Tearing Down the Walls at Work

The Federal government is all about status. Who you know. What committees you sit on. Your title. And the size of your office. If you're really important (or have just been around for a very long time), you also get a good view from your office, something very coveted in this city of monuments. It's a daily reminder to them that their the boss, and you're the peon. And its a daily reminder to the peons that they need to find a new job. A job where you get an office.

So it was very refreshing to read this:

You know those scenes of the big-city mayor's office you see on television? A supplicant climbs to the top floor of City Hall, appeals to a stony-eyed secretary for a session with Mayor Important, then gets deposited on a stiff sofa for a long, fidgety wait. Finally the massive wooden door swings open, the supplicant crosses a cavernous stateroom and stands meekly before His Honor, who is sitting as serious and confident as a king 10 feet away in his plush high-back behind an acre of a desk. The nervous supplicant clears his throat and begins: " Excuse me, sir. . . "

Well, not in Washington. Not now. Not under Adrian M. Fenty (D). Here's the new reality:

It's lunchtime. Fenty whizzes into his "executive office" carrying Caribbean takeout in a plastic container. This "executive office" is a cubicle. As in, Dilbert.

The cubicle is surrounded by 32 cubicles with 32 government officials and at least 35 BlackBerrys (of which Fenty has three).

(Click on for larger image).

The Mayor of the District of Columbia, the city with more self absorbed ladder climbers then anywhere else, works in an open cube surrounded by everyone he needs to manage.

I think it's bloody brilliant. The more you empathize with your boss and the mission of your organization, the more likely you are to put in the extra hours, to care about the details, to love what you do, and to stay there for the long haul.

If you're a manager of any type, the urge to give yourself additional perks can be overwhelming. Lavish trips, the best hotel rooms, a big office, an extra large bonus, your own secretary, a fancy company car and a private parking spot, whatever. But whatever it is, it really just makes the people who work for you resent you. Meanwhile, the manager who drives a beat up car, parks it with everyone else, and then sits in the same space as everyone else, has a much easier time of telling folks what to do, especially when annual reviews come around. Then he quietly pockets his million dollar salary and goes home to his mansion.

Americans don't hate wealth. We love wealth - everyone secretly dreams of being rich. But we hate status. We think that all of us are created equal, and deserve equal rights and treatment. So even if someone really is our boss and really is more important then us, we like to think we're the same. Keep that in mind the next time you get a promotion.

...full post

collapse post

Government Snow Day

If anyone needs to check the status of the government in the Washington, DC area and whether or not it is open due to snow or other inclement weather, check here.

And now for my rant...

So instead of just closing the government, they gave us a two hour delay and liberal leave, allowing people to use vacation time to not come into work today even if they weren't scheduled to do so. This was a pretty dumb move, in my opinion.

First, I'm on a flexible schedule. I can leave and come as I please, as long as I get my work done and spend 8 hours at work each day. But the work doesn't disappear by telling me I can only work six hours today, and it barely effects how late I'm allowed to come in to work anyway.

Second, the government is basically shut down. No one was here when I arrived, and I've maybe seen five people all day, and my building alone employs thousands of workers. The contractors I oversea haven't returned any phone calls, so I assume the rest of the city is shut down as well. So if its shut down, why not just call it shut down? Why force some small percentage of your workforce to come in anyway?

Finally, most government workers have massive amounts of sick time stored up. You can use sick time whenever you want. So liberal leave is pretty meaningless. But most schools are closed and roads are a deathtrap, so you're basically just penalizing 90% of the Federal workforce 8 hours of vacation time for no particular reason. And those of us who work on deadline usually just put in extra hours without getting comp time anyway, so its not as if they would be holding up essential activities if they gave us the day off. I would have just worked at home, where the food is better and my computer is faster.

Having said that, I've often wondered what would happen if we had a nor'easter that shut down non-essential functions of the Federal government for a few months. Social Security checks would still go out. The military and post office serve no matter what. But would anyone notice if Congress stopped passing laws?

On a tangentially related subject, I've decided that DC should stop pressing for the right to vote in Congress. Instead, they should press to be exempt from Federal income taxes like other U.S. territories. I think that given the choice between taxation and representation, most Washingtonians would take the cash.

