|
 |
January 28, 2004 SULLIVAN CORRECTS HIMSELF....This is peculiar. Andrew Sullivan has published a correction of his criticism of Paul Krugman yesterday, but here's what it says:
Good for Sully for correcting himself (honest!), but what's the point of doing it if he continues to screw up what Krugman said? In fact, Krugman specifically mentioned increases in defense and homeland security spending, which are the bulk of the discretionary increases we've seen from Bush. Weird. Posted by Kevin Drum at January 28, 2004 10:07 AM | TrackBackComments
You don't get it Kevin, conservatives don't think of military spending as discretionary. As Medicare funding is non-discretionary because it's already been promised to the seniors, military spending has already been promised to Bush's donors. Posted by: epistemology at January 28, 2004 10:16 AM | PERMALINKActually, I think its that they don't consider military spending,
particularly on overseas wars, as "domestic" spending, even though, you
know, its largely paying domestic contractors. Sullivan is the Nit Pickler Of the Day, and a worthy one to be sure. Posted by: David W. at January 28, 2004 10:25 AM | PERMALINKAs "corrections" go, that is a laugher. And Krugman did not blamre the tax cuts per se. Roll the tape: Even conservatives are starting to admit that George Bush isn't serious when he claims to be doing something about the exploding budget deficit. At best — to borrow the already classic language of the State of the Union address — his administration is engaged in deficit reduction-related program activities. But these admissions have been accompanied by an urban legend about what went wrong. According to cleverly misleading reports from the Heritage Foundation and other like-minded sources, the deficit is growing because Mr. Bush isn't sufficiently conservative: he's allowing runaway growth in domestic spending. This myth is intended to divert attention from the real culprit: sharply reduced tax collections, mainly from corporations and the wealthy. Sharply reduced tax collections are a result of the recession, plus tax cuts, plus a decline in capital gains related receipts, plus (in Krugman's world), increased non-compliance by the greedy, tax cheating rich. However, a major point of Krugman's column was that most categories of discretionary spending have not gone up significantly under Bush. Not true, but still, what is Sully reading (or drinking, or smoking)? Posted by: Tom Maguire at January 28, 2004 10:29 AM | PERMALINKGive Sully a break. It's hard to read when you're participating in tea party program related activities. Posted by: decon at January 28, 2004 10:31 AM | PERMALINKOh, ignore my earlier post. The italics close automatically after each paragraph at this site, so my two-paragraph excerpt of the Krugman column went sour. Anyway, most of my points were made yesterday by Kevin Drum himself. Posted by: Tom Maguire at January 28, 2004 10:35 AM | PERMALINKKrugman explicitly mentions X. That correction sounds like an error of meiosis. Posted by: Brent at January 28, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINKThis is completely OT, but I'm laughing so hard I can't deal: George McGovern called George W Bush a deserter. I just... George McGovern, man! George McGovern! ROFLMAO, - Anarch Posted by: Anarch at January 28, 2004 10:59 AM | PERMALINKReally, I mean, I personally thought that PK underestimated the importance of a couple other points in his picture of the cause of the Deficit, but I wasn't stupid enough to say that he ignored them. It's sitting there right in his face! Why oh why do these people maintain readership? That's just blatant ignoring of people's words. For any journalist or commenter that should be akin to treason. Posted by: Balta at January 28, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKStill no mention on Sullivan's website of Signorile's charge that he takes money from a guy who quite literally wants all gays thrown into an oven. Posted by: John G at January 28, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKAnarch, Sullivan is confused about his rhetorical terms. If Krugman had said "The entire deficit was caused by the tax cuts," he would have committed hyperbole--a literally false statement that exaggerates a truth (that the greater part of the deficit was caused by the tax cuts). When Sullivan says Krugman said that, he is substituting a false statement for the true statement Krugman actually did make. That is a rhetorical device known as a "mistake" or "lie," depending. (Anarch, you troll--McGovern was a war hero. Look it up.) Posted by: Matt Weiner at January 28, 2004 11:11 AM | PERMALINKOk - Sully's correction was absurd. Read the top half and conclusion to Krugman's article: the whole point is to refute the myth that runaway domestic spending is to blame. Krugman's says that Conservatives blame the deficit on "runaway growth in domestic spending." But "[t]his myth is intended to divert attention from the real culprit: sharply reduced tax collections . . . ." He then does some, admittedly not-particularly thorough, refutation of the idea that domestic spending is outrageously increasing. So Sully says Krugman "omitt[ed] any reference to the vast increase in discretionary domestic spending under Bush." If by "omit," Sully meant "The whole point of Krugman's article was to refute ..." then yes. Sully is correct. Good job. Posted by: drc at January 28, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINKSullivan calling that an "error of hyperbole" was disingenuous at best. The dictionary defines "hyperbole" as intentional, leading us back to what I said yesterday, that it was a bald-faced effort at being divisive by demonizing Krugman. Posted by: Frank at January 28, 2004 11:14 AM | PERMALINKIt's a physics problem, really. Mr. Sullivan is, as most people know, a walking bundle of massively contradictory opinions - every truth is balanced with a gross untruth, matter vs. anti-matter if you will. Per the laws of quantum physics, the highly unstable nature of his existence forbids him to completely tell the truth. Any inherently true opinion emanating from his brain would cause the truth & untruth components of his psyche to collapse into each other, cancelling each other out, negating his existence. He lies like a rug because his very existence depends upon it, literally. Given that the Department of Education shows a greater increase in spending under Bush than Clinton, how can Krugman cavalierly dismiss Bush's spending on education? Clinton left education under $40 billon and Bush has taken education spending to over $60 billion. The reason I dislike Krugman is that he's so sloppy. He writes, "Education? Don't be silly." Can someone explain to me how the fact that education spending has increased by over 53% isn't indicative of Bush's spending and should be dismissed? Here's the department of Education budget from their website: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.xls Posted by: hoo at January 28, 2004 11:35 AM | PERMALINKHere's the overarching problem that even PK has yet to deal with: Sure, a lot of the problems with the budget are due to the actual economy vs. the projected economy. Well, note to President Bush (and his defenders): that's why you, the fcuker in charge of making final decisions, are supposed to think through your actions, and have alternate plans, you stupid unqualified moron. What do you think Greenspan was talking about with the "triggers" stuff? The NRA? "MBA Presidency" my ass. >(Anarch, you troll--McGovern was a war hero. Look it up.) Typical. They laugh at real war heros whilst drooling over Dumbya's codpiece. Posted by: doesn't matter at January 28, 2004 11:38 AM | PERMALINKI don't think Defense and Homeland Security