Reining In the New Spoils System: A Proposal Part I: Defining the Problem

I'm gonna introduce this topic with a favored boogeyman of the left - Halliburton. We all know the story: This all-purpose giant contracting conglomerate, formerly headed by Darth Cheney himself, is awarded massive no-bid contracts by the Bush misAdministration to perform various tasks traditionally performed by the federal government. Notoriously, billions of dollars go missing during the early days of the Iraq War, Halliburton subsidiary KBR is ostensibly deemed the culprit escapes any measure of accountability, and campaign contributions to Republicans rise substantially among the war profiteering sector.

Halliburton has become so notorious due to its sheer brazenness engaging in naked cronyism. They are an effective poster child for the rapidly expanding phenomenon of privatized government services. The GOP and other supporters claim it is more effective because private entities can perform services cheaper, thus saving taxpayers money. This theory has been proven incorrect in reality, but makes for an effective smokescreen argument. To quote the eminently quotable Paul Krugman, circa 2002:

So what's this about?

First, it's about providing political cover. In the face of budget deficits as far as the eye can see, the administration -- determined to expand, not reconsider the program of tax cuts it initially justified with projections of huge surpluses -- must make a show of cutting spending. Yet what can it cut? The great bulk of public spending is either for essential services like defense and the justice system, or for middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that the administration doesn't dare attack openly.

Privatizing federal jobs is a perfect answer to this dilemma. It's not a real answer -- the pay of those threatened employees is only about 2 percent of the federal budget, so efficiency gains from privatization, even if they happen, will make almost no dent in overall spending. For a few years, however, talk of privatization will give the impression that the administration is doing something about the deficit.

But distracting the public from the reality of deficits is, we can be sure, just an incidental payoff. So, too, is the fact that privatization is a way to break one of the last remaining strongholds of union power. Karl Rove is after much bigger game.

A few months ago Mr. Rove compared his boss to Andrew Jackson. As some of us noted at the time, one of Jackson's key legacies was the ''spoils system,'' under which federal jobs were reserved for political supporters. The federal civil service, with its careful protection of workers from political pressure, was created specifically to bring the spoils system to an end; but now the administration has found a way around those constraints.

We don't have to speculate about what will follow, because Jeb Bush has already blazed the trail. Florida's governor has been an aggressive privatizer, and as The Miami Herald put it after a careful study of state records, ''his bold experiment has been a success -- at least for him and the Republican Party, records show. The policy has spawned a network of contractors who have given him, other Republican politicians and the Florida G.O.P. millions of dollars in campaign donations.''

What's interesting about this network of contractors isn't just the way that big contributions are linked to big contracts; it's the end of the traditional practice in which businesses hedge their bets by giving to both parties. The big winners in Mr. Bush's Florida are companies that give little or nothing to Democrats. Strange, isn't it? It's as if firms seeking business with the state of Florida are subject to a loyalty test.

So am I saying that we are going back to the days of Boss Tweed and Mark Hanna? Gosh, no -- those guys were pikers. One-party control of today's government offers opportunities to reward friends and punish enemies that the old machine politicians never dreamed of.

note: text bolded by me.

This is why we care about Halliburton - we have seen this sort of cronyism multiple times before, and resoundingly rejected it as a nation each time. There is no reason to believe that the voting public would accept a return to a de facto spoils system, with trillions of dollars at its disposal, if they clearly saw it as such. Think about the following events that are emblematic of the traits most hurting Republican approval in recent years:

1) Katrina - with political cronies installed at the top of a disaster management agency, a city drowns while the federal government does nothing. President Bush and his Republican toadies blithely ignore the fact that FEMA has been gutted and "heckuva job, Brownie" becomes a catch phrase to symbolize the GOP culture of corruption.

2) Justice Department politicization - Thanks to the efforts of intrepid blogger/reporter Josh Marshall, the Bush misAdministration was exposed for morphing its Justice Department into a tool of the Republican Party under Abu Gonzales. Once the story hit the traditional media, the approval ratings of Shrub and his congressional bootlickers took a significant hit.

3) Elitist economic policy - After-tax income inequality has risen to its highest level since 1928. Republicans believe the economy is doing just hunky dory while those without a trust fund are stuck in neutral and sliding back. Here's Fred Thompson in one of last year's GOP debate, echoing the standard party line:

MR. THOMPSON: I think there is no reason to believe that we're headed for a recession. We're enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth that started in 2001, and then further in 2003 with the tax cuts that we put in place. We're enjoying low inflation. We're enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well. I see no reason to believe we're headed for -- (pause) -- for economic downturn.

MS. BARTIROMO: Senator, you've painted a very nice picture. The Dow and the S&P 500 today at new highs tonight, record numbers, and yet, two-thirds of the people surveyed said we are either in a recession or headed for one. Why the angst?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, I think there are pockets in the economy. Certainly they're having difficulty. I think there are certainly those in Michigan that are having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy. I think that not enough has been done to tell what some call the greatest story never told, and that is that we are enjoying a period of growth right now, and we should acknowledge what got us there and continue those same policies on into the future.