...full post

collapse post

Government: Contract Rigging

Well, this just drives me nuts...

Three Army Reserve officers and two civilians were indicted yesterday on federal charges of participating in a wide-ranging bribery and contract-rigging scheme involving millions in Iraq reconstruction funds.

The 25-count indictment handed up by a Trenton, N.J., grand jury expands a probe that has resulted in three guilty pleas. Those indicted yesterday were accused of participating in a scheme to funnel $8.6 million in reconstruction contracts to an American businessman in exchange for cars, $3,200 Breitling watches, plane tickets, $3,000 Toshiba laptop computers, weapons and stolen money. Named in the indictments were Col. Curtis G. Whiteford; Lt. Col. Debra M. Harrison and her husband, William Driver; Lt. Col. Michael B. Wheeler; and Michael Morris.

...

The reconstruction program often distributed funds in cash, handing out blocks of currency known as "bricks," and the indictment described how participants in the scam smuggled the bulk back into the United States.

...

In one case, Harrison and Wheeler smuggled at least $330,000 in stolen authority funds from Iraq to New York using commercial business-class tickets purchased by Bloom, according to the indictment. In a January 2004 e-mail, Stein proudly told Bloom that he and Wheeler had secured another contract for him.

I personally handle millions of dollars worth of government contracts and grants. So when another civil servant is caught doing this sort of thing, I'm filled with disgust, because it reflects poorly on all of us, and it reflects poorly on our country.

But having said that, what the heck was anyone doing in Iraq with bricks of cash? Who in the administration thought that sending billions of dollars in loose currency was somehow a good way to manage the reconstruction?

You don't need to be an accountant to know that its almost impossible to have meaningful internal controls if you're moving around your funds that way. It's far too easy to pay a contractor in cash and then get a kickback, or just report giving the contractor $1,000,000, but only paying him $500,000, and embezzling the rest for yourself. And even if you are an honest civil servant, its far too easy for the contractor to under report on their taxes.

This wasn't just corruption. This was stupidity. If you put a brick of $100 bills on the table in front of an honest person and asked them to use it to rebuild a war torn country, most people would. But the overwhelming temptation would be to take some part of it for themselves. After all, the contractors you're handing the cash to are making ten times what you are for handing them the cash. And they're often far less experienced, and risking their lives far less then you! Now multiply that temptation by 100, and have one of your friends blown up by roadside bombs randomly, and read letters from your family once a week about how much they miss you and are struggling without you. The pressure would be enormous. That’s why intelligent people set up strong internal accounting procedures with regular audits. You don’t need people to be angels. You assume that people are thieves, but hold everyone accountable to honest and verifiable standards.

While the Post essentially just did a Metro beat report on the crime, The Guardian wrote an excellent piece a year ago on the environment it happened in:

"Iraq was awash in cash - in dollar bills. Piles and piles of money," says Frank Willis, a former senior official with the governing Coalition Provisional Authority. "We played football with some of the bricks of $100 bills before delivery. It was a wild-west crazy atmosphere, the likes of which none of us had ever experienced."

The environment created by the coalition positively encouraged corruption. "American law was suspended, Iraqi law was suspended, and Iraq basically became a free fraud zone," says Alan Grayson, a Florida-based attorney who represents whistleblowers now trying to expose the corruption. "In a free fire zone you can shoot at anybody you want. In a free fraud zone you can steal anything you like. And that was what they did."

There is no ideological position on filling potholes. Either you fill the potholes, or you waste the money on something else. Good government is good government, regardless of party or belief. Whether or not we should have gone to war is a highly charged political question. But rebuilding a country shouldn't have been. And now Iraq has a lot more to deal with then just poor infrastructure.

...full post

collapse post

Government: Humorous Laws

In seven states, a man and woman who live together without being married are committing a sex crime. So literally millions of people living in Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, or West Virginia, are breaking the law right now. Well, some people in North Dakota want to change it, but its unlikely to occur.

Tracy Potter, a freshman Democrat from Bismarck, is asking the state Legislature to end North Dakota's status as one of seven states that have anti-cohabitation laws on the books. It has rejected three such attempts since 1990.