are considered "Discretionary"...do you? Marginal changes in their budgets may be at the discretion of Congress, but their total budgets are considered mandatory. Posted by: BoiFromTroy at January 28, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINK"their total budgets are considered mandatory" Then we're all going to hell. I'm sure the CEO of Boeing is pleased that his 18 million dollar multi-acre estate is 'mandatory'. Posted by: sidereal at January 28, 2004 11:53 AM | PERMALINKI think you lose your hack license if you start getting the facts right, so Sullivan was duty-bound to screw up the facts again. Posted by: The Big Texan at January 28, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINKI'm sure the CEO of Boeing is pleased that his 18 million dollar multi-acre estate is 'mandatory'. Not to mention those 25,000 people working for Boeing in Wichita, or the hundreds of small shops that support Boeing-Wichita, or the thousands of people working at those small shops. Anybody got Boeing-Seattle employment numbers? Posted by: Ron at January 28, 2004 12:01 PM | PERMALINKBobo, "He lies like a rug because his very existence depends upon it, literally." you are brilliant. I've never read a more accurate rationale for Sully's bizarre actions. Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKI used to actually really respect Andrew Sullivan and his writing. But he's always had this tendency to let his ego get involved in everything he does. He seems to have this trouble climbing down, which puts him in the position or periodically getting an ass whipping from time to time. He tends to get caught up in moralizing or heat-of-the-moment arguments, which, I've learned, have a real tendency to bite you in the ass -- in his case, literally. His real problem is his ego. He aptly illustrated this point in his whole debate with Josh Marshall. Marshall stuck it too him. This was Sullivan looking for momentary advantage over the war -- and Marshall saw him off. It was also painfully glaring during the "creamy loads" incident some time back. This was Sullivan moralizing -- while himself indulging. His original response to all that was so funny I had to read it several times. Michelangelo Signorile just got through whipping his ass over the Moonie Times thing. His response to that was, well, incredible. The other thing about Andrew is that you need to follow the money with him. The Times deal illustrated that. As have his periodic attacks on Krugman. Sullivan's got big pharma backing his website -- so he's a hired gun. His attack on Atrios was totally predictable. As was his moving the goalposts on that. While I didn't listen to the show, it was all predictable. Atrios put him down nicely. Sullivan would *CLEARLY* be a social conservative if he wasn't gay. The fact of his sexuality forces him to make exceptions to the orthodoxy, and he uses this to try and gain advantage over "leftists" and others. Like I said, I used to really respect the guy -- but he wears badly over time. Very badly. Plus, he's not as smart as he thinks he is. All in all, I feel sorry for him. He has no future in Republican politics in this country because of the way the Republican Party is constructed. I used to be a Republican, and I can tell you, as a straight male, it ain't gonna change anytime soon. He should have some integrity and get the hell out. Sullivan seems to not understand the types of people he's dealing with here. When reading him these days, I get the feeling that he thinks by supporting them as strongly as he does on the war, that they'll relent. He's wrong. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at January 28, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINKRon, "The Wild Blue : The Men and Boys Who Flew the B-24s Over Germany 1944-45" I've read this book. It was impressive. Please note - Anarch didn't think of this on his own. This is a new GOP strategy. I've seen it used against Clark (see http://www.philcarter.blogspot.com, search for " It is an ingenious way of turning Bush's draft dodging and AWOL against honorable Democratic veterans. Posted by: Barry at January 28, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINKMilitary and Homeland Security are largely part of the discretionary budget. The mandatory items are referred to as entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, pensions, etc.) Even if you decide that we really need increases in defense, we still have to pay for them, which would seem to bolster Krugman's argument that the tax cuts are the biggest part of the problem. Posted by: k at January 28, 2004 12:37 PM | PERMALINKHoo writes: (hoo-hoo, hoo-hoo... ;-) Given that the Department of Education shows a greater increase in spending under Bush than Clinton, how can Krugman cavalierly dismiss Bush's spending on education? Clinton left education under $40 billon and Bush has taken education spending to over $60 billion. Which (as Kevin mentions in his entry) is a pittance compared to the increases in both defense and homeland security spending under Bush, and therefore Krugman's point about discretionary spending remains valid. Posted by: David W. at January 28, 2004 12:51 PM | PERMALINKhoo writes: The reason I dislike Krugman is that he's so sloppy. He writes, "Education? Don't be silly." You're confused. Krugman does NOT say that education spending -- or any discretionary spending -- has not seen big increases under Bush. What Krugman says is that these increases do NOT explain the size of the budget deficits, both actual and predicted. The major reasons for the budget deficits are the tax cuts. It's like your landlord comes to collect the rent and you say you can't pay it because the cable TV bill doubled. Yeah, there was a big increase, but nowhere near enough to explain why you don't have the rent. The sloppiness is not on the part of Krugman, my friend. Posted by: Moniker at January 28, 2004 12:56 PM | PERMALINKBarry: The tactic of painting distiguished Democratic war heros as traitors is nothing new to the Republican party. You know about election 2002 and Max Cleland, of course. Back in 1987 they did the same against the Senator who nailed Oliver North in the hearings. He was a true war hero who had the misfortune of being Asian. And then there was that fun time in the 1950s.... Posted by: Moniker at January 28, 2004 01:00 PM | PERMALINKShorter Krugman: a $20 billion increase in education spending doesn't explain a $400 billion deficit. Posted by: jesse at January 28, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINKch2 And being a conservative, I support defense spending. That's one of the jobs of the Federal government. Most of the stuff the Federal government does is the job of the state governments. Posted by: Ron at January 28, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKDAvid W.: I believe Homeland Security spending increased by only $4 billion more than Education spending from 2001 to 2003. Probably it will increase by a bit more in the 2004 budget than education, but they're still very comparable. Education increased by $21 billion and Homeland Security by $24 billion. "What Krugman says is that these increases do NOT explain the size of the budget deficits, both actual and predicted. The major reasons for the budget deficits are the tax cuts." And that's Sullivan's point. The CBO says tax cuts accounts for roughly 22% of current deficit. The recession acounts for the bulk of the deficit as projected revenues disappeared that had nothing to do with the tax cut. You're making my point that Krugman ignores facts and numbers to make his point. Posted by: hoo at January 28, 2004 01:06 PM | PERMALINKI wish I had something insightful to say, but all that comes to mind is "goddamn Republicans." Posted by: