random rants and references

As expected the FEC voted to adopt the draft rules on internet political speech, thus imposing the minimum regulation required by the 2004 court decision. As the Wall Street Journal puts it - FEC Won't Regulate Most Activity On Web Under Campaign Law:

"In its initial interpretation of the law in 2002, the FEC said no political activity on the Internet was covered. But a federal court judge ruled in 2004 that the commission had to craft a new rule that at the very least covered paid political advertising on the Internet.

The ruling, and the commission's decision not to appeal it, sparked fears among some Internet users that the panel might adopt broader restrictions. But Toner said the new rule gives a 'categorical and unqualified' exemption to all individual and group political activity on the Internet, except for paid advertising. ........

Hans A. von Spakovsky, appointed to the commission by President Bush in January, said the rule wouldn't have been necessary had the commission appealed the court ruling. He urged Congress to pass legislation exempting all types of political activity over the Internet from regulation."

Bradley A Smith, the former FEC Chairman whom I've quoted before, has this to say here:

"Congress would still do well to pass HR 1606, the Jeb Hensarling sponsored Online Freedom of Speech Act. There remains precious little reason to think that Congress really intended for the McCain-Feingold law to regulate the web. It is also clear that the FEC would be keeping it's blanket exemption from the statutory definition of 'public communication' for the internet, absent the ruling of a single federal judge that it must regulate the web. And it is clear that none of the horror stories spread by so-called 'reform' groups about HR 1606 have come true in the last 4 years, when the position that HR 1606 would enact has, in fact, been the law pursuant to FEC rules."

I agree with both Mr. Spakovsky and Mr. Smith that, while the FEC rules are minimal, they have placed internet speech under regulation and regulations can be easily changed by another FEC ruling. A law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, is a much stronger protection. As my two previous posts have argued, we still need to pass H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom Of Speech Act.

I intend to keep my Congressman aware of my interest in passing H.R. 1606 as soon as possible. Think about doing the same.

On Friday, 24March, the FEC issued proposed rules (pdf) , which the Washington Post reports on here :"The Federal Election Commission last night released proposed new rules that leave almost all Internet political activity unregulated except for the purchase of campaign ads on Web sites.

'My key goal in this rule-making has been to make sure that the commission establish clear rules to exempt individuals who engage in online politics from campaign finance laws,' said Chairman Michael E. Toner, a Republican.
'We tried to craft a regulation that would allow the maximum amount of freedom for people as possible,' said Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub, a Democrat." ......
"In a two-page summary of the 90-page set of rules, Weintraub and Vice Chairman Robert D. Lenhard stressed that the proposals "explicitly exempt from regulation the Internet activities of unpaid individuals or groups of individuals" and "bloggers will not be regulated.""

While the article is positive, the reference to a 90 page (actually 96 but only about a dozen are rules) document raises my concern level. Smart lawyers should be able to find a litigation hook somewhere in that many pages of regulation; and the anti-speech campaign reformers have plenty of good lawyers. More importantly, the accepted existence of FEC rules establishes that internet political speech is now a regulated commodity and no longer a right.

However, quite a few well-respected and knowledgeable people are happy with the proposed rules. The consensus is that these rules are much better than H.R. 4900, although not as good as H.R. 1606 and that that may be good enough for now. Here are two opinions.

Mike Krempaski has been a co-leader of the bipartisan blogger campaign to keep internet speech free of the BCRA . His post at RedState blog gives the FCC two and a half cheers for thse rules. He provides links to other reviewers and notes his opinion that : "these regulations aren't bad for the blogosphere. They codify the media exemption, provide an exception from the ban on corporate participation for incorporated bloggers, and bloggers would not have to disclose payments from campaigns. (although, campaigns would be required to do so, which has been our position all along)
So kudos to the FEC - especially Commissioners Weintraub and Toner. The FEC's relatively light touch on the blogosphere is a positive result."

Bradley A Smith, the former FEC Chairman, credits the FEC with hitting a triple in a game where a home run is illegal. As he says here :"I continue to think that the FEC's original approach - simply excluding the net from most regulation - would be ideal, and in the three and a half years it has been in effect, it has yielded only positive consequences. But a Federal judge ripped that option from the FEC's playbook.
The biggest problem with the rules is simply the principle established - the internet is now to be subject to regulation. The FEC can change the rules - extend them - when it wants. "

"For those who have been following the action in Congress, the FEC's move largely undercuts any argument to be made for H.R. 4900. It does not undercut the argument for H.R. 1606, which would simply exempt much internet activity from the law. But I expect it will lead Congress to shelve the measure. As we don't know how it would ultimately have fared in either the House or the Senate, that may be a price worth paying for these FEC rules. And those of us who favor online freedom can take some succor from knowing that the "reform community" originally wanted quite a bit more regulation."

