be tough but it was actually quite easy. Barry Bonds is an obvious choice even based on his pre-steroid numbers alone. Rickey Henderson is the best leadoff hitter in history and holds the records for most walks, runs, and stolen bases in a career. Ken Griffey Jr. is showing this season again why before his injuries he was an all-time great. Plenty of honorable mentions but none of them are that close to these three (Manny, Tim Raines, Reggie, Dave Winfield, Sosa, Puckett, and Gwynn).

Starting Pitchers: This is made easier by the fact that the great pitchers of the mid 1970s (particularly Seaver, Palmer, and Carlton) aren't eligible using my criteria. As it is we've been blessed four of the greatest starters in history and they are all still active. Clemens is one the top 3 or 4 all time. Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, and Pedro put up incredible numbers in a era of hitting power. No one else is really close to these 4. If I have to name a fifth starter, I'll probably go with Tom Glavine over Jack Morris.

Reliever: Time to let personal bias come in. The numbers say Eckersley but at the end of the game, I gotta go with Mo. Particularly if that game is in the postseason, Mariano Rivera is my closer. Eck can set him up.  

In a world of instantaneous reporting (and blogging) and 24 hour news coverage, it has become de rigeur to form opinions immediately. In a time of high political polarization, it has become equally common to form opinions not based upon facts but rather upon one's political affiliation.

The Bush Administration has managed these trends superbly over the past five years and the coup de grace may be the naming of John Roberts to the Supreme Court last night. By all accounts, Roberts is a brilliant jurist, even liberal groups are readily conceding his credentials and qualifications to sit on the nation's highest court. As always the Bushies have done their work with conservative allies who have fanned out praising the nominee today.

Meanwhile the left has little to fire at. Roberts has been a judge for only two years and has not ruled on any of the hot-button social issues. He has a brief filed in an abortion case that can be readily dismissed as the work of an advocate. His ruling that military tribunals are constitutional for Guantanamo detainees is disturbing as is his dissenting view that in certain contexts the Endangered Species Act may be unconstitutional. It is hard to imagine however that either of these opinions are the stuff over which filibusters are made.

My initial reaction is that Roberts probably should be confirmed. His judicial record, while containing the objectionable opinions above, is not one of a doctrinaire conservative. He is on record as supporting Roe as precedent (as I've noted before, this is pretty far down on my list of priorities but it is important) and Bush could have nominated some far worse candidates. I think he will be somewhere between Kennedy and Rehnquist on the ideological lineup of the court. This is a big and unfortunate shift from O'Connor but that's what happens when you elect conservative presidents.

As for what will happen, I think he gets confirmed with somewhere between 62 and 80 votes in the Senate. Some Senators will squawk about his not answering questions on issues (the same ones who would defend the right of a Democratic nominee to remain similarly silent). The gang of 14 will dramatically make an announcement that they won't support a filibuster of Roberts and then it will just be a matter of time until confirmation occurs. And the rightward tilt of the country will continue.

One side note. As discussed by Kos and others, Bush clearly rushed this nomination after saying he would take most of the summer. The reasoning is clear, he wants to deflect attention from Rove's legal problems. The mainstream media now has to keep after Rove and the probe of the Plame leak. Yes the Supreme Court is more important, but the conclusion there is foreordained, in the Rove case it is not.

I don't get the opportunity to praise a Bush Administration official very often but I have been quite impressed by several recent statements from Michael Chertoff the Secretary of Homeland Security. Chertoff last week made several statements about the allocation of homeland security efforts.

First, he attempted to reallocate homeland security dollars away from sparsely populated states to more densely populated ones. This is common sense and one of the biggest problems in post 9-11 spending (kudos to Jon Stewart who noted that the biggest tourist attraction in Wyoming is the large pile of homeland security money). The constitutional compromise of two Senators to every state means that there are enough senators from small states to block Chertoff from fully realizing this worthwhile goal.