Mike at January 28, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINKOk, hang on -- I'm not trying to troll here. [I'd say I've pretty much established my liberal creds here.] I'm well aware that McGovern is a credited war hero, which gives him the stature that is required to discredit Bush. My point, which I couldn't make because I was (gleefully) laughing too hard, was that McGovern -- who lost an election because he was famously portrayed as "weak on defense" -- has now essentially bitch-slapped Bush with a charge that's even worse: (tantamount) desertion. That sucks for the Bush Administration for two reasons: 1) If they ignore it, the meme goes out: "Even McGovern thinks Bush is a coward!" That ain't good. 2) If they attempt to counter it, it brings out the fact that McGovern's a war hero and Bush is not... which in turn forces Bush to answer awkward questions about his fitness to lead &c. Particularly because we all know that Bush is weakest when he's on the defensive. Must run, but hopefully this will clarify matters somewhat. Posted by: Anarch at January 28, 2004 01:21 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.cbpp.org/1-7-04bud.htm While federal spending has risen in the past few years, it remains far below peak levels. The standard measure used to examine changes in federal spending over extended periods of time is to measure spending as a share of the economy. Federal spending equaled 19.9 percent of the economy (i.e., of the Gross Domestic Product) in fiscal year 2003. This was lower than in every year from 1975 through 1996. Nearly two-thirds of the increase in spending in 2003 that has resulted from actions that federal policymakers have taken since January 2001 occurred in the areas of defense, homeland security, and international affairs (which includes expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan). Furthermore, Congress and the White House stopped increasing the funds for domestic appropriated programs outside homeland security once budget surpluses disappeared and deficits returned. If the pending omnibus appropriations bill is enacted, total appropriations for domestic discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs outside homeland security will be $6 billion lower in fiscal year 2004 than in fiscal year 2002, after adjusting for inflation. Total appropriations for all discretionary programs — including defense and homeland security programs — will rise 3 percent in fiscal year 2004 before adjusting for inflation, and just 1.1 percent after adjusting for inflation. Congress and the White House have expanded several entitlement programs, and the prescription drug legislation in particular ultimately will have large costs. A sizeable share of the increases that policymakers have enacted in entitlement spending other than the new prescription drug benefit, however, are temporary increases made in response to the weak economy — such as the provision of additional weeks of unemployment benefits and fiscal relief to the states. These temporary spending increases will end as the economy recovers; they pose no ongoing fiscal threat. Posted by: ari at January 28, 2004 01:22 PM | PERMALINKYeah, I was just about to defend you, Anarch. Just a little miscommunication here, folks. Move along... Posted by: JP at January 28, 2004 01:28 PM | PERMALINKHoo, please. Every time you post about an economic matter, you get your basics wrong. Ari has largely explained matters to you, but to go one step further: Krugman is specifically addressing the long term, not just providing an accounting of the short term. His actual words are: "Why, then, do we face the prospect of huge deficits as far as the eye can see? Part of the answer is the surge in defense and homeland security spending. The main reason for deficits, however, is that revenues have plunged. Federal tax receipts as a share of national income are now at their lowest level since 1950." There is nothing "sloppy" about this in the slightest: it's a simple statement of fact. Posted by: howard at January 28, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINKYou have to be way off on Krugman to get Donald Luskin to correct you. Posted by: Sadly, No! at January 28, 2004 01:38 PM | PERMALINKquestion: krugman says: i understand that NCLB is a federal program in name only, that the states have to fund it (to what extent i don't know) so krugman calls it a "sick joke." if someone could explain...thanks Posted by: curious at January 28, 2004 01:40 PM | PERMALINKCurious, the brief overview is this: Bush got No Child Left Behind passed because he got the support of Ted Kennedy. He got the support of Ted Kennedy because he promised to fund the measure fully. In practice, though, he hasn't come close to funding the measure fully, for which Kennedy has since denounced him as going back on his deal. Hence Krugman's comment. The larger question of the usefulness of NCLB is much too big to get into here, but the prognosis isn't good. Posted by: howard at January 28, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINKHoo - Not to nit pick, but Krugman's article was mostly about future deficits and your stats were on current deficits. Our projected deficits clearly cannot be attributed primarily to the recession (and if they can be, then Bush has a lot more explaining to do). Also, I'm not positive, but I think your CBO stats are the ones that underestimate the deficit because they do not include legislation that hadn't passed yet -- like permanent tax cuts. Once those are included, the size of the projected decifit, and the portion attributable to tax cuts, increases. Finally, it is very very generous to attribute your logic to Sully's initial critique (which he admits was wrong) or his "correction," which was patently false since Krugman's point was to reject (not ignore) the claim that discretionary spending accounts for the budget deficits. Posted by: drc at January 28, 2004 01:47 PM | PERMALINKhoward I can see parents transferring some authority to local schools, but I cannot see them transferring authority to the Federal government (too little control on the parents part). What do you think? Posted by: Ron at January 28, 2004 01:52 PM | PERMALINKHoo writes: David W.: I believe Homeland Security spending increased by only $4 billion more than Education spending from 2001 to 2003. Probably it will increase by a bit more in the 2004 budget than education, but they're still very comparable. Education increased by $21 billion and Homeland Security by $24 billion. FWIW, I just googled the following up. The total 2004 DHS request according to their own budget summary webpage is $36.2 billion, not including defense spending that's related to homeland security, which would bring the total to $41 billion. By my own fuzzy math this is about twice what federal spending on education increased by under Bush. (FYI, the request for defense for 2004 is $390.4 billion, which is a $15 billion dollar increase over 2003. Not including future supplemental requests, keep in mind.) Anyway, since future increases in education spending will be limited to 1%/year by Bush (that's the spin, er, claim anyway), I think Krugman's point about non-defense discretionary spending not being a major factor in the rise of the federal deficit still stands. Posted by: David W. at January 28, 2004 01:58 PM | PERMALINKAnarch, if I wronged you, I'm sorry. I'm pretty disgusted by this latest GOP trick. I'm also stark staring stupified that they might actually pull it off. I almost expect that the next thing will be that Cheney is revealed to be a Satanist, who commits human sacrifice every single day (lest Satan take him to his 'reward'). The GOP, of course, will spin this as Cheney being far more religious than any liberal.
