This seems like a rather big deal, and also rather deceitful.

Allen Sloan in the Washington Post:

Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.

His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.

If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You're not alone. Bush didn't pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the Union message last week.

Seems the Social Security trench wars are back on. Better check in with Josh Marshall.

Now it just so happens we still have the Conscience Caucus list online -- remember, that's the list of the Republicans who wouldn't publicly commit to phase-out last year.

Are they coming out against Phase Out Round Two?

I wonder how this will play out for the 2006 elections? Grassroots pressure seemed to turn the tide against Round One. Can it do it for Round Two?

Here are more numbers from Sloan:

Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion.

In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016.

It's not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work.

It will be interesting to see if this gets much press beyond Sloan's article and a sail around the liberal blogosphere. I'm sure TPM will be on the case.

- Glitter

Something of Note about the Role of Blogs

I would never argue that blogs are some kind of threat to traditional forms of media or journalism, as some bloggers can tend to imply in the dizzying heights of blog triumphalism. But I would like to point out two specific recent instances where original reporting by blogs has opened up larger stories and actually had the type of impact journalism is meant to have, in that they brought more truth to the discourse.

Example #1: Glenn Greenwald and the DeWine Amendment.

On his blog, Unclaimed Territory, Glenn pointed to legislation that was introduced by Ohio Senator Mike DeWine in 2002 that sought to eliminate the same barrier in FISA that Gen. Michael Hayden argued the administration was necessitated to bypass for the NSA eavesdropping program. But at the time, the Bush Department of Justice objected to the legislation, arguing that FISA was fine as it was and the change might be unconstitutional. This revelation brought many new questions to the discussion of the NSA eavesdropping program and in effect shifted the discourse a bit. This story was picked up by the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, amongst other news media outlets. All gave credit to Glenn for first scooping the story.

Example #2: Nick Anthis and the Bush appointee

I noted before that a NASA scientist was complaining about having his voice muffled by political appointees of the Bush administration. Days later, another article came out that named George Deutsch as the person who actively tried to suppress the scientist as well as alter the language of NASA educational materials so that they allowed room for intelligent design. Two days ago on Feb 6th, on his blog called Scientific Activist, Nick Anthis posted that through his own reporting he had discovered that Deutsch had never graduated from Texas A & M, even tough news reports had listed him as a graduate. Today, the New York Times reports that Deutsch has resigned, at least partially over lying about his graduate status from Texas A & M. Just like with Greenwald, Anthis' blog was given a hat tip for making the initial discovery that opened up this new part of the story.

Now, these two cases by no means prove that bloggers are all journalists, but I do think they does throw spit in the eye of the argument that bloggers are nothing, but partisan and opinionated pundits. Some are, some aren't. There are many forms in the blogosphere. As Jay Rosen points out (well, he's quoting James W. Carey), journalism is a practice, not a label. You are a journalist when you are reporting on and recording for posterity what is going on in life, not just because you draw a paycheck from a news media institution. To me, the above mentioned examples are but two instances of how blogs can positively play into our culture and democracy.

- Glitter

Doesn't Rove Have His Own Investigation To Worry About?

White House puts politics over rule of law...film at 11.

Oh, and does this vaguely sound like either a bribe or extortion to anyone?

The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings.



Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove's message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.



"He's [Rove] lining them up one by one," another congressional source said.



Mr. Rove is leading the White House campaign to help the GOP in November’s congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.



Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list.

It does to me.

- Glitter

NSA Congressional Hearings Day One

You, whomever may read this, may have noticed that I'm rather interested in the revelation of NSA's warrantless domestic spying program authorized by the administration.

The first day of the Senate hearings was/is today, with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifying, though apparently not under oath. I haven't gotten a chance to read too much about how it went, so I'm just going to link to things as I go through it. Consider this a round up:

* Senator Leahy's smackdown opening statement.

* WaPo's article,Gonzales Defends Legality Of Surveillance.

* Gonzales' prepared opening statement.