"Mark Twain expressed a simple view of people's personal relationships with government ... that I think government should adopt. That is, I don't care what you do, as long as you don't scare the horses," Potter said Wednesday during a North Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his repeal measure.

...

Tom Freier, a spokesman for the North Dakota Family Alliance, said repealing North Dakota's anti-cohabitation law would signal that the state doesn't value marriage and the societal benefits it brings.

"If we look at the research, social science evidence suggests that living together is not a good way to prepare for marriage, or to avoid divorce," Freier said. "Cohabitating is not positive for the family, and poses a special risk for women and children."

So, it would literally take billions of dollars to enforce the law. In fact, recent Census data shows that cohabitation is at an all time high, and is rapidly increasing throughout the U.S. No one really wants to do that, because disrupting up millions of relationships that way would be wildly unpopular. I could just see the campaign commercials now. Vote Democratic: Because we don't hassle you about who you're banging.

For decades now, the predominant metaphor has been that Republicans are the "Daddy" party - strong, serious, concerned about business and the military - and that Democrats are the "Mommy" party - caring, accepting, concerned about education and health care. But in reality, it turns out that Republicans are the aging Grandma party - hysterically concerned about when your wedding and when you're going to give her grandchildren, and yet prudishly unable to have an honest conversation about relationships or sex, because "people just don't talk about those things. And the rest of the family just nods, smiles, makes excuses, and then puts her into a home where they don't have to listen to her ranting on a daily basis.

Now, conservative opponents have a point - all the social science evidence I've seen indicates that on average, children living in married households do better then children in single parent or cohabitating households. But they don't have the courage of their convictions needed to actually enforce a law on the books, or repeal it, because that would require that they admit that its a bigoted and/or unenforceable law.

That sort of cowardice has always bothered me. If you're going to believe something, believe in it, own up to your beliefs, and accept the results of your beliefs. But if you're unwilling to live with the consequences of your beliefs, you're either an idiot, a hypocrite, or both.

...full post

collapse post

Democrats Sworn in to Power

Above all else, Democrats need to remember Henke's Law:

Minority Parties are always a little bit libertarian, if only to restrict the power of the majority party; majority Parties are always anti-libertarian, if only because, hey cool, power!

They've got maybe 30 days of real legislating to show the country their ideas. Only the most wildly popular will get past Bush's veto pen (like ethics legislation or the minimum wage increase). Since the rest of their agenda will be DOA, their main goal is to simply run an orderly government, provide strong oversight, and avoid scandal. The Republicans weren't thrown out of office because they believe in smaller government and lower taxes, they were thrown out of office because of rank incompetence. You won't be thrown out for expanding health care or balancing the budget. Just avoid embezzling money and molesting interns, and things should go fine in 2008.

...full post

collapse post

Government closed on Monday AND Tuesday

For all my fellow government workers who are on vacation but don't bother to check your work email while you're away, we've got an extra day off:

On December 28, by Executive Order of President George W. Bush, all executive departments, independent organizations and other agencies of the Federal government shall be closed on Tuesday, January 2, 2007, as a mark of respect for Gerald R. Ford, the 38th President of the United States.

Employees who are scheduled to take leave on January 2 will not be charged leave for that day.

Just an FYI. More then once I've gone into work just to find out I have the day off because its Flag Appreciation Day or whatnot.

...full post

collapse post

This city doesn't work

Due to wide-spread flooding and electrical problems caused by last night’s rain, half of the Metro system isn't working. Downtown is gridlocked. Cops are everywhere, ineffectually waving their arms about as everyone ignores them. I got to work an hour late, and half of my government office is empty. I shudder to think what would happen if something more surprising then water falling from the sky happened.

[/rant]

...full post

collapse post

Government: The Fence

Prof. Bainbridge, a conservative law professor I usually disagree with but often read because of his intellectual rigor, has an excellent post on the fence that some conservatives are proposing we build between the United States and Mexico...

Building a 700 mile fence will just funnel migrants into more dangerous regions, with serious humantirian consequences. Building a 2000 mile fence will simply encourage building of tunnels and smuggling through ports (probably using shipping containers). Building a fence thus may be a small component of a comprehensive immigration reform package, but it is mainly a vastly expensive sop to the masses.