In other words, all those useless poor and working-class people should quit complaining, suck it up and wait for the crumbs to trickle down. They just don't get it - if the rich are doing well, then you're just not working hard enough.

Why does this matter to the privatization debate? Because while most citizens won't openly express animosity towards the wealthy in general, an immense amount of rage can be generated towards those enriching themselves off the taxpayer's dime. This brings us to the next point:

4) War Profiteers - Not much explanation is needed. Even the most wingnutty Republicans won't dare to defend these loathsome maggots; all they can do is distract and change the subject. And - surprise! - government contractors pay their executives extraordinarily lavishly. Halliburton, for example, paid its CEO David Lesar a whopping $29,360,000 in 2006 alone. That's two-hundred and ninety-three MILLION taxpayer dimes. And they're honestly saying the government, who pays its top executives no more than $400,000, can't do the job just as efficiently?! Even the most accomplished BS artists can't possibly believe that deep down.

So we reach the key question: how to break through the smoke screen and start debating the privatization matter in honest terms? I'll present my proposed solution in the next post. Stay tuned.....

The media is making itself a political issue

Media bias has been an increasingly important topic among progressive activists. The right wing has learned over many years how to manipulate the traditional media outlets into supporting their agenda. By continuously asserting a "liberal" bias and putting major pressure on any pro-Democratic or liberal coverage (real or perceived), the major corporate news networks have been trained to adopt and promote conservative frames while suppressing liberal ones.

Usually this phenomenon exhibits itself subtly. For instance, the Talking Heads continually refer to the estate tax as the much more nefarious-sounding "death tax" or refuse to critique a Republican's pronounced issue stances against their past legislative votes. And of course one can point out the myriad ways in which the corporate media has kowtowed to John McCain.

But every so often, an example of media bias comes along that is so blatant, so egregious and so misleading that it renders the "liberal media" canard utterly indefensible. Yesterday, Olbermann exposed a shockingly obvious whitewashing of a potentially self-damaging McCain quote by CBS.

From their exclusive interview:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

It just so happens that McCain's depiction of this "matter of history" is flat-out false. The Anbar Awakening happened months before the surge. Here's some clarification by EquationDoc at DailyKos:

The colonel was Colonel Sean McFarland, the head of 1st Brigade, 1st Division. They were redeployed to Iraq in January, 2006, in Nineveh province. In May, 2006 they were transferred south to Ramadi, in Al Anbar province, the site of the "Anbar Awakening." The 1st Brigade, 1st Division was redeployed out of Iraq in mid-February, 2007.

That is, the unit McCain is referring to left Iraq approximately one month after Bush announced the surge on January 10, 2007 (troop surge timeline). A month later, on March 20, troop strength was up from 132,000 (in January) to 152,000. Additional commitments to the surge would eventually bring the total to 168,000, in September, 2007.

The Anbar Awakening, or Anbar Salvation Council, was founded by Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi in September, 2006, again, long before Bush's January 10, 2007 announcement of the surge. And ironically, at the same time troop surge levels peaked and US casualties were in the process of declining, al-Rishawi was killed in September, 2007 by a roadside bomb in Ramadi. It's even more ironic when considered in the context of McSame's claims that we were "able to go out and protect that sheik and others."

In making a statement such as this, either McCain has memory issues or he is simply lying. An editor at CBS likely recognized the inaccuracy of his statement. Thus, CBS chose to scrub out these words and replace them with another, much more on-message answer from earlier in the interview:

Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

I dare Marlowe and any other McSame apologists out there to give me an explanation for this switcheroo other than that which I contend: pro-McCain and pro-Republican media bias.

We can see here why those in the traditional press are so condescending towards bloggers and the internet in general: We are a direct threat to their ability to control the narrative. I, for one, hope they keep it up. It will only lead us to shine a greater spotlight on their fatal flaws and ultimately expose corporate newsrooms as the largely charlatan operations that they have become. And when the chickens finally come home to roost, it must be acknowledged that this failing industry will have wrought its own demise by shilling for the followers of a failed ideology.

UPDATE:Here is the segment where Keith Olbermann exposes the story:

Conference Review

As the Netroots Nation conference winds down, I feel a renewed sense of purpose in advocating meaningful change in this country. I was able to meet some real leaders, match faces and voices to screen names and eloquent digital rants, and network with other offline activists in the Beltway progressive circuit. I got to see Austin, a city to which I officially want to
move.... or at least visit again soon! And of course, I learned about new organizing tools and enhanced my depth of knowledge in issue areas like energy policy and campaign finance.