* NY Times' article, Defense of Eavesdropping Is Met With Skepticism In Senate.

* Glenn Greenwald's live blogging of the hearings. In general, Glenn's blog is kind of the go to site for left of the aisle analysis of this affair.

* Reuters' article, Democrats Frustrated By Gonzales On Eavesdropping.

* LA Times' (via Chicago Tribune) article, Spirited Debate On Limits Of Presidential Power. Be sure to read page 2 of it.

* Think Progress picks out a strong point made by Lindsay Graham (R-SC).

* Here's the Fox News' take on the proceedings. Strangely, their front page, as of 5:39 PM, has the hearings relegated to a side bar while 3 stories pointing towards "big bad Muslims" are front and center.

* John at AmericaBlog has a running commentary throughout the day. Take a scroll down it. Same goes for Digby

* For a taste of how the hearings are being interpreted over on the still-supporting Bush Right side of the aisle (I say that because some conservatives and Repubs have come out against this program), you can check out Powerline, a good enough weathervane for the apologists.

I'll probably give my thoughts on this sometime soon.

- Glitter

Library Tax Debate

It's been a motto of mine for a year or two now that I will only be legitimately politically engaged once I am engaged in local politics. With that idea in mind, I have been trying to read more and more about not only Ithaca College, but also Tompkins County issues. So today, I'm going to try to look a little deeper into a pertinent local issue while adding what I can to the discussion.

Tomorrow, Feb. 7th, there is a county-wide referendum to decide whether or not to approve a new tax that would ultimately provide $540,000 in new funding for the Tompkins County Public Library. (BTW, having just read the above linked article for a second time, and for an article that claims to be looking at the spectrum of debate, it seems to lopsidedly report on the opposing viewpoint. Strangely, or not so strangely, the article appeared in the same issue as the paper's editorial against the tax. Another article that focuses more on the library's POV, and is generally more balanced, can be found here.)

When I first recieved a flier about this at the library, my initial gut reaction was "of course the library should be supported, it's a great public service that all can benefit from." But I do have to say, after reading this editorial in the Ithaca Journal, I'm not so sure anymore. The editors do make a rather compelling case against the tax, mainly due to the fact that the tax will be added onto property tax, and according to the editors:

the property tax levy carried by local households in the Ithaca school district has increased $12.54 million, about 28 percent, in the past five years. For city residents, that increase comes on top of a 75 percent jump in combined county and city property taxes for the same time.

I'm not completely convinced by the editorial, but I do have to say, if their numbers are right, they do raise some vexing questions. Another issue they bring up is the state of the library workers' labor contract. Apparently they have a pretty good deal through United Auto Workers 2300. I consider myself pretty pro-union, and don't really mind that much that library employees get paid a decent salary and a living wage (Under the recently expired contract, librarians were earning between $20.99 and $26.25 per hour; Clerks earned $13.30 an hour; and Pages earned $11.79 per hour), but some of the provisions pointed out by the Journal do seem extraneous to me. According to the Journal's editorial:

Union employees at the library work 35-hour weeks, with time between 35 and 40 hours triggering “compensatory time” or paid time off. The contracts contain seven paid holidays, five “floating holidays,” 12 personal/sick days and two weeks vacation as a starting point; meaning even without comp time, after the first year a new employee can have as many as 34 paid days off. The deals also carry over a previous arbitrator's ruling making summer Saturdays join all Sundays as workdays at time-and-a-half pay. That means, putting aside comp time again, for every weekend the library is open in the summer wages equal to the cost of another Sunday are burned in overtime.

Terry Sharpe, President of the UAW Local 2300, responded to criticism of the union's contract with a letter to the editor here.

He raised the interesting point of how focus has been on the labor contract while the library administration earns and spends a lot:

If the public somehow believes that our union workers earn too much, why is no one asking about the director's salary ($84,152 in 2004), which is significantly more than those of many county managers? What about the huge annual bonuses awarded to the director and assistant director (totaling $20,050 in 1999-2001)? Why do they spend thousands in legal and miscellaneous fees ($45,400 in 2004)? Why do they hire an expensive lawyer to negotiate the labor contracts, when traditionally the library trustees have always negotiated these themselves? Why pay a private company to water and maintain the plants?

