Leave Joe Lieberman Alone

Joe Lieberman, the senior U.S. Senator from Connecticut and the Democratic nominee for Vice-President of the United States in 2000, who probably should be in office right now instead of Cheney, is facing a very tough primary challenge in this year's Democratic primary on August 8th. After three terms in the U.S. Senate, Lieberman has the backing of such staple Democratic groups as the AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign, and the league of Conservation Voters. His lifetime rating from the Christian Coalition is a big, fat, squa-doosh (that's zero for those of you not up on your Italian-American slang).

And yet, Lieberman is subject to the vile of the liberal "net-roots" who have not learned the quintessential lesson of the 1990's: it is better to be in power than to be ideologically pure. For those who have not yet grasped this concept, Sen. Lieberman's continued support of the war in Iraq puts him squarely in the gunsights. His primary challenger, Ned Lamont, advocates an immediate withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, consequeces be damned. Polling on this primary indicates that Lieberman's slight lead is too small to be comfortable, forcing him to file petitions to run as an independent should he fail to win re-nomination on the Aug 8th.

Sen. Lieberman is no doubt the most hawkish member of the Senate Democratic caucus, and also one of the few willing to reach across the aisle to work out compromises with the other side. To punish him for these qualities would weaken our party and our attempts to reach out to centrists and convince them that our party is not only the domain of the super liberal.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Bushisms

I was going to write about something else today, but I am too incredulous (and angry) at an announcement that President Bush made today to focus on everything else. The President made a live TV appearance to celebrate the fact that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept 30, 2006 is projected to be only $295 Billion!!! I am angry because this is both a half-truth of the worst sort and not something worth celebrating by any means. Let me amplify both points.

First of all the $295 Billion President Bush cited is the combined federal deficit. The combined deficit treats surplus funds from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds as ordinary tax revenue, not money to be invested to prepare to pay benefits to future beneficiaries. The combined deficit takes these funds, spends them as though they were ordinary taxes, and places IOU's in the trust funds. Since Bush took office we have added $1.5 Trillion in IOU's to these trust funds! No wonder they are going broke! The actual deficit is much higher, but the problem is not being acknowledged by the Bush administration or Republican congress, who would never admint to such a huge problem, especially in an election year.

Secondly, the $295 Billion deficit is nothing to celebrate. It means America is going $295 Billion further in debt to the rest of the world, and ourselves. It means that instead of focusing on a concrete way to improve America by helping to end the destructive cycle of borrow and spend, Bush is going to continue in pursuit of his goal to cut the deficit "in half" by the time he leaves office. What he doesn' t know, or care, is that it is a goal that will not help America.

The first step to getting out of a hole, goes the age old wisdom, is to stop digging. Bush assures us that he will only have us digging half as fast by the end of his term. That is manifestly not a solution, and only lulls Americans into the attitude they can have spending and tax cuts at the same time.

For more information, visit the Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Department of the Treasury, website:

 http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

Note: "Debt held by the public" is held by those who have purchased treasury bonds, whether they are Americans or foreigners.  "Intragovernmental Holdings" are bonds owned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Back to the Well, One more time, Will it be dry?

With storm clouds gathering on the horizon for the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and with "the Architect" Karl Rove freed from his post as Deputy White House Cheif of Staff for Policy as well as cleared from further legalities in the Valerie Plame debacle, a nacent strategy is coming together on the part of the GOP to hold onto their majorities. This strategy is the same one that worked so well in 2002 and 2004: play the fear card. With missle tests in North Korea, the nuclear ambitions in Iran, and the strategically uncovered threat (which was really nothing more than some al-Qaeda fantasizing in chat rooms) of tunnel bombings in New York, Rove and the GOP will argue that todays' world is far to dangerous to turn over to Democratic foreign policy "wieners" and their multi-lateral (some would say conservative) approach to dealing with the rest of the world. This strategy is based on keeping the American people as frightened as possible for as long as possible: Think FDR's statement "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" turned on its head.