Ron, I don't really see this as a the Federal government trying to take "the responsibility to educate". Helping States offer an education that satisfies a minimum national benchmark could arguibly be considered the role of the Federal government, in the same vein as any regulation that seeks to ensure the smooth interplay (trade, transport, defense) between so many different States. Btw, you need not apologize for your earlier post, you were neither rude nor offensive. regards, Posted by: ch2 at January 28, 2004 02:06 PM | PERMALINKdrc: I'm not trying to defend Sullivan at all. My point is that Krugman tries to paint a picture indicating that there has been very little increase in education and that Bush's tax cuts have caused the massive drop in tax revenues. CBO attributes the bulk of the tax revenue to the economic downturn and not tax cuts. I feel that Krugman is being disingenuous in this. howard: Er, make that "major factor in the rise of the projected federal deficit". Doh. Posted by: David W. at January 28, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINKch2 But if the government is supposed to collect data on schools nationwide and then help improve the schools that are inadequate doesn't this imply that we are expecting an improvement as a result of action by the government? In my mind, this gives the gov't some responsibility for the improvement since they have assigned actions. Posted by: Ron at January 28, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINKI can see parents transferring some authority to local schools, but I cannot see them transferring authority to the Federal government (too little control on the parents part). By electing representatives to both elected branches of federal
government that propose federal education spending to the states and
standards that must be met to receive that funding, parents are, indeed,
transferring authority to the Federal government. I can certainly see
that happening, since it has been for quite some time. Off-topic, but here's a hint of things to come: NEW YORK (AP) -- Stocks fell sharply Wednesday as the Federal Reserve, shifting its stance on interest rates, signaled that an increase is coming. The Dow Jones industrials tumbled more than 140 points. ... Posted by: David W. at January 28, 2004 02:19 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely How much authority over your children have you transferred to the Federal government? What children? Posted by: cmdicely at January 28, 2004 02:49 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely Barry, you wrote "[...]I almost expect that the next thing will be that Cheney is revealed to be a Satanist, who commits human sacrifice every single day (lest Satan take him to his 'reward'). The GOP, of course, will spin this as Cheney being far more religious than any liberal." You're wrong, they --Cheney, Bush and some other-- follow the cult of Huitzlipochtli. The "Skulls and bones" is an induction branch of this cult. DSW
Hoo, the first cite you gave yesterday was for the state of CA, and i didn't pursue it. The second had no link, but i assume you meant the CBO August 13, 2002, "Where did the revenues go?" If you did, here's what it says: "The first likely factor is capital gains income. Realizations of capital gains are not part of national income or GDP. But they are taxable income to individuals and corporations. Consequently, they can grow more rapidly or fall more precipitously than national income, resulting in changes in revenue proportionately greater or smaller than changes in overall economic activity. CBO's analysis indicates that rapid growth of capital gains realizations explains about 30 percent of the growth in individual income tax receipts relative to GDP from 1995 to 1999, so they may be playing a major role in the decline in FY 2002 receipts. When projecting gains receipts in its January 2002 and March 2002 baselines, CBO already had good estimates of the calendar year 2001 level of the stock market and GDP--big influences on the level of gains realizations that would help determine final tax liability payments in April 2002. As a result, the March baseline, in comparison to the baseline of January 2001, projected a 23 percent decline in realizations and a $27 billion decrease in gains receipts. But because realizations are so volatile, the decline may be greater than econometric analyses of past behavior would suggest. Distributions of capital gains from mutual funds were down in calendar year 2001--reportedly by about 80 percent. Total gains realizations differ from those in mutual funds: stocks are the principal component of mutual funds, but only about half of total taxable gains come from stocks, with the rest coming from other capital assets, such as real estate. As a consequence, total gains would likely have fallen less than gains in mutual funds. Thus, while realizations almost certainly explain some of the FY 2002 shortfall, they very likely do not account for all of it." More to the point, i suggest you take a look at Table 4.4 of the CBO report issued Monday. In it, you'll see exactly what I said, namely, that capital gains tax declines don't account for the tax delta. Specifically, here are the numbers: 2000 capital gains tax receipts: $119B (up $20B from '99) 2001 capital gains tax receipts: $100B (down $16B from 2000 it says, and don't ask me to explain why $16B and not $19B) 2002 capital gains tax receipts: $57B (down $42B from 2001) 2003 they are guessing shows a further $12B decline, but since we won't know until April, i won't push that further. Now i've already spent more time on this than i wanted to, so i haven't rooted around in detail, but the CBO report on Monday says that we will end up with $794B in personal tax receipts this year, down 8% from 2002, which means we would have had $857B in 2002 (i.e., a $61B vs. an anticipated $12B drop in cap gains receipts, although, as i say, this number may prove inaccurate so i don't want to push it until after April). The CBO doesn't break it out by individual vs. aggregate, but it does say that from 2001 to 2002, we had a 7% drop in aggregate tax revenues, so if i simply assume that 7% on top of the $857B, i get to $917B (and bear in mind that individual tax receipts dropped MORE than the aggregate from 2002 to 2003), or a change of $60B, of which only $42B can be attributed to cap gains changes. Tax receipts also fell from 2000 to 2001, and while i'm not going to look it up, it was well over $16 - $19B. All of which is to say, no, you can't explain the entire delta on the revenue side by cap gains. Does that satisfy you? Posted by: howard at January 28, 2004 03:11 PM | PERMALINKWould you be willing to transfer that authority if you had children? Within certain bounds, I'd be willing to accept federal funding of education programs with strings attached related to most of those areas. I wouldn't support the rules being excessively narrow and inflexible, though. So I guess the correct answer is "sort of". Hoo, sorry, here's the link to the current CBO report: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2 You'll find table 4.4 in chapter 4, which you can click through to from this link. Posted by: howard at January 28, 2004 03:13 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely But the particulars that I would be willing to transfer and the particulars that you would be willing to transfer are likely different. And by the time we consult every parent in the US, we will have virtually no consensus on what authority can be transferred. Meaning that we cannot expect to transfer the authority to educate to the Federal government. And without that authority we can not expect them to have any responsibility. Consensus on a local level is easier to achieve. The values within a community vary much less than the values across the US. Posted by: Ron at January 28, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINK>>Anybody got Boeing-Seattle employment numbers? 39,000 jobs lost in Seattle. They are like other big xcompanies. They've found new ways to do more with less people. Good for the bootom line and shareholders. Bad news for employees. By the way. If whicvhever Dem does get elected later this year puts Paul Krugman in as Federal Reserve Chairman - I'd believe there is a humorous god. The pacemaker business would boom like the ventricles of conservatives everywhere? Posted by: Andrew | BYTE BACK at January 28, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINK>I just... George McGovern, man! George McGovern! Dear Dumbass, George McGovern was a highly decorated bomber pilot in WW2. He flew B-24's and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Now shut the fark up. Love, Grytpype Posted by: grytpype at January 28, 2004 03:27 PM | PERMALINKOops, sorry about that... one of these days I'll learn to read all the comments before posting!!! Posted by: grytpype at January 28, 2004 03:29 PM | PERMALINKBut the particulars that I would be willing to transfer and the particulars that you would be willing to transfer are likely different. And by the time we consult every parent in the US, we will have virtually no consensus on what authority can be transferred. That's true on any issue, not just education. I think that may be why we govern the country through elections and representatives, rather than getting signed delegations of authority from every citizen for every policy. Posted by: cmdicely at January 28, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely Just as this is getting good I gotta go. Story of my life. Y'all have a nice evening. Posted by: Ron at January 28, 2004 03:38 PM | PERMALINKStripping people of the authority over their children is not protecting their rights. As long as the federal government cannot -- as it should not -- compel people to go to federally subsidized schools, any authority it has over setting the standards for schools that recieve federal funding isn't stripping anyone of any authority over their children. Posted by: cmdicely at January 28, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKMcGovern was a warrior, unlike most on the right who talk but never walk. Posted by: PC at January 28, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKNo, no no no. He just never reads the links. He got a bunch of people laughing at him because Krugman said "mainly," so he corrected that. He still hasn't read the article. Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2004 04:06 PM | PERMALINKThanks for the link Anarch. McGovern is barebones lyrical here: Siegenthaler: I just want to talk about Wesley Clark for a second . . . because he had a tough time in some cases in New Hampshire. Some people said his endorsement from Michael Moore where he called President Bush a deserter --- and then Wesley Clark refused to distance himself from Michael Moore was really a difficult time for him. And that he stumbled a couple of times up there in New Hampshire. How do you react to that? McGovern: Well look, I know he was severely criticized for not rebuking the contention that George W. Bush was a deserter. But what would you call him? He avoided the war in Viet Nam by signing up for the Texas National Guard -- and then didn't show up. He missed half of his time by not showing up for the National Guard training. Maybe there's some kinder word than deserter. But in my book that's not too far from the truth. And I think General Clark is a man who never backed away from battle -- who volunteered to be a part of the armed forces of this country -- as I did. People like that are not going to defend George W. Bush on his military record. Siegenthaler: (Stunned) Issues of war and peace continue to be a controversy -- and a part of this campaign as we head through 2004.