Then Chertoff noted that it made more sense to spend money on preventing catastrophic attacks than smaller ones. For this he was roundly criticized by the very Senators who should spend their time praising him for the first initiative. Sens. Schumer and Corzine criticized Chertoff for potentially slighting risks to mass transit such as attacks like those in London. The Schumer and Corzine rhetoric basically implied that it was Chertoff's job to stop all risks.

There is a possible criticism of Chertoff's statement. The magnitude of the risk is one variable that must be taken into account when considering homeland security resource allocation. One must also think about the probability of risk (which in my view is much higher for London like attacks) and the ability to prevent such attacks (which may be much lower for such attacks). From what I've heard of Chertoff evaluation of these other variables appears to be implied in his statements. He should make it explicit however.

It is critical that decisionmaking in homeland security rest upon rational risk analysis. Many (including most prominently Richard Clarke) have called for this. There is little sign that such decisions have been made this way since 9-11. The recent OMB report on costs and benefit of regulations bemoans the paucity of information on the benefits of homeland security regulation. Chertoff's statements give me hope that such rational analysis may soon play a bigger role in homeland security. It should because lives are at stake.

One of my earliest blog entries came after the Valerie Plame scandal first broke. I described it as a scandal with legs, one that could last a while. Now that this has been proven true, the question arises of whether it is a scandal with teeth. I am hoping very hard that it is because the fish that could be caught in its bite is a big one.

Karl Rove has been described as "Bush' Brain." While this is probably exaggeration, he is certainly the captain of the Bush machine. His loss would be felt much as the loss of Lee Atwater was felt by his father. Republicans whose inclination is to dissent from the Administration would feel freer to do so away from Rove's threats of retaliation and the chief liaison between the loony right and the Administration would be gone.

But will it happen? It seems clear that at a minimum Rove has taken actions that will widely be viewed as unethical and distasteful by discussing Plame's career with Newsweek's Matt Cooper. It is possible and perhaps likely that he coordinated the campaign to out Plame as a CIA operative but to date we have seen no evidence to that effect. It is also obvious as many have noted that if this were a Democrat, Tom Delay would be calling for impeachment hearings.

In the minority in both houses of Congress, there is not much the Dems can do beyond what they are already doing. The key here will be the media and Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent prosecutor investigating the Plame leak. The Republicans have begun their Rove coordinated offensive but their claims are so ridiculous (Rove just wanted to correct misimpressions that Cheney was involved) that no one is buying them.

I'm optimistic that the media will do some genuine investigative reporting here. They are now dealing with a lame duck President with plummeting approval ratings, hardly the fearful commander of post 9-11 America. The whiff of scandal is like blood on the water to them. If they can bring Rove down or even out other guilty parties (someone had to tell Rove that Plame was an agent) then the Administration's agenda will wither on the vine and Congressional Republicans will use their instincts for self preservation and abandon ship. For the first time in eight months, I am slightly hopeful about politics.

Good stuff on this from Drum (showing how Nixon had more integrity than Rove) and Publius (comparing the Republicans to the Borg).

A year ago this week my wife and I moved out of New Brunswick and, for the first time in my life (actually the second but I've blocked out the first time), I found myself among the class of people I had spent the first 36 years of my life mocking, suburbanites. Here are five things I've liked about the transition and five things I haven't (and they conform closely to popular stereotypes of the suburbs).

Likes

1. It does feel safe. While there are a fair number of dwi and underage drinking arrests the violent crime rate is tiny. Given that there was a murder four blocks from our last place, this is a plus.

2. We are amongst our demographic peers. Our housing complex is largely young people in our income range. Now having a six month old has prevented much socializing but the potential seems to be there.

3. I like taking the train to work. It is in a sense enforced down time. I can't be doing work, laundry, or talking on my cel-phone (which gets spotty reception throughout my commute).

4. There are a bunch of parks around that range from functional to very nice. We've been able to take nice walks with the baby and the dog at least while the weather stayed below 85 degrees.

5. It is quiet. While I grew up going asleep to the sounds of ambulances, I did not enjoy trying to go to the bed to the noise of loud stereos which was a common occurence in New Brunswick.