The Democratic challenge to defeat Karl Rove politics of fear is to take the statement above from one of our party's greatest leaders and apply it to today's world. The first step, I think, is to point out how the situations in North Korea, Iran, and also Afganhistan, has gone on unchecked due to all of the U.S.'s time and attention being placed in Iraq. This might be a good place to hammer home the theme of the Bush administration half-assing the "war of necessity" in Afganhistan in order to lead us into ao "war of choice" in Iraq. Next, we must convince Americans that a multi-lateral approach to fighting terrorism will work better than Bush's "Cowboy Diplomacy" at preventing terror. After all, preventing terrorism is an excercise in police work. Police investigations are careful, painstaking ordeals where sharing of information amongst all investigators is of the utmost importance. It is this police work, and not the Bush excursion into Iraq, that has kept America safe since 9/11. We must figure out a way to get that news to the American people.

Here is a good article on this issue.

Rasmussen Poll: Strickland lead narrows to 13 points

The results of the monthly Rasmussen poll were released for the month of June. Like other surveys, Rasmussen shows Congressmen Strickland retaining a big advantage over Secretary Blackwell, however, the edge narrowed slightly from last month's poll. The result, however, is within the margin of error of the last poll (it shows Strickland two points lower and Blackwell one point higher than in May, within the 4.5 percent margin of error) so we cannot say the situation has materially changed. This poll compares to the SurveyUSA poll released earlier this month which showed Strickland with a 16 point lead, and a Zogby/WSJ poll which showed Strickland with a 5 point lead.

However, unlike the SurveyUSA poll, and unlike the Rasmussen poll from May, this poll shows incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Mike DeWine with an 8 point lead over Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown. This after both the SurveyUSA and Zogby/WSJ showed Brown with sizable leads.

We are coming up on the four month mark to Election Day. More drama to follow for sure.

misplaced GOP anger over NY Times Article

I have been amused at the GOP anger, from Ohio's own Rep. Micheal Oxley all the way up to President Bush, at the disclosure in the New York Times and other media outlets that the U.S. government has been secretly tracking Americans financial transactions in order to identify "suspicious" activity that could signal terrorism. Disclosure of such activity will make it harder to fight the "war on terror" insists the GOP leadership.

To me, the NY Times and other media outlets have done Americans a public service by disclosing the fact that the Bush administration has been secretly tracking our finances, our phone calls, our e-mails, and other personal information, without search warrants, congressional approval, or any oversight of any kind, and completely in secret. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "Democracy dies behind closed doors." If that is true, and I believe it is, then our democracy has absolutely suffered during the Bush administration.

In an open, democratic society, government policy is supposed to be debated in the light of day. Instead, thanks to the Bush administration's secrecy, the policy is only now being debated years after it was put in place. The Bush administration, notorious for reprisals against those who disagree with its policy, is know howling with outrage that someone dared to publicize, and therefore subject to scrutiny, the policy that they felt was best.

Instead of lashing out at the New York Times, the Bush administration should look in the mirror and ask just how much more of our democracy will have to die, only to have the body exposed by the press, before they change their ways and begin to submit to congressional oversight, and public scrutiny, of their decisions to curtail our most precious freedoms for whatever cause they feel necessary. Our freedoms aren't free, and we won't retain them for long, unless we jealously guard them from government agents who violate them for their own expediency and convenience.

Sweet Sixteen!

The results of a statewide poll conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of the NBC affiliate TV stations in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Youngstown were released today, and much to the chargin of Republicans, they mirror the result of a poll released last month: It shows Democratic gubenatorial nominee Congressman Ted Strickland with a 16 point lead over Republican nominee Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.

When 507 likely Ohio voters were asked whom they would vote for if the election were held today, 53% said they would vote for Congressman Strickland, 37% said they would vote for Secretary Blackwell, while the remaining 10% either support third-party candidates or were undecided. Among self-described independents, Strickland sports a 20 point lead, according to the poll results.