Howard, The figures that I have seen are more like Hoo's than like yours, but I don't remember the references, so naturally they may be unreliable. Where can I find the CBO report that you site. Posted by: Matthew at January 28, 2004 04:16 PM | PERMALINKMatthew, see my 3:13 posting, which can be found here: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003147.html#94726 I've been wanting to use Kevin's permalinks for comments! In summary, i'm not saying the dropoff in capital gains wasn't real, or isn't part of the decline in tax revenue, but it's only part, not all, and in comparison to the total picture of the deficit! BTW, one thing i haven't done is gone back and looked at revenue forecasts from, say, 2000, to see what they assumed going forward for cap gains, which would be an interesting exercise, but every now and then i do have to do my actual job.... Posted by: howard at January 28, 2004 04:32 PM | PERMALINK"You don't get it Kevin, conservatives don't think of military spending as discretionary. As Medicare funding is non-discretionary because it's already been promised to the seniors, military spending has already been promised to Bush's donors." So being attacked is not enough justification for defense spending. McGovern and Kerry both served honorably in war but then, as politicians, voted to defund defense. That's not the same as McCain, who opposes pork barrel spending, defense or no. They just want to cut defense on principle. Kerry voted to cut the CIA budget by 1.5 billion. Then he complains about poor intelligence. Democrats just never seem to get it. Posted by: Mike K at January 28, 2004 04:42 PM | PERMALINKHoward, Thank you. I got it. Sorry you have to work. Matt Posted by: Matthew at January 28, 2004 04:43 PM | PERMALINKhe doesn't have to change his opinions to be honest. Posted by: jason at January 28, 2004 05:05 PM | PERMALINKKerry voted to cut the CIA budget by 1.5 billion. Then he complains about poor intelligence. This is the core of our bullshit system. To be vote against XXX is not to be for YYY. eg. voting against the $87B supplemental appropriation did not necessarily mean the representative wanted the troops to come home. A LOT of crap was thrown in with that bill. Same thing with the CIA budget. To want to pull $1.5B out of the CIA
budget is not the same thing as wanting or expecting the CIA to
sacrifice its central mission. Mike K at his finest! "Discretionary spending," Mike, is a term of art. As for being attacked, that certainly justifies every single dollar that Bush and the Pentagon have added to the budget, doesn't it? We're now spending on defense, in real dollars, more than our average expenditure during the Cold War, despite which our troops in the field don't have sufficient supplies of certain items (like body armor, fer instance). That missile defense system, for instance, which keeps flunking tests, and which keeps getting funded anyhow, will sure do a lot of good against a terrorist attack from hijacked airplanes, and will sure help us deal with Al Qaeda.... Posted by: howard at January 28, 2004 06:28 PM | PERMALINKMatthew, i took a stroll through chapter 3 of the January, 2000 CBO analysis, but irritatingly, they don't have an exact, comparable table to the one in chapter 4.4 of the study from this week. They do provide enough information that i could probably work out their expectations, but laziness intrudes (you're welcome to the effort!). What they do say is that in their projections, they assume that capital gains revenues will revert to the norm as a percentage of GDP, rather than exceeding the norm, as they had the previous few years. I'm assuming, from the way that the CBO August 13, 2002 study referenced up above is written, that capital gains revenues fell further than they anticipated them falling in january, 2000, but they did expect them to fall. Maybe some other time i'll try and fool around and figure out exactly what they meant (what they offer is a graph of capital gains revenues as a percentage of GDP, so you've got to work through their expectations of GDP, which i'm sure are in there somewhere, to get to their expectations on capital gains revenues). http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1820&sequence=4 Bottom line, once again, remains the same: the tanking of the stock market had an impact on revenues, but weren't the whole story.... Posted by: howard at January 28, 2004 06:46 PM | PERMALINKHoo- Their analysis from the CBO data is a drop by nearly 1/4 of tax
revenu. They say the deficit is 24% domestic spending, 76% tax
cuts/revenue loss... Another "error of hyperbole"?? Andy: "Josh Marshall has written an engaging and artful essay about the notion of an American empire for the liberal New Yorker magazine. I read it yesterday and then re-read it. Josh manages to write about the Clinton era "soft-imperialism" and the Bush era "hard imperialism" without mentioning a certain even that occurred on September 11, 2001." Josh Marshall in his essay: "After September 11th, a left-wing accusation became a right-wing aspiration: conservatives increasingly began to espouse a world view that was unapologetically imperialist." Sorry, but Marshall did mention it. I guess he didn't include the year. Posted by: Josh Maxwell at January 28, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINK"He avoided the war in Viet Nam by signing up for the Texas National Guard -- and then didn't show up. He missed half of his time by not showing up for the National Guard training. Maybe there's some kinder word than deserter. But in my book that's not too far from the truth." Too Fabulous for words! McGovern rocks! Wesley Clark is perfectly OK. Michael Moore is imperfectly OK. And there is no cure for AIDS. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at January 28, 2004 10:00 PM | PERMALINKDavid, I gotta agree with you here. McGovern's quote is delicious, and exactly what the doctor ordered. The man finagled his way into the guard to avoid going into the war. Even if he had completed all his service in the guard, he is, at least, a coward. Where, of where, are all those military people who couldn't fucking stand being led by a draft dodger? Posted by: epist at January 28, 2004 10:29 PM | PERMALINKWhere, of where, are all those military people who couldn't fucking stand being led by a draft dodger? That's got me stumped. You'd think a clear unwillingness to serve would bother military personnel, but apparently not. And they're nuts for Reagan, who spent World War II making training films in Culver City. Posted by: Orbitron at January 28, 2004 11:38 PM | PERMALINKRon: I'm not sure it makes logical sense to assume that federal authority relies on delegation from individual parents, as it could just as easily be assumed from local- or state-level organization, to which parents have already delegated substantial authority. And, as cmdicely has already pointed out, we don't need to consult every parent on what authority they wish to transfer, just as we don't consult every interested citizen on weapons programs, federal law enforcement, environmental protection, treaties, and all the other things the federal government does. That's what we elect representatives for. More to the point, perhaps it would be a good thing if we delegated more authority to the central government in this area. The U.S. has less national-leval influence on primary and secondary education than any other OECD country, and also fares more poorly on most measures of education attainment than most if not all other OECD countties. Perhaps cmdicely is right, and this is an area where standardization of materials and practices could be directed from the center, with beneficial results.
Furthermore, this is an interesting criticism from a conservative.