On this matter, the Prof. is correct. (Though I think building any fence would be a massively useless boondoggle).

The Great Wall of China took vast resources and decades of time to build. So many people died in its construction that it took on the nickname “the longest cemetery on Earth.” The net effect of the Wall was that Mongols and other nomadic tribes had to bribe Chinese guards before they walked through the gates, or simply march to a portion of the Wall that was unmanned and then gave someone climb over and open a gate. It has accomplished virtually nothing in history, other then being an amazing tourist attraction and acting as border demarcations (which are now irrelevant). Chinese military strategy followed the familiar pattern of fortifying and defending the cities themselves. For the purpose it was built, the Wall is and was useless.

Let’s not make the same mistake. America shouldn’t build the second longest cemetery on Earth. Instead of spending billions of dollars a year to build and man a fence that immigrants will cut down, sail around, fly over, tunnel under, or simply ignore by hiding in legal cross border traffic, let’s figure out a comprehensive solution of economic reform for Mexico and stricter law enforcement in America that will work. I’m not endorsing or refuting what the President has proposed. But a fence is clearly wrong. We need solutions, not monolithic symbols of division.

...full post

collapse post

Government: A Test of Good Policy

I am a news hound. I read the news for 1-3 hours each day, and sometimes more. I'm helped by the fact that part of my job entails knowing what's going on in the political world, but mostly its just a favorite hobby.

I've found that its useful to triangulate my news intake. I read an admittedly liberal source, an admittedly conservative news source, and a corporate news source. After I read all three, I get a pretty good take on what people think is happening in the world. (It doesn't actually tell you what happens. Having been on the other side of the reporter's notebook on a few occasions, I can tell you that reality doesn't always make it into print).

From this practice, I've learned a key method of testing political policy.

1) If your favorite hero had proposed it, would you support it?
2) If your worst enemy had proposed it, would you support it?
3) If a major corporation with a hidden agenda proposed it, would you support it?

If the answer to all three is yes, its probably a sound policy. If its not, you're probably supporting it for personal or politcal gain. Paul over at Wizbang agrees:

It isn't too often I find myself in such complete disagreement with Mark Steyn. He's one of those guys that if I do disagree with him, I read him again because I must have missed something the first time. But on the NSA collecting data on MY phone calls, he's just wrong.

...

Anyone on the right who thinks this is a good idea should be disabused of that notion by 3 simple words. "President Hillary Clinton." Ask yourself... Do you really trust the Clinton's with this data. -- That's the problem with bad policy. Even if you trust George Bush and his administration today and you really believe it is only being used to catch terrorists, bad policy has a way of sticking with government forever. And only getting worse with time.

Bush has redefined the powers of the President of the United States. Some people support what he's done, other people oppose it. But elections have a habit of changing things. Keep that in mind when making decisions.

...full post

collapse post

Government: How to Hand out Illegal Contracts in Five Easy Steps

Recently, there has been a lot of commotion over HUD Secretary Jackson's comment...

"Then he said something. . . . He said, 'I have a problem with your president.' I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush. ' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.' "He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

I've got news for everyone outside the Beltway. Jackson was saying something that who works in government already knows. He's just the first high level Republican official to say it out loud.

There is a long, convoluted selection process which would take me hours to explain. The complexity of the process works for them, as it gives them many opportunities to bend the rules their way. It works differently for grants and contracts, but here are the basics:

1) Companies hire former Republican political appointees. Their main job is to get new work. There is a "cooling off period" in which former appointees are not supposed to do this, but it is generally ignored. You can simply put the person in an advisory role, or not have them officially work with their former government office, even if that's all they do.

2) Before a funding opportunity is announced, current political appointees give an informal heads-up to their Republican friends and former co-workers. This gives them a few extra days, weeks, or even months to prepare for an announcement before the rest of the public. The application period is generally kept as short as possible, usually 30 days. So unless you have a team of professional application writers or were tipped off beforehand, you'll fail. This marginalizes small and medium sized organizations without political connections.

3) Applications are then scored. The panels that score applications and the chair people who run the process can be anyone with "relevant experience." While 80% of such panels tend to be civil servants and people with a lot of spare time in the summer (teachers, grad students) large, important, or otherwise cherry contracts are almost always scored by panelists with strong Republican ties.