Well, I may have to settle for that "succor" and it may be the best we can realistically expect from the current Congress; but trading a "right" for a "permission" just sets you up to be "permitted" less later. I believe this is a very big issue, that many in Congress recognize and support free political speech on the internet, and that many others fear the voice of the people at election time.

I thank the FEC for doing the minimal rule making. But I still want a right not just a rule; so I will write again to my Congressman urging him to vote for H.R. 1606. Think about doing the same.

The internet is a powerful mechanism for individuals to speak their opinions and to find a wide range of facts and opinions. Blogs are an obvious way for people to exchange views freely and without mediation or control by any media authorities. Just try to get free time on a radio or TV program ; even letters to newspapers are limited by space and editorial review, if published at all.

In a sense, blogs and the internet bring us back to the early days of our republic when pamphleteers wrote and handed out opinions to gain support for the formation of this nation. The value of free speech was recognized as vital to the functioning of a free state and was enshrined in the First Amendment. So, it would seem especially important to protect the ability of citizens to speak freely and broadly about political issues and politicians before an election.

And that was the way it was in this country prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) - the McCain-Feingold act. That Act restricted the right to speak about candidate within two months of a federal election as a means to reduce the influence of big money on elections. Of course, the press and big Media were exempt from this restraint; essentially, this created sort of a legal monopoly on political speech when it might be most effective - at election time.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) took the view that internet communications, particularly by individuals ala blogs, were not covered by the Act. This was reasonable since Congress had expressed a strong interest in keeping the internet free of regulation and the Act was not explicit on this point. The Act proponents took a different view and sued in federal court. The court ruled that the FEC must issue rules for the internet and Congress began action to clarify its intent.

An excellent summary of the state of legislation and the impact on and dangers to free speech was made by former FEC Chairman Bradley A. Smith writing on the Internet & Free Speech: "For two years, campaign-finance reformers fought in the courts to force the Federal Election Commission to regulate the Internet more heavily. They won, and legislation is in the works. Two bills are before Congress, H.R. 4900 and H.R. 1606. The “reform community” is strongly backing the former, and, to garner support for it, is claiming that it offers more than adequate protections. It doesn’t."

He describes three legal "viruses" which are embedded in H.R. 4900 and pose dangers to free political speech. Read it all; a key point is that the threat of litigation can be used to close down speech by citizens who don't have the resources to fight a legal battle - even though they are in the right. He concludes with this statement: "Viruses cannot thrive in healthy bodies, and cannot thrive on protected Internet systems. H.R. 1606 protects the Net. With H.R. 4900, Internet regulation continues to infect the system. The reformers know it. They’re hoping you won’t know it until after Congress votes and moves on to other issues."

Mr. Smith is concerned that Congress might take the easy political path and vote for the image of protecting internet speech rather than the reality. That's a real concern because the "image" side is led by Senators McCain and Feingold, both of whom are mounting Presidential campaigns for 2008. It seems strange that two men seeking the nation's highest office should have so little regard for free speech by the citizens they propose to lead. Unless one recognizes how much easier it is to control the message if only a few big media speakers are allowed.

However, on Friday, 24March, the FEC issued proposed rules, which, according to the Washington Post here , "leave almost all Internet political activity unregulated except for the purchase of campaign ads on Web sites."

And that's my next post.

There is little doubt that the traditional or mainstream media (MSM) is having serious credibility problems with their public. Much of this is due to a growing and largely accurate perception of excessive bias in both the reportage of events and in the selection of what is reported. An additional element is the easy availabilty of alternative new media sources.

For newspapers, this is becoming existentially critical, as shown by this admonition,-'Adapt to new technology or die,' Murdoch tells newspapers: "The newspaper industry needs to embrace the technological revolution of the Internet, MP3 players, laptops and mobile phones or face extinction, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch said."

I'm in no position to argue with Mr. Murdoch about business trends in his industry. Besides I agree strongly about the impact of technology; as an example, I read many papers, magazines and reports - but almost always online.

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, presents another insightful perspective on the newspaper business in this TCS Daily column. He concludes that newspapers have seriously damaged their "core competency (and killer app) -- actual gathering and reporting of truthful, accurate, hard news. But I don't think it's too late for imaginative newspapers to save themselves."

Describing a new era newspaper he prescribes four rules for success:

"First, skip the "paper" part. ...... Their product is information. Paper is just an increasingly obsolete delivery platform.

Second, reporters would also all be photographers, equipped with digital cameras, and videographers, shooting clips of video that could be placed on the website along with their stories.

Third, stop insulting readers .... (and) give them the news, with as little bias as possible.