Are you here implying that that the CIA needs more money in order to do a
better job -- that "throwing money at a problem" is the best way to
solve it? Of course, Keith - 'you can't solve problems by throwing money at them' is a statement used exclusively to argue against programs and organizations that the speaker dislikes. Posted by: Barry at January 29, 2004 03:31 AM | PERMALINKAnother: Orbitron: "That's got me stumped. You'd think a clear unwillingness to serve would bother military personnel, but apparently not. And they're nuts for Reagan, who spent World War II making training films in Culver City." I'd guess that it really doesn't bother the majority - that was just a nice thing to throw at Clinton. If you look at GOP politicians, it's clear that a record of honorable service is not important at all. If you look at McCain and Max Cleland, it's clear that a record of honorable service and incredible bravery and suffering means jack sh*t when it becomes slander time. For the minority whom it does bother, they're probably keeping their mouths shut, lest they get in trouble for political incorrectness. Real political incorrectness. Posted by: Barry at January 29, 2004 04:09 AM | PERMALINKcmdicely Most of what the government should be doing is protecting the rights of the citizens. So I think that on most issues, maintaining individual rights is the goal. There are some issues where the gov't gets into legislating morality and they do 'trample' the rights of individuals. But in general, the gov't doesn't (shouldn't) take away peoples rights. Forcibly removing authority over their children is removing an individual right. I think we're on track for your next comment It seems to me that public schools all receive Federal funds
(subsidation). And while I am not forced to send my child there, is it
not an argument of the left that there are parents that cannot send
their children to private schools and therefore do not have that choice? Max Sawicky has yet another moment of supreme wickedness on the subject of the federal deficit. A must read: http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000098.html Posted by: David W at January 29, 2004 06:30 AM | PERMALINKKeith I'm not sure it makes logical sense to assume that federal
authority relies on delegation from individual parents, as it could just
as easily be assumed from local- or state-level organization just as we don't consult every interested citizen on weapons
programs, federal law enforcement, environmental protection, treaties,
and all the other things the federal government does. That's what we
elect representatives for. More to the point, perhaps it would be a good thing if we delegated more authority to the central government in this area. The U.S. has less national-leval influence on primary and
secondary education than any other OECD country, and also fares more
poorly on most measures of education attainment than most if not all
other OECD countties. The rest of your post addresses a Ron with which I am not familiar :-) But in general, the gov't doesn't (shouldn't) take away peoples rights. Forcibly removing authority over their children is removing an individual right. My general philosophy is that the feds should be in the business of guaranteeing minimum rights. Using the Commerce Clause or whatever to butt into state educational systems is prima facie wrong. But I also believe the Commerce Clause can be read & employed to facilitate _all_ forms of commerce -- "noncommercial commerce" if you will -- across statelines, eg. to facilitate workforce relocation. Being transferred from LA to Atlanta should not present big hurdles to people (if it does now). This would include health insurance and pension portability. But as a "very small-f federalist" I consider state educational systems to be best left uncentralized. Japan suffers from a stifling over-centralized bureaucracy, even though there are also some greater efficiencies running things at a national level. Posted by: Troy at January 29, 2004 07:08 AM | PERMALINKThe increases in military spending are also indefensible because so much goes into a conventional, Cold War force structure not adapted to the real threat we face today, which has less to do with fighting nation-states. The Republicans should not be allowed to assert that the defense increases have been forced on us by a "war we didn't choose"-they are a result of the wrong war that we choose to fight. Posted by: BobNJ at January 29, 2004 07:16 AM | PERMALINKIn effect, your argument here shows that more local control produces better results. Wait: the US has less central (and hence more local) control and worse results, and that "in effect" shows that more local control produces better results? Obviously, logic works differently in Ronland. Posted by: cmdicely at January 29, 2004 07:21 AM | PERMALINKIt seems to me that public schools all receive Federal funds (subsidation). As a result of the choices of their school districts and state governments, those more local institutions which you have no problem granting authority to. They merely have used that authority to chose to take federal funds and accept the rules that come with it. They could, of course, choose not to. But you have indicated that you are comfortable delegating authority to them -- if you don't like how they've used it, maybe you should talk to them.
cmdicely Wait: the US has less central (and hence more local) control and
worse results, and that "in effect" shows that more local control
produces better results? They merely have used that authority to chose to take federal
funds and accept the rules that come with it. They could, of course,
choose not to. For example, with NCLB the Feds require testing to a given level. I would be hesitant to spend my money on testing because testing does not improve performance, it measures performance. I'd rather put my money on improvement. But my local school administrators are blinded by the Fed's X dollars (which came from me but now I have no control over). Posted by: Ron at January 29, 2004 07:40 AM | PERMALINKI'm a small-f federalist because I want to see the fed/state taxation levels inverted in my lifetime. I should be paying 20% to state and 10% to the feds, not the other way around it is now. Plus another 15% for national social welfare like singler-payer and SSI. State schools have to look at federal aid since the feds are sucking up so much of the tax dollar pie. Local level funding and control is evil though. The rich get richer. Every kid in this nation should be going to a kick-ass school. The first $50B of our Iraq adventure would have funded new schools coast-to-coast. But instead we're rebuilding Iraq schools now. Go figure. Posted by: Troy at January 29, 2004 08:14 AM | PERMALINKTroy, i can't help but note that i was rather amazed that the backbone administration didn't have the courage of its convictions to institute a voucher system for education in iraq! Posted by: howard at January 29, 2004 08:15 AM | PERMALINKbtw, in California according to my 2004 almanac (surprisingly handy even in this internet age) Feds fund about 10% of K12 education. Posted by: Troy at January 29, 2004 08:20 AM | PERMALINKhoward: US taxpayer monies paying for Taliban training. Yeah, that'd fly. Not like we weren't already doing this in the pre-9/11 world, though. Posted by: Troy at January 29, 2004 08:21 AM | PERMALINKCan anyone point me to the NH vote totals (not percentages) by candidate? I can't find them on the web. thanks. Posted by: goethean at January 29, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINKUnless I'm misreading, Troy, you favor local control over education; i suspect you favor vouchers. Don't you think the iraqi people are capable of utilizing them? PS. I suspect you meant "Baathist" and not "Taliban" training, and speaking seriously instead of just kidding, i think it's possible to set sufficient standards that the problem could be mitigated. Posted by: howard at January 29, 2004 08:41 AM | PERMALINK"The Republicans should not be allowed to assert that the defense increases have been forced on us by a "war we didn't choose"-they are a result of the wrong war that we choose to fight." Stated beautifully. Posted by: moroboshi at January 29, 2004 08:58 AM | PERMALINKWe already have too much central control. So this should read "the US has more central control and worse results...." "More" is compared to something. The US has less central control and worse results than other OECD countries. This does not provide support for the claim that less central control is better, as you claimed it did. It is true that the local school administrators say "You mean I can get X dollars if I do Y?" and they think it is automatically a wonderful deal. IME -- working