4) A political appointee can choose who gets funded from any of the top scoring applications. Whenever possible, he chooses a company that hired former Republican officials and has donated to the Republican Party.

5) That political appointee retires after 2-4 years, going to work as a consultant for a company with business before the government. The process repeats itself.

This has gone on to some degree in every administration. The current administration has turned it into an art form, using even routine contracts for technocratic or maintenance work as an opportunity for political pork. They have also rapidly increased the rate of government outsourcing, to remove power from civil servants and create as many payback opportunities as possible. The end result is that crucial government services are often given to incompetent but well connected hacks. (See: Orleans, New). Civil servants who complain are marginalized and sometimes transferred, public interest groups are ignored.

It's disgusting and illegal. But there are few smoking guns, and even fewer chances to blow a whistle. They own both teams, referee the game, sell all the concessions, run security, own the ballpark, and gave themselves a tax subsidy to build it. We are merely spectators, or at best, bat boys.

...full post

collapse post

Government: Republican Congress Failed 6th Grade Civics

Well, my life just got even more confusing:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Eleven House Democrats said Thursday they would sue the Bush administration, alleging the $39 billion deficit-reducing legislation signed by the president is unconstitutional because the House and Senate failed to approve identical versions.

...

A version of the bill that was narrowly approved by the House on Feb. 1 contained a clerical error. That error was fixed when the bill was transmitted to Bush, who signed it Feb. 8.

The White House and House and Senate GOP leaders have said the matter is settled because the mistake was technical and top House and Senate leaders certified the bill before transmitting it to the White House.

...

House Democrats have sought another vote, accusing Republican leaders of abusing the legislative process. The 11 Democrats pursuing the Michigan lawsuit contend they were denied their right to vote on legislation signed into law by the president.

The lawsuit asks a judge to declare the act is not law and provide a temporary restraining order preventing it from being implemented.

This sort of sloppiness happens all the time with this Congress. They hold votes at 2am. Many, many different versions of a bill are passed around. The committee system is bypassed. Regular Order is ignored. And so mistakes are made a lot more often.

Usually, they just vote on and pass a resolution after the fact, clarifying what they meant to pass, and the White House sends a signing statement, saying that they meant to sign it. But this time around the bill was so unpopular, and the vote was so close, they decided to just forgo another vote and hope no one noticed. But plenty of people noticed, for good reasons.

On one hand, I want the law to be held unconstitutional because, well, its blatantly unconstitutional. It's also a lousy law that harms tens of millions of Americans.

On the other hand, millions of civil servants, grantees, and contractors will be really, really screwed if this law is even just legally enjoined for a few months while the Supreme Court sorts it out. From the day the President signed the bill, BILLIONS of dollars started flowing out the door for various purposes. Recalling those dollars, canceling contracts, and delaying grants would be a nightmare, costing BILLIONS more to sort through, take back, and then put out again whenever they did pass a budget, perhaps in an altered form.

Perhaps I should just root for the invention of a time machine instead.

...full post

collapse post

Government: Build Up to Iraq

By now, you've probably heard about this report on 60 minutes. Here's a reprise from Josh:

The now-retired CIA officer who was head of covert operations in Europe during the lead up to the Iraq War.

...

First, Drumheller says that most folks in the intelligence community didn't think there was anything to the Niger-uranium story. We knew that in general terms; but we hadn't heard it yet from someone so closely involved in the case itself. Remember, the CIA Station Chief in Rome, the guy who first saw the documents when they were dropped off at the US Embassy in October 2002, worked for Drumheller.

Second, Drumheller told us a lot more about the case of Naji Sabri, Iraq's Foreign Minister, who the CIA managed to turn not long before the war broke out. Drumheller was in charge of that operation. The White House, as Drumheller relates it, was really excited to hear what Sabri would reveal about the inner-workings of Saddam's regime, and particularly about any WMD programs. That is, before Sabri admitted that Saddam didn't have any active programs. Then they lost interest.

To quote the erudite and beautiful Sarah Vowell:

The thing about the current President is, I wrote about this a little bit, how he keeps opening up new possibilities for us, you know? Like I talk about going to his inauguration and standing there crying when he took the oath cause I was so afraid that he would wreck the economy and muck up the drinking water. The failure of my pessimistic imagination at that moment boggles my mind.

