BUCKLE UP FOR BI-PARTISAN SAFETY. Recognizing fully that internet polls are non-scientific and highly skewed toward (younger, more cynical?) online readers, I thought this question posed by Newsweek was quite interesting in its results.
If the public is right, time to buckle-up for the bumpy ride these next two years.
THE EXECUTIVE QUESTION. I understand completely the political reasons why we won'd have a chance to vote for the guy who helped lead Overseas Democrats For Udall 30 years ago when I was pitching Mo to people on Milwaukee's South Side. However, Russ Feingold's departure pretty much guarantees that the issue of lunatic Executive caesarism is not going to play a big role among the people seeking to be the next ones to run the Executive branch.
For those who think that I hate the NYT, I have a big surprise; some gushing praise. An editorial in today's paper hits a real home run, trashing efforts to water down the corporate accountability rules in Sarbanes-Oxley.
The editorial gets it exactly right, putting Wall Street's quest for weaker rules in the context of global competition for business. As the editorial notes, Wall Street is losing market share, not because of accountability rules, but because it charges too much. (Ever wonder where those $100 million paychecks come from?)
The NYT has an article today about the University of Alabama's efforts to prevent an artist from painting pictures of their football players. Its case includes a request to prohibit his use of the school's "famous crimson and white color scheme."
The Washington Post editors, along with most of its columnists, have long advocated cutting and/or privatizing Social Security. Unfortunately, this position infects their news reporting as well, as illustrated with a front page story discussiong the alternative minimum tax. The article lists a set of "ticking time bombs set to explode soon after the 2008 presidential election." Yes, this list includes Social Security.
The New York Times continues its crusade to cut and/or privatize Social Security by again referring to efforts to restore the long-term solvency of the program. Since the program already has long-term solvency (through the year 2046, according to the Congressional Budget Office), this is a phony problem.
Of course it's fine that people want to restructure the program, but it is simply not true that there is any need to do so over any reasonable time horizon. It would be nice if the Times reporters could be a bit more honest in their discussion of the topic.
I have been told by people who know such things that the Dems are looking at ways to allow Medicare to negotiate prices with the drug industry, without offering its own plan, that actually would be meaningful. For example, it could negotiate a set of prices that would apply to all the insurance plans included under Part D. This seems unduly complex, but it could lead to lower drug prices.
VETERANS' DAY. Though Laura weighs in below, Tapped is more or less down today in honor of the holiday. But for your TAP Online reading pleasure: Rick Perlstein offers an urgent reminder to Democrats not to let victory lull them into forgetting the dirty tricks operation that the GOP perpetrated on Tuesday -- and will do again in future elections.