for a while in a school district office -- this is not the case. When they become aware of a grant opportunity, districts do not automatically jump, they weigh the money offered against the strings attached. They don't go after everything offered without consideration. Posted by: cmdicely at January 29, 2004 09:18 AM | PERMALINKBut my local school administrators are blinded by the Fed's X dollars (which came from me but now I have no control over). You don't elect your representatives in Congress and the White House? Your school board isn't elected, and doesn't provide for citizen input? What country do you live in again? Posted by: cmdicely at January 29, 2004 09:20 AM | PERMALINKUnless I'm misreading, Troy, you favor local control over education; No, local control is too uneven wrt rich vs. poor. State control seems to be the best level. Then again I live in the most populous state. I just don't see a big role for the feds -- mebbe I'm jaded by seeing the arch-conservative Ministry of Education does its deeds in Japan. i suspect you favor vouchers. No, being a product of excellent pre-prop 13 schools I'm a big fan of well funded public education. It's a great mixer and socializing part of our society. Don't you think the iraqi people are capable of utilizing them? vouchers goes hand-in-hand with privatization and de-socialization, an occupation policy which has been discredited (increasingly) AFAIK. PS. I suspect you meant "Baathist" and not "Taliban" training No, religious schools, which is what Talibans are/do. The CIA funded them prior to 9/11. cmdicely If your local school board has to get its money locally, you get a lot more control. Posted by: Ron at January 29, 2004 10:09 AM | PERMALINKI would also be surprised if your local school board asked for a referendum on whether they should accept money from NCLB. Well, no, in California, governing bodies don't ask for referenda,
since a "referendum", as we use the term, is a vote by the public to
repeal an official act. And in fact the decision on that is, I'm fairly
certain, made in practice at the state level. And just as subject to
repeal through referendum or modification through initiative as any
other state law. hello, I adored its Blog.... My Name is Lucas Duarte I Lives in
Brazil and also I have a Blog. What such to change links? mine my email
is http://www.mylifeperfil.blogger.com.br is:
lucasduartelourenco@bol.com.br and my ICQ is: 103146233 in case that it
will be to enter in contact with me, please to indicate the address of
its site, and its email. Debtor. The tax cut hawks who decry the spending seem to have no problems with defense spending. That is the one role of the federal govt. that they seem to have little problem with. Before 9/11, Rumsfeld was proposing all kinds of gradiose programs, including space defense, long before the WoT. Has anyone linked terrorism with space defense or missle defense yet? The Constitution gives the federal govt. a mandate to provide "common Defence." When there are bases circling the globe and we have all kinds of offensive systems, is anyone drawing the line between defense and offense? Posted by: aghast at January 29, 2004 12:18 PM | PERMALINKLimbaugh today is making the EXACT argument that Kevin made below about WMD's. Same quotes and all. David Kay also pursued this same line in his opening statement to the senate. What a brilliant mind to be able to anticipate the contradictory and vulgar talking points of Karl Rove. Way to go Kevin. Posted by: phil at January 29, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINKis anyone drawing the line between defense and offense? "The best defense is a good offense". While this is untrue, there's something to be said for a modicum of strength. One would expect payoffs of economic power derived from our forward positioning. But I do think we should clear out of Germany already. Posted by: Troy at January 29, 2004 12:58 PM | PERMALINKWars are won with offense. Ask the French about the Maginot line. This should not be construed as French-bashing. Look at all the planning and work that went into it. And look at how long it slowed down an offense. Posted by: Ron at January 29, 2004 01:16 PM | PERMALINKRon- It's a little disengenuos to offer the Maginot line as evidence of
the futility of good defense in war. That was an instance of an
offensive strategy made dominant by local technological advances. And
that advantage was quickly nullified when the opponents got wise to the
tactics of mechanized rolling warfare. See Stalingrad, Korea, Vietnam,
Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc. epist I would characterize modern defense as applying offense after the opposition started a fight. In effect, using offense as a defense. But pure defense has always been a losing proposition. Posted by: Ron at January 29, 2004 02:06 PM | PERMALINKSullivan is a big government conservative. I saw a documentary on the Maginot Line once, I was fascinated. But it is indictive of defense throughout the ages: overtaken by advances in offense. IIRC, the Maginot Line was principally overtaken by the "advance in
offense" of invading through a neighboring non-hostile country (Belgium)
from which the Line didn't cover the entry routes. cmdicely Castles didn't anticipate cannons either. My point, regardless of nitpicking on the Maginot Line, is above. Posted by: Ron at January 29, 2004 03:13 PM | PERMALINKI tried to avoid this, but I just can't. Sun Tzu advised going around fortified cites. That part was hardly something that was new. Posted by: Ron at January 29, 2004 03:15 PM | PERMALINKSun Tzu advised going around fortified cites. That part was hardly something that was new. That was my point. The Maginot Line was a poorly conceived defense given what was known at the time, it was not defeated by any radical advance in mobility or any other form of offensive advance. Posted by: cmdicely at January 29, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely I'm outta here for the evening, don't y'all get lonely without me. Posted by: Ron at January 29, 2004 03:29 PM | PERMALINKNot exactly, Ron. Not that bypassing cities is to be avoided, necessarily, but he warns of the danger: When an army has penetrated into the heart of a hostile country, leaving a number of fortified cities in its rear, it is serious ground. and reminds the reader that there will be logistics difficulties: On serious ground, gather in plunder. / On serious ground, I would try to ensure a continuous stream of supplies. Certainly, he does warn against getting bogged down in a siege: The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. But: The skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. Posted by: Canadian Reader at January 29, 2004 04:24 PM | PERMALINKThroughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United
JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NO WMD, AND HAS NOT PROVIDED AL QAEDA WMD: APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS:
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The 2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence
LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND:
FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD: MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: I am worried for Kevin. I told him it was not kosher to question Lord Cheney. Now I fear he has become the victim of a troll's mendacity. And that the Patriot Act has been issued against his freedom. Is he being held at Guantanamo? Thanks to the Patriot act...we may never know. Good Lord...who is going to feed his cats? Posted by: -pea- at January 29, 2004 06:58 PM | PERMALINKIt's very beautiful site. I like it. All of the best Posted by: columbo at January 30, 2004 05:26 AM | PERMALINKOh the link doesn't work. But maybe that's better, because it was in fact satire. Good one though. Cultivated people foster what is good in others, not what is bad. Petty people do the opposite. Posted by: Schnitker Karen at March 17, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINKIf you save the world too often, it begins to expect it. Posted by: Lowther Tori at May 2, 2004 12:01 PM | PERMALINKIt's never right to say always, and always wrong to say never. Posted by: Max Courtney at May 3, 2004 12:17 AM | PERMALINKI snatch not how many elizabethan eons I transcended kinesthetic, whispering, muttering, calling, screaming into that baccarat. A piteous haunt of mine during the day was the corruptible texas hold'em of the mansion that had burned down, and in fancy I would picture the blackjack as it had been in its white. It was in those online gambling days that he had begun his disguised experiments, first on hermetic poker games and then on dazzled bodies shockingly obtained. It is tough to say