Replace "standing there crying" with "sitting in a dark bar drinking in the middle of the day" and "muck up the drinking water" with "prevent me from ever getting a job again" and you had my experience exactly.

...full post

collapse post

Article: McClellan Resigns as Press Secretary

From the Post:

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday he is resigning, continuing a shakeup in President Bush's administration that has already yielded a new chief of staff and could lead to a change in the Cabinet.

...

Also, a senior administration official revealed another move in the ongoing shakeup of Bush's staff, saying that longtime confidant and adviser Karl Rove is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections.

As SNL's Amy Poehler recently observed, "McClellan says he'd like to spend more time lying for his family."

Honestly though, this is a good thing. Bush has an incompetent crew of hacks running the government. Replacing them with somebody else, ANYBODY else, will be an improvement.

I sorta feel sorry for Scott McClellan. No matter how competent he might be (there's no evidence of that, it's just a theoretical to make a point), he was impotent to effect change, even though he worked in the center of global power. He doesn't actually run anything. He's not in charge of anything. He gets fed garbage by his superiors, and when he goes in front of the press, all he can do is spew out their garbage. It's a thankless, soul crushing job.

...full post

collapse post

Government: Polling and the Media

CNN and Gallup have broken up:

CEO Gallup Jim Clifton wrote to employees: "We have chosen not to renew our contract with CNN. We have had a great relationship with CNN, but it is not the right alignment for our future. .... CNN has far fewer viewers than it did in the past, and we feel that our brand was getting lost and diluted," Clifton continued. "...We have only about 200,000 viewers during our CNN segments."

...

"We want to make it clear that the decision to not renew our polling arrangement had to do with Gallup's desire to produce their own broadcasts and not about CNN viewership figures. In fact, Gallup had negotiated with us for four months in an effort to extend the partnership. While we appreciate that Gallup does not wish to have any broadcasting partner for the future, I must note that CEO Jim Clifton's excuse to his employees for ending the relationship has no basis in fact. It shows ignorance of not only our viewership figures but of the reach and value of the CNN brand."

...

"For the last few months," CNN has "been in the process of reevaluating" their polling strategy "and have been in discussion with a number of other polling services. We hope to have an announcement of our new partner in the near future. It is unfortunate that Mr. Clifton's insecurity about the strength of the Gallup brand has pushed him to send out an inaccurate and unprofessional e-mail to his staff."

Here's a dirty little secret about polling. (Well, its not really secret, but most people don't know about it). The vast majority of polls are commissioned by the six major media outlets, which collectively own 95% of the television, print, and radio media, with large presences online as well. These polls are commissioned, written, fielded, and analyzed with one purpose - to create or support news stories.

They are also wildly inaccurate. They don't tell you how popular the President is or who is going to win the next election. They don't tell you what people feel or think. They tell you how 400 people, who picked up their land line telephones after a computer randomly dialed their phone number, responded to poorly worded questions, presenting false dichotomies, that vaguely relate to well known political figures or issues, for 20-40 minutes without hanging up.

I hope that Gallup goes under, and that CNN and the other media outlets stop buying news. Here's an idea - investigate the government, business, military, and anyone else in positions of power. If only they had a word for that? Isn't it journal-something?

...full post

collapse post

Government: Supreme Court to Ban Late Term Abortion

Abortion will soon be limited to the first trimester of pregnancy. Regardless of what your view on abortion is, this doesn't really make much sense.

From USA Today...

WASHINGTON (AP) -— The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a new-look court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

...

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito.

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

...

The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.

More so then allowing or banning it altogether, placing time limits on abortion has some really sticky implications.

If abortion is murder and/or there is no generalized right to privacy in the Constitution, then there should be no legal abortions, unless you value other overriding concerns such as rape, incest, domestic violence, or the health of the mother. Even then, abortion would be extremely rare, and would only occur when the mother is somehow violated or in danger.

If abortion is simply destroying a clump of cells, and/or a woman's right to control her own body includes the right to end the life of her child, and/or there is a generalized right to privacy in the Constitution, then abortion should legal and accessible, with possible barriers to minors and certain notification rights for fathers, depending upon your perspective.