This result is consistent with previous polls done by a wide variety of organizations. The more surprising result is in the U.S. Senate race. The SurveyUSA poll results show that 48% of respondents support Democratic nominee Congressman Sherrod Brown, 39% support Republican incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine, with the remaining 13% undecided. Self-described independents surveyed in this poll favor Brown over DeWine by 14 points.

This puts the SurveyUSA poll at odds with the Rasmussen poll released last month, which showed Sherrod Brown with only a three point lead. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

Ken Blackwell's Turnpike Folly

"Ayahtollah" J. Kenneth Blackwell has rescinded the signature policy proposal of his gubernatorial campaign -- the implementation of a constitutional amendment restricting the spending authority of all political agencies of the state -- thanks to his friends in the GOP leadership who helped ram a watered-down version of the so-called TEL through the state legislature, which also conveniently allowed J-Ken the ability to pull this highly unpopular amendment off the November ballot.

Now that the fervor over the TEL is subsiding, attention has shifted to another of J-Ken's policy proposals: the leasing of the 241-mile long Ohio Turnpike to a private operator, who would lease the turnpike from the state and operate it in exchange for a lump sum of cash. J-Ken is proposing to use this cash for redevelopment projects in depressed inner cities as well as traditionally poor Appalachian areas of the state. This obvious attempt to curry favor in areas where J-Ken is politically weak right now is a bad idea for at least three reasons.

But first, a brief history of the Ohio Turnpike. The Ohio Turnpike Commission was formed in 1949 in response to the runaway success of the Pennsylvania Turnpike which had opened in 1940. The OTC was initially charged with constructing five such turnpikes across Ohio: The present-day Ohio Turnpike was to be first, followed by another turnpike roughly paralleling today's I-71 but traveling northeast from Cleveland along the lakeshore to the PA border (as today's I-271 and I-90 do). The third turnpike was to be roughly parallel today's I-75, the fourth would parallel today's I-70, and the fifth would parallel US Route 30 through a large swath of north central Ohio.

Construction on the first turnpike began in the early 1950's. Construction was financed through the sale of toll bonds, which were to be repaid with toll revenue collected from travelers on the turnpike. The original Ohio Turnpike across northern Ohio was opened in 1955. In 1956, after the passage of the bill creating the Interstate Highway System, development on the other four Ohio Turnpikes was stopped. While plans for the Interstate system briefly called for an interstate to be built parallel to the turnpike, eventually the turnpike was incorporated into the Interstate system, carrying Interstates 80, 90, and 76 for portions of its length. Tolls on the original Turnpike were to cease when the bonds sold to finance its construction were repaid.

The last original bond was repaid in July of 1992. At this time, preparations began to convert the Turnpike into a publicly maintained road as originally called for by the Interstate highway plan. However, legislation was introduced calling for the Turnpike to remain a toll road, citing the need to expand the road to six lanes to accommodate heavy traffic. The bill passed the Ohio Senate by a 17-16 margin and was eventually passed into law.

Soon thereafter, a proposal to raise the tolls on the Turnpike by 82 percent in order to finance construction of a third lane from Toledo to Youngstown, as well as to renovate the service plazas and build additional interchanges, was enacted by the Turnpike Commission. This toll increase drove large numbers of heavy trucks off the Turnpike onto parallel semi-improved roads such as State Route 2, U.S. Route 20, and U.S. Route 422. Accidents increased and maintenance became more difficult as these side routes handled mainline truck traffic.

Under political pressure from affected communities, Gov. Taft put a finance plan in place to lower the tolls on the Turnpike in order to draw truck traffic back onto it.

Now, Ken Blackwell wants to lease the turnpike to a private operator who would be free to raise tolls at will. When the city of Chicago leased the Chicago Skyway to a private operator, they raised the toll to travel the 7.8 mile elevated highway to $2.50 for a passenger car. Applying that same rate of toll to the 241-mile Ohio Turnpike would result in a toll of nearly $75 to cross the state! Thus driving truck traffic back off of the Turnpike and back onto the main streets of small towns across Northern Ohio, resulting in increased accidents and pollution and decreased quality of life for area residents.