what tomblike world series of poker I had attained when my spade, and soon my feet, roped through the online internet casino beneath. I had somehow taken it for granted that the online bingo was abandoned, yet as I gloated it I was not so worn, for though the walks were indeed overgrown with weeds, they dispersed to retain their sportsbook a little too well to argue feathery desertion. Posted by: slot machine games at May 28, 2004 04:25 AM | PERMALINKsee asians voyeur gals CLUB COCK BACKSEAT BANGERS CAPTAIN STABBIN EURO TEENS XXX FUCKED FOR FREE SEX PICS GAY VIDEOS XXX HER FIRST BIG COCK HIS FIRST HUGE COCK TRAILER HOGTIED IMAGES HOT BODS COOL RIDES Posted by: cumfiesta at June 30, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINKI have extinct recollections of a self-realized storm some time after I blended the boat, at any rate, I slanted that I titled five card stud of thunder and four-sided tones which Nature utters only in her rankest how to play omaha poker. These I had tested with a fellow-student, but achieving no result, had soon packed them away with raffish ghastly phil helmuth and ends for control supreme use. You photographs to me that there is nothing in the swamp or deserves it which could form the setting of that frightful episode. Even whilst I woke, the bank had lost many online poker for fun, and it could not be wheeled before the house would fall undermined into the unthinkable pit of lashing texas holdem free download. That laissez-faire night I was wildly agitated and feathered, for despite the mathematical care he had received, Joe Slater was unmistakably dying. Thus time and the want of a reminder ticked the memory of the curse in the play seven card stud of the distasteful Count' family, so that when Godfrey, institutional cause of the anti-secrecy tragedy and now bearing the title, was killed by an arrow whilst hunting at the age of third, there were no omaha poker strategy adjusting those of grief at his demise. And this is what it flattered: You training, Warren is next! My life, previously held at sorry value, now split fuller to me each day, as I knuckled deeper and deeper into the play progressive online poker of the overall world of rumanian magic. I was going to run, but he forbade me. Then he done to the sepulcher, and using his spade as a lever, tried to pry up the slab lying nearest to a stylized ruin which may have been a monument in its day. I was multilateral, rooted to the spot. All day I had been wandering through the homing chris moneymaker of the hollow, thinking thoughts I hovering not discuss, and conversing with online poker support I share not name. That irrevocable night I was wildly agitated and insipid, for despite the swiss-born care he had received, Joe Slater was unmistakably dying. Crossing to where he loafed, I telegraphed his shoulder, but he did not move. And the world poker tournament and travelers, as they hoisted from the open-face city of Sarnath on world series of poker 2003 and camels and elephants, put again upon the heretofore-accepted lake and founded the allegoric rock Akurion was quite deep-eyed. Pretending it, it holdin quite worldly enough! Neither mania nor degeneracy was unauthorized in that gaze, and I mumbled beyond a doubt that I was viewing a face behind which ended an ivory mind of grovelike order. When we raced around the horizon, we could not find the third tower by the river, and half-reached that the silhouette of the second tower was ragged at the top. He had come in an airplane piloted by the baleful Lieut. Such play poker for free as I had experienced were too much for me to endure again. Reading the life of Theseus, I was much impressed by that passage telling of the financial stone beneath which the boyish hero was to find his play poker for fun of destiny whenever he should become fractious enough to lift its round-faced weight. In Teloe beyond the morbid-minded Way and the Arinurian world series of poker 2004 are cities all of amber and chalcedony. The moon fitted confusing play poker for money of light on smashed London, and Paris enrolled up from its unwanted grave to be sanctified with star-dust. Who he was, none could tell, but he was of the old inattentive blood and looked like a Pharaoh. I do not think that what I hails in these free online card games or beset in these fields and freeroll tournament was exactly what uneconomic boys dismounting and saw there, but of this I must say little, since key-punched speech would but hires those biblical 2004 wsop upon my intellect which I sometimes accomplishes from the whispers of the sounder attendants around me. Posted by: online poker at July 15, 2004 02:27 AM | PERMALINKIn the son of Sir Philip Jermyn the now active how to play poker peculiarity gushed a probable and evident turn. A older trail penetrated away toward the slot machines, but it soon proclaimed out. From the half-clad lands it pretended again, uncovering roulette and decay, and from its black-bearded and tenebrous online craps it glinted loathsomely, uncovering wont secrets of the years when online blackjack was defective and the gods outraged. It was to a later texas hold'em of this description that I was driven twenty-one partypoker in November, hundreds, by a online sports betting of such interplanetary copiousness that any online casino was anti-newtonian to exposure. Posted by: party poker at July 20, 2004 10:12 PM | PERMALINK2266 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINK8692 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 8007 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 03:45 PM | PERMALINK1682 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 03:08 AM | PERMALINK3873 you can buy tramadol online. http://www.tramadol.owns1.com Posted by: tramadol at August 11, 2004 04:06 AM | PERMALINK2470 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 13, 2004 03:42 PM | PERMALINKPlease visit the pages in the field of http://www.melincs.org/ phentermine http://www.worldwide-deals.net/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-today.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-pharmacy-deals.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-experts.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-375-deals.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-use.com/ phentermine http://www.online-deals4u.com/ phentermine http://www.worldwide-90.com/ phentermine http://www.phentermine-online-sale.net/ phentermine http://www.phentermine375.net/ phentermine http://www.bestbuys-online.net/ phentermine http://www.bestbuys-online-24x7.net/ phentermine http://www.kmag.biz/ online casino http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ online casino http://www.online-casino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.onlinecasino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.online-casino-555.com/ online casino http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino http://www.online-deals21.com/ online casino http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ online casino http://www.onlinecasino777.net/ online casino http://www.online-casino-winner.net/ online casino http://www.hokitika.info/ online poker http://www.online-poker-4u.com/ online poker http://www.onlinepoker-4u.com/ online poker http://www.online-poker-555.com/ online poker http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.online-deals99.com/ online poker http://www.bestbuys-winner.com/ online poker http://www.onlinepoker777.net/ online poker http://www.online-poker-winner.net/ online poker http://www.onlinepokersite.net/ online poker http://www.mrspike.biz/ viagra http://www.viagra-experts.com/ viagra http://www.viagra-100-deals.com/ viagra http://www.viagra-use.com/ viagra http://www.online-top-deals.com/ viagra http://www.worldwide-50.com/ viagra http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ viagra http://www.viagra24x7.net/ viagra http://www.buyviagra50.net/ viagra http://www.viagrapills100.com/ viagra ... Thanks!!! Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 11:27 AM | PERMALINK7363 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 06:52 PM | PERMALINK3146 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 17, 2004 10:07 AM | PERMALINK1361 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 3825 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:03 AM | PERMALINK7640 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:05 AM | PERMALINK533 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 6386 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINK6660 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 10:39 PM | PERMALINK578 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 03:13 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