But late term abortions effect very, very few individuals. Anyone who elects to get an abortion almost always does so within the first three months of pregnancy. Making abortion illegal in the second or third trimesters only prevents a small handful of women with medical or domestic violence issues from getting the abortion.

From a legal strategy point of view, it makes perfect sense - grind down abortion laws until there are none left.

But from a moral and ethical point of view its incomprehensible. Why would you purposefully target women who are in danger, even when most pro-lifers would leave an exception for such women in a system with no other abortion rights? The only "solution" I see is that the legal challenge is being driven by craven tacticians, or by individuals who believe that all abortions should be illegal without exceptions.

...full post

collapse post

Government: The Angel in the Details

Recently, President Bush signed the budget reconciliation bill that cuts Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and other social programs. Many other vital programs haven't been increased for 5 years or longer, essentially being cut 2-4% a year by inflation.

Well it turns out that not only are Republicans cruel and heartless, they also don't know how to work a photocopy machine...

A typo in the budget-reconciliation bill may give congressional Democrats another shot at making political hay out of the $39 billion deficit-reduction measure President Bush signed yesterday.

Democratic leaders could block an attempt by Republicans to correct the clerical error and use the fight to highlight their fierce opposition to the legislation, which includes spending reductions in healthcare, education and other programs.

...

Democratic objections could force both the House and Senate to vote on the measure yet again, though some sources on Capitol Hill said at press time that they expect another vote on a narrow part of the bill -— not the entire measure.

...

At issue is a widely supported provision that was intended to allow Medicare beneficiaries to purchase oxygen devices used in the home rather than pay endless rental fees. Because of a clerical error made during the enrollment of the bill, the new policy would apply to practically all medical equipment, congressional aides explained.

...

Democrats have long complained that House Republicans move legislation to the floor quickly -— so quickly that it is impossible to members to read the entire bill before voting.

A more accurate criticism would be that a very small number Republicans and lobbyists spend months behind closed doors writing legislation that is hundreds of pages long, and then move it to committee.

The committee loads it up with amendments to grease the wheels, and then move it to the floor for a vote.

Any differences between the House and Senate versions are reconciled by the Republican leadership, and not by a joint committee of members appointed from the originating committees of both chambers, as required by law. (It still meets, but its just a rubber stamp).

The bill is then quickly moved back to the floor of each chamber for a final vote, even though just a very few exclusively Republican members have read the final version at that point. They whip their members to support the President/party/war, and it passes by the slimmest of margins.

Try explaining that in a School House Rocks cartoon!

Costume recycled from last week's
"The Dangers of Whacky Weed" Performance

Final versions of the law aren't even available to staff (like me, who are supposed to read and analyze it for policy content and errors) or online to the public until days or weeks after its been voted on. The democratic process does not function inside the Capitol.

I think we should just leave the provision as it is and ask the President to sign the correct version. Why shouldn't seniors be able to purchase any medical equipment they need under Medicare?

...full post

collapse post

Article: Bush Administration Giving Billions to Churches

Read this in the Post this morning...

New groups are springing up to win a piece of President Bush's $15 billion AIDS program, with traditional players and religious groups joining forces to improve their chances in a competition that already has targeted nearly a quarter of its grants for faith-based organizations.

The administration is putting out a call for new community and church groups to get involved in HIV prevention and care in 15 target countries, most in sub-Saharan Africa. It is reserving $200 million specifically for groups with little or no government grant experience.

Groups that have deep local ties in the countries and focus on abstinence and fidelity - instead of just condoms - are faring well.

...

The abstinence emphasis, say some longtime AIDS volunteers, has led to a confusing message and added to the stigma of condom use in parts of Africa.

This doesn't surprise me at all. The administration has already spent tens of millions of dollars supporting abstinence education, even though studies show that it is counter productive. (I would link to the studies, but most have graphic discussions of, well, things that we all know go on in high school that parents like to pretend don't happen - and I don't want to get anyone in trouble if they read this at work. You'll just have to Google it. Here's a hint - it has to do with the opposite of abstinence).

The administration has done a good thing by increasing AIDS funding. And for that, I applaud them.