Secondly, asking residents of Northern Ohio to pay a toll to travel their main east-west interstate (I-80) while allowing residents of Central Ohio a toll-free ride across their main east-west interstate (I-70) is inherently unfair, and puts Northern Ohio at a competitive disadvantage when trying to attract businesses reliant upon transportation access. J-Ken plans to partially mitigate this by one-time investments in the area made from funds secured by leasing the Turnpike, but why should residents of one region of the state be asked to pay an extra tax for something that ultimately would benefit all Ohioans? Isn't that very unfair?

Finally, travelers upon the Turnpike drive cars and trucks which burn gasoline and diesel fuel. In order to purchase that fuel, those travelers paid excise taxes which are used for road maintenance. So they are already paying one tax for road maintenance, but by charging a toll for traveling the turnpike, the State of Ohio is asking them to pay another tax. Make no mistake about it: the Turnpike as it currently stands is double taxation, plain and simple. That an anti-tax crusader like Ken Blackwell supports a plan calling for the State's residents to be double-taxed is quite stunning when you stop and think about it. In my mind, the only reason J-Ken is contemplating this proposal is that those motorists who will be double-taxed are in heavily Democratic Northern Ohio and not likely to vote for him anyway. How else could he come up with such a short sighted, punitive proposal?

If this is really such a good idea, let's see him lease I-75 through downtown Cincinnati to a private toll operator. Let those in the GOP heartland of Ohio start being double-taxed, and then we'll see if what's good for the goose is really good for the gander.

Lou Dobbs for President

My apologies for my lack of bloggage over the last week. I have been very busy in my preparations to attend the YDA National Conference for Spring 06, which will take place this weekend in Las Vegas, NV. In the mean time, the GOP has decided to go forward with their silly plans for a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, essentially watching Rome burn and deciding that they have more important things to worry about. There are so many more important issues our country needs to grapple with that are being ignored wholesale by the Republican leadership in Washingotn. Read this rant from Lou Dobbs, who is fast becoming my pick for the next chairman of the DNC. He seems to have a much more firm grasp of the needs of working-class Americans than Howard Dean does.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html

To Rebuild or Not Rebuild?

Today, June 1st, marks the offical beginning of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. As this milestone reaches us, and talk goes about whether the U.S. Gulf Coast is ready for another year of above-average hurricane activity, it brings to mind for me an interesting question.

So let's say you have this city. This city is built on swampland that has no bedrock, and therefore sinks every year. This city sits near the coast, however the barrier islands and coastal marshes that have traditionally protected the city from the ocean are slowly sinking beneath sea level due to being cut off from their supply of sediment from the Mississippi River due to the extensive lock-and-dam system built on that river to control flooding and keep it navigable. Meanwhile, sea level is rising due to global warming, which also has a certain side effect called making the hurricanes that do form larger, more intense, and more frequent.

Now, lets say that this city was recently hit by a major hurricane that did catastrophic damage due to the failure of the levys that hold back the ocean. Now, we have a report that says that the levys failed because the ground they were built on had subsided rapidly ( click here for story). So, does this City seem like a good place to sink billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars in a rebuilding effort? Or should the city be moved from its present location to prevent future disasters?

I vote for the latter option. Rebuild New Orleans, but on the other side of Lake Ponchartrain (sp?) from its present location. That way, the new New Orleans could be built on good ground that has bedrock and will be protected from future hurricanes. The other option is to let New Orleans dwindle down to the nothingness. A historical fact is that Houston and Galveston, TX had roughly equal populations before the 1900 hurricane decimated Galveston. After that, Houston, the city further inland, gained population at Galveston's expense. Already, this pattern is occuring with a large population and business shift to the further-inland state capital of Baton Rouge. Allowing New Orleans to die would be tragic given the city's historical significance and unique character.

Let's save the city by moving it to higher ground, and spending our taxpayer dollars on rebuilding once, not over and over and over again.

Thank You, Lou Dobbs

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/dobbs.May31/index.html