Here are some highlights of my experience at NN08:

• The inspiring speech by Howard Dean Thursday night;
• Al Gore's impromptu appearance yesterday morning, he is truly a political rock star;
• The Energize America panel featuring the venerable Jerome a Paris and a trio of top-tier candidates;
• Sharing a table with Leutisha Stills of Jack and Jill Politics as she vented out loud in advance of what would become a searing critique of the Kos-Harold Ford debate.
• Getting the chance to hear Larry Lessig, an amazing presenter and former colleague of Obama's at Chicago Law School, now running a groundbreaking ethics reform operation called Change Congress;
• A panel last evening with Ezra Klein and others about how to capture this unique opportunity for a dominant social democratic movement.
• And of course, partying hard in the great city of Austin.

Next year in Pittsburgh!

Question for Harold Ford

Here at Netroots Nation, we were just treated to a very civilized lunch debate between Markos and DLC Chair Harold Ford. In general, Mr. Ford was able to muddle the issues effectively enough to avoid drawing the ire of the (obviously) pro-grassroots crowd. One thing that particularly frustrated me, however, was his claim that he had to take very conservative positions on some issues because the demographics of his district demanded it. He represented Memphis until 2006 when he ran a less-than-spectacular failed senatorial campaign. Memphis is one of the most economically devastated inner cities in the nation, and experienced more foreclosures per capita than almost any other Congressional district. Mr. Ford voted for the anti-debtor bankruptcy bill, blocked lending and housing reforms throughout his congressional tenure, and continually supported free-trade, anti-worker policies. Ford now represents an organization that believes that in order to win, Democrats must take positions on many issues that look much like Republican stances. Now I've always been perplexed about this belief, and the following question occurred to me:

If DLC Democrats think conservative policies are so popular, then why do conservatives themselves find it so hard to speak about the issues in plain terms?

They resort to pithy, misleading catch phrases and outright personal smears to control the debate. Frank Luntz and friends have said outright that the country at large finds conservative policies unpopular if expressed honestly. Although I stood in line to ask the above question, I was unfortunately unable to do so due to time constraints. I hope that by posting it here, this question will reach Mr. Ford or one of his ideological brethren who can provide a legitimate answer.

Reporting from Netroots Nation

I'm in Austin this week soaking up the ethos of the Great Orange Satan and the progressive blogosphere at large. Thursday was a kind of slow day, with mostly informal sessions of certain constituencies. I attended one morning group discussion of state-level bloggers and that was quite fascinating. The most poignant moment from my perspective was the discussion about the importance of local bloggers to move the national debate and expand the blogging universe in ways that the large national groups cannot. I also made a work-related connection that will help us better advocate for sensible revenue increases as a partial fix to California's budget crisis.

Aside from that, there wasn't too much of personal interest yesterday, so my friend Chris Colaninno and I saw the sights of summertime in Austin. After enjoying some yummy chicken-fried steak at a local restaurant, we took a tour of the state capitol. It's a very majestic building, with a dome similar to the national Capitol building, and the main atrium is adorned with pictures of each past governor going back to the days of the Republic of Texas. My favorite part: it is powered almost entirely by a beautiful array of solar panels.

The meat of the conference is over the next two days, and I'll be checking in periodically with updates on the various sessions I attend. So far today I have been to Energize America (which I'll report on shortly) and am currently sitting in a panel on a meaningful Middle Class policy.

Follow-up: stepping off the ledge

I'm still a little frustrated with the Obama campaign's current "path of least resistance" strategy, as Chris Colaninno mentions in the comments of the previous post. But the past couple days have given me some cause for optimism (hopefully I can earn my pseudonym at least a little!).

First, in a press conference in Ohio on Tuesday, Barack backtracked significantly from his initial rejection of Clark's statements.

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” Obama said, responding to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn’t called on Wesley Clark to apologize for his remarks yesterday. “I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

While I would prefer to see Obama take charge of the issue head-on and confront the matter of McCain's military experience as automatic presidential qualification directly, this bob-and-weave strategy has been working for him and will continue to be effective. It actually mirrors his strategy on the Jeremiah Wright situation pretty closely, and I think he handled that about the best he could have given the fine line he had to walk. Also note that it took him a couple days to find a clear voice in the wake of the Wright "scandal", but thereafter he successfully redirected the conversation by straightforwardly and vocally refusing to acknowledge these petty attacks as a serious campaign issue.

As a corollary, I am becoming more and more convinced that General Clark would be the best choice for Obama as a running mate. This episode is solid evidence that the two can effectively play off each other going after McCain's record in a good cop-bad cop sort of manner. I still think Edwards would also be a great pick, of course for different reasons. However, Clark is probably the safer choice at this point, balances some of Obama's negative attributes (inexperience) and would allow Obama to focus almost entirely on offense. With the good General, the chances of a landslide would be pretty significant as McCain's true nature is gradually exposed.