And I once had a very open mind when it came to alternative ways of reducing teen pregnancy and stopping the spread of disease. But having studied it at length, I've concluded that abstinence education just doesn't work. They've read the same studies, but continue to fund these programs out of moral conviction and/or political calculation.

Also, I purposefully wrote "Giving Billions to Churches" in my headline, and not "Religious Groups" as the Post misleadingly writes. There are almost no mosques, synagogues, temples, or other religious groups receiving this money. The vast bulk of it is being steered directly to evangelical Christian Churches and, to a lesser extent, the Catholic Church.

They are using AIDS money as a cover for political patronage.

[Insert Expletive Here]

...full post

collapse post

Article: More Republican Corruption

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Bob Ney gave up his chairmanship of the House Administration Committee on Sunday amid an influence-peddling probe that has roiled the Republican Party, but he predicted the investigation would clear his name.

Ney, a six-term Ohio Republican, was under heavy pressure from House Speaker Dennis Hastert to give up his chairmanship after Ney was implicated in the scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges January 3.

...

According to court papers filed in that case, Abramoff and his business partner, Michael Scanlon, supplied a member of Congress -- identified only as "Representative 1" -- with gifts in exchange for getting the lawmaker to help their clients, including agreeing to support specific bills and placing statements in the Congressional Record.

Government sources have told CNN that Representative 1 is Ney, who has acknowledged being subpoenaed in connection with the investigation. He denies wrongdoing and predicted Sunday that he "will be vindicated completely at the end of this difficult process."

The Committee on House Administration oversees federal elections and the day-to-day functions of the House of Representatives. So essentially, the guy in charge of ensuring fair elections and enforcing the basic rules of the House is unethical and broke the rules for money.

Irony is dead.

Favorite Republican Art

...full post

collapse post

Republicans Pass Health and Human Services Budget

Hokey Smokes Bullwinkle! I finally have funding! That sounds good. No, wait. Its very very bad.

Via CNN:

Cheney casts deciding vote on deficit bill
Vice president breaks 50-50 tie on $40 billion of spending cuts

Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EST (15:50 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Republican-controlled Senate passed legislation to cut federal deficits by $39.7 billion on Wednesday by the narrowest of margins, 51-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote.

The measure, the product of a year's labors by the White House and the GOP in Congress, imposes the first restraints in nearly a decade in federal benefit programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and student loans.

Darth Cheney in the Imperial Senate,

moments before his historic tie-breaking vote.

Well, that was unexpected. I thought that Senator Spector (R-PA) was going to oppose it, thus sinking the bill. But apparently, being a moderate means cutting $39.7 billion from health care, student loans, and welfare programs - weeks after supporting the passage of a $56 billion capital gains tax cut for the top one-fifth of one percent of the richest Americans.

Sadly, because this is part of the budget reconciliation process, it can't be filibustered.

So I'll be a lot busier in the New Year, helping even poorer people get fewer jobs with less money and support services.

What a great gift from Republicans for the students, the elderly, the sick, and the most needy! And just in time for the holidays! Merry F$cking Christmas. Ho, Ho, Ho.

...full post

collapse post

Article: New Medicare Drug Law Sucks

I was just talking to a good friend of mine about how the new Medicare drug law is a horrible, confusing, costly boondoggle. Here's another example of why it sucks:

Iowa Seniors calling a phone number for answers about the new Medicare prescription drug program reached a phone sex line by mistake.
The Medicare program, criticized by some as confusing, will likely be more confusing to Iowans and others who received a letter from Humana Incorporated with an incorrect phone number.

The company is one of numerous insurance companies offering coverage for the new Medicare drug program that starts January 1st.

Humana spokesman Dick Brown says a few thousand letters were sent nationwide last month to people asking about Medicare's drug program under Humana. The phone number listed on the letter was one digit off from Humana's correct number, which is 1-800-992-2551.

A message at the wrong number directed callers to "Intimate Encounters," which offered service for two-dollars-99-cents or 99 cents per minute.

Since my job has forced me to read the law and be familiar with it, I've decided to keep a running commentary on why I hate it. If you see any news or government links supporting my bile, please send them to me.

...full post

collapse post