Truthfully, after having read all of this, I don't quite know where to stand on it. The meme by most supporters is that the tax increase would come to about $25 per year for the average residential property in the Ithaca City School District. I don't know how much this will affect people in the district, especially those who come under the average. Apparently the tax works by a "rate of 17 cents per $1,000 of taxable assessed value in 2006 and will be on the same bill as school district taxes. A house assessed at $100,000 would pay about $17 for the library tax."


The Journal printed 6 letters supporting the tax (here, here, here, here, here, and here) as well as one opposing. The Ithaca Times also came out against it in an editorial as well. The Times also had an Op-Ed in favor of the tax.

It seems to me that oppositional voices have some legitimate concerns, but there also seems to be a more generalized anti-tax feeling fueling much of the opposition to this particular tax. This seems most apparent to me in the case of the so-called Students Against Library Tax (SALT), run by an Ithaca College student who is an active, and quite partisan, member of the Ithaca College Republicans. That person, Joe Brennan:



wrote an Op-Ed for the Journal that doesn't address any of the substantial issues raised by most opponents, but rather just attacks the process. His first point of contention is that the election is in February, instead of the generally accepted electoral month of November. This point seems odd to me considering Brennan just got back from a holiday season campaign in San Diego. This leads me to believe that the criticism of the timing of the election is hypocritical and likely just political.

He does also raise the legitimate question of the fact that the election and much of the pro-tax support was being funded by a philandthropist who until recently had been anonymous. This does raise some questions, but it is also a diversion from tackling the tax on its merits - whether it is the right choice for the community or not in terms of finances and services.

My instinct that Brennan is against the tax for ideological reasons stem from having had two classes with him as well as from this graf in his Op-Ed:

As it stands, New York already has the second highest combined state and local taxes. By passing this measure, not only will we further perpetuate this problem that has caused thousands of citizens and jobs to head elsewhere, but we will be publicly stating our support for such a policy. I cannot do either in good faith, and have formed Students Against the Library Tax in response to my beliefs on the issue. Our group is dedicated to informing the public on the issues raised in this article and strongly urges the defeat of the library tax.

As for SALT, I find it kind of odd that the group is being displayed as a student initiative, yet to my knowledge there has not been a single effort to engage the Ithaca College student community on this issue. I have not seen a single op-ed or letter to the editor in the Ithacan nor have I seen a single flier on campus. For a group that is purporting to speak for students it has done a piss poor job of informing students that an election is even occurring. If one of Brennan's main worries is that people won't turn out for this election because it is in February then why isn't he trying to inform his community that the election is occuring? Without these efforts, Students Against Library Tax reeks to me of a manipulative attempt to use the image of students (which can be a strong image rhetorically in a discussion about libraries) without actually engaging students.

BONUS UPDATE: A view into College Republican electoral tactics. Also, an article by Franklin Foer about the teaching of dirty tricks to Republican youth.

Now, I may end up taking the same final position on the tax as SALT, a No vote, but their tactics don't seem right to me. I'm not basing my position on ideology (or fufillment of school credit), but rather a weighing of the pros and cons of the matter. SALT however, its not clear to me what their real reasons for being against the vote is. If it's cause they're ideologically anti-tax, why don't they just come out and say it?

Hopefully I'll have made a decision by the end of the day in terms of yay or ney.

Oh, and finally, some needless libel of Mr. Brennan through his own actions and words:



Joe on a Mets message board:

There are a lot of Asians here at Ithaca, some with funny names. There' Soo Me Kim, and So Yung Ho.

On the subject of names, (and I know this is superficial, but I'm up front about it) I have a very hard time becoming attracted to girls with obscure names. Fortunately for me, I recently came by a pretty Ms. Lisa Smith.

- Glitter