Dislikes

1. I hate having to drive everywhere besides the train station. The idea that going to the supermarket involves getting the car, facing New Jersey drivers (worse than their stereotype), remembering everything I needed to get, and then getting back in the car is a constant annoyance.

2. When it comes to diversity, well there are a lot of Indian and Asian Americans. I haven't seen an African American in the neighborhood all year and the only Hispanics are those who work on the grounds.

3. The entire place shuts down at 9 pm. Now my life was never very late-night oriented but I did like the option. If you want a late night snack, you better have a well stocked refrigerator.

4. This one is a bit intangible. When one goes into New York, and to a lesser degree other major cities, one feels a palpable energy. Many bad songs have been written about this but its true. The suburbs have no energy.

5. If you want to see a movie not in this week's top ten box office hits you really have to work on it. We found one theater about ten miles away that plays "artsy" movies (not really artsy, just potential Oscar nominees) but that is it.

Bottom line, I'm a city boy but I'm surviving in the burbs. (Note: if our dog was writing this there would be many more likes than dislikes).  

With the attacks in London yesterday and the assassination of the Egyptian Ambassador to Iraq, it was a very bad day in the War on Terror. The attacks in London for obvious reasons were particulalry jarring. It had been a while since a western country had been struck and all of a sudden the spectre of more bad days even closer to home was raised for the first time in over a year.

The current word on the attacks is that the explosives were small enough to fit in a backpack and were carried on to the trains and buses in London. I've often figured that these simple devices, which Israel is all to familiar with, were the future of terrorism in the west as well. The question that has bothered me is that why haven't we seen more such bombs here in the U.S.

I think there are two reasons. In part, some of the Bush Administration reforms are "working." In particular I think the rounding up of those violating immigration laws and the tightening of our borders making it harder for everyone to get in to the United States have probably made a difference. Whether the economic cost and the other losses associated with decreased immigration are worth it, is a subject for another day but I am fairly convinced that these measures have made it hard for large numbers of potential terrorists to enter the country.

But obviously the London bombings did not require large numbers of terrorists. I think Osama has basically played into Bush's hands here. My guess is that Bin Laden wants only major attacks on U.S. soil, to maximize the impact of each attack. Such attacks require years of planning and are personnel heavy. That also makes them easier to disrupt either intentionally through intelligence or unintentionally through tightening the borders.

I fear that this is an unstable equilibrium however. Eventually one of two things is likely to happen. Bin Laden is likely to switch strategies or copycat/splinter groups are likely to adopt the London strategy. When this happens, smaller attacks will become more commonplace and this country will have to come to grips with how far it will go to prevent them. Both because of the human consequences of the attacks and the broader consequences of our likely responses, this is a day I fear is not far off in the future. Yesterday's tragedy made it seem that much closer.

As we hit the traditional and actual midpoint of the baseball season, it's time to reflect on what has happened and think about what will happen from here on in. In each league I break the teams into three categories.

American League

"We'd Print Playoff Tickets if we Didn't Think it Would Jinx Us." White Sox and Angels.

I'll reiterate my lack of faith in the White Sox but they have continued to play sufficiently well that only a complete collapse would keep them from the playoffs. Buehrle, Garland, and Garcia make a collapse unlikely. The Angels have been plagued by injuries and if Oakland hadn't started so badly, they would be in a dogfight. With a 10 game lead on the A's (and less importantly a 7 game lead on Texas) Vladimir alone may be enough to get them to the postseason.

"That Wildcard was the Best Idea Bud Selig Ever Had." Red Sox, Twins, Yankees, Indians, Orioles, A's, Blue Jays and Rangers.

The teams are listed above from highest probability of making the playoffs to lowest. The Indians and A's have been unbelievably hot over the past month to vault into this list since I counted them out on Memorial Day. Still, playoff veterans, Boston, Minnesota and New York have the most horses and should fight it out for the remaining two spots. For my Yankees, the key continues to remain Randy Johnson and the other starters. If they don't come around, the Yankees fall to the bottom of this list. One other thing to keep in mind is that these teams are most likely to make a trade to help their chances.