Fourth, incorporate readers and bloggers into the reporting, fact-checking, and revision of news stories. ... With digital cameras, cameraphones, etc., all over, there's usually somebody on the scene when something happens .... take advantage of that .... (and) of readers with special expertise in particular areas - use them as color commentators on stories in their areas. "

In the information technology (and particularly software) industry, it's recognized that a firm's real value is based on the intellectual power of the employees. That model seems applicable to the news business. So, anyone care to start a news(non)paper business on those rules ?

I'm not really comfortable with polling as an accurate indicator of Iraqi opinion since it can be strongly infuenced by the selection of respondents from specific areas. But, this poll does address the three main sects and may be a useful rough indicator. My main concern is the small number of Sunni respondents since their opinion is apt to relate closely to region and latest events. For example, the Sunni in Tal Afar would probably be much more optimistic after we cleared out the insurgents there AND established a reliable permanent police presence.

That said, you can find the all the data and methodology for this poll at the World Public Opinion site :
"The majority of Iraqis overall view the recent parliamentary elections as valid, are optimistic that their country is going in the right direction and feel that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been worth the costs. Sunnis, on the other hand, overwhelmingly reject the validity of the elections, see the country going in the wrong direction and regret the overthrow of Saddam.

The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Limited/D3 Systems, Inc. Polling was conducted January 2-5 with a nationwide sample of 1,150, which included an oversample of 150 Arab Sunnis (hereafter simply called Sunnis)."

Kurds and Shia results are similar enough to average together and get 80-85% saying the elections were fair, the new government will be legitimate, and Iraq is going in the right direction; only 5-6% of the Sunni feel that way. While 95% of the Kurd-Shia group say it was worth it to oust Saddam, only 13% of the Sunni feel that way. It's interesting that all groups feel more positive about ousting Saddam than they do about the other questions; even twice as many Sunni express a favorable opinion.

PS. This post is a copy from my other blog, Warmed Over Cold Warrior.

My objective here is to introduce a party game about Grading the Presidents, courtesy of D J Drummond. Lately, I've found that many of my friends, both Republicans and Democrats, have a negative view of how well President Bush stacks up against prior Presidents - and especially against President Reagan. I hold "W" in very high regard, primarily because I believe he has demonstrated excellent vision and leadership performance in the international arena and in national security.

Usually, dinner party discussions on this topic pick (uncover?) the ground rules and criteria in an ad hoc fashion as the talks proceed. Now, D J Drimmond, of PoliPundit blog has described a set of nine criteria for Presidential ratings; averaging the nine yields an overall 'GPA' grade. Obviosly, a group could decide to weigh some criteria more heavily than others, but I don't advise that ( mostly because his example reinforces my biases above). You can read all about how to play the game on My Report Card:

"It is fairly accepted as consensus that Reagan’s Presidency was the most successful in memory of any President in our generation, and so his ideals would appear to be the most salient in comparing performance. As a rule of thumb, the default for a President is “C”, that being the average grade in common use. If a President has done some damage to the country or his office in that category, then a lower grade would be used, although an “F” would not necessarily mean the President was completely incompetent or mendacious. If a President has done some service beyond the norm in a category, then a higher grade would be used, though even an “A ” would not necessarily mean perfection. While a bit more complex, matching up grades on the Reagan Ideal for not only Dubya, but his father, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Reagan himself helps demonstrate not only a proper comparison between the modern Presidents, but also demonstrate how some Presidents have had to recover from the damage done by a predecessor. With that in mind, I turn my attention to the nine selected categories:

Vision/Optimism
Communicating That Vision
National Security
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Domestic Spending/Size of Government
Federalism
Judicial Appointments
Leadership/Tenacity
Overall Grade "

Drummond continues with a discussion of his ratings in each category, ending with this summary and challenge:

"Overall Grade . Here is how the last five Presidents fared in my scoring:

Carter: GPA 1.06, earns a D
Reagan: GPA 4.03, earns an A
GHW Bush: GPA 3.00, earns a B
Clinton: GPA 1.91, earns a D+
GW Bush: GPA 3.88, earns an A-

Now the fun part: your thoughts!"

There have been many opinions and analyses written about the last three years of the Iraq Campaign. I've read quite a few and have no intention to create yet another. But there is one speech that struck me as both substantitive and straightforward. In his Cleveland speech on the War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush conveys the gritty reality of the current campaign, the adaptability and effectiveness of the military, and our nation's accomplishments and challenges - all in the context and importance of this campaign in a major global struggle.

I think every concerned American should read it; but read it not as a Republican or a Democrat, not as a Bush-admirer or a Bush hater, but as an American with an open mind about understanding a vitally important national security issue.

President Bush uses the town of Tal Afar, near the Syran border, as the setting to discusses the impact of the war on Iraqi citizens and the