"Curse Our Small Markets and Incompetent Owners (not necessarily in that order)." Tigers, Mariners, Devil Rays and Royals.

Not much worth saying here. Based on their record the Tigers probably deserve to be in the category above however the idea of Detroit in the playoffs seems so foreign to me that I couldn't bring myself to type their name up there. The other three teams matter mostly because of who they may trade to the contenders.

National League

"We'd Print Playoff Tickets if we Didn't Think it Would Jinx Us." Cardinals.

The Cardinals could probably make about a dozen personnel mistakes from here on out and still make the postseason. Even with Mulder pitching poorly, Carpenter and Morris have picked up the slack and their lineup is as good as last year. Now they get Larry Walker and Scott Rolen back for the second half.

"That Wildcard was the Best Idea Bud Selig Ever Had." Padres, Braves, Marlins, Cubs, Phillies, Nationals, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Mets.

San Diego tops this list because of their good fortune to play in the NL West which is the weakest division in baseball this year. I can't see the Pads doing much damage in the postseason but they seem sufficiently solid to get there. The Braves and Marlins should emerge from the scrum in the NL East. Well, the Braves should at least since a division title seems to be their birthright. The Washington story has been a great one but the team has been playing over their heads. The Cubs and Phillies will likely fight to the wire with the Marlins for the wildcard with injuries and trades making the difference. Injuries have probably knocked the Dodgers out of it.

"Curse Our Small Markets and Incompetent Owners (not necessarily in that order)." Brewers, Giants, Pirates, Astros, Reds, and Rockies.

Actually cursing anything is probably not fair for most of these teams. The Brewers and Pirates have had encouraging first halves that may augur better times in 2006. The Astros and the Giants are just paying for recent runs of success. The Reds and the Rockies, well their fans should probably be cursing their owners.

Well as everyone knows by now, Snadra Day O'Connor stepped down from the Supreme Court yesterday and a battle royale is about to erupt over her replacement. I will probably blog on this several times over the next few months so this post is just to get my initial thoughts down.

This appointment is a really big deal, the biggest since the Bork fiasco in 1987 when Lewis Powell stepped down. I've never been a huge fan of O'Connor but she has become more of a moderate with more time on the court and has joined in some very important decisions over the past few years. As I've written several times, the Supreme Court is the only branch of the federal government not controlled by the most conservative elements of our society. Indeed over the past few years the court has acted as an important brake on the worst excesses of these groups and this appointment has the potential to remove an important part of that capacity.

O'Connor has provided the pivotal vote on a number of key decisions lately. She tends to be most moderate on issues involving racial, gender, and religious diversity. While a strong states-rights supporter (her background is in Arizona state politics), she has been far from an extremist on economic and regulatory issues that don't deal with states rights. It is on these issues where her replacement will be able to make the biggest policy difference.

As I've written before, it is my underlying belief that the Bush Administration cares very little about "morals" issues such as abortion and gay rights and uses those issues along with the fear of terrorism to mask their economic agenda. Therefore the one thing I am sure about is that the nominee will be strongly conservative on economic and regulatory issues and will probably be inclined to defer to the Bush Administration on matters relating to terrorism. It may be hard to find someone who is a libertarian on economic issues but not on military ones.

Even if they manage that trick that leaves them with a difficult decision regarding abortion and gay rights. They could probably get some economically conservative justice who would sail through confirmation if they had vague views on the "moral" issues. However appointing anyone who does not have clear pro-life, anti gay views will result in a withering attack from the James Dobsons of the world (even though O'Connor was not the deciding vote on these issues since there are still 5 pro choice justices). I don't think Bush wants to piss this group off going into the 2006 midterms.

So that means I think Bush will go hard right with this pick. While a bloody confirmation battle (which will result from a nominee who is unquestioningly conservative across the board) will probably cost him time on social security reform, an energy bill and all of his other legislative priorities, I think the Administration thinks it is time for such a battle. The left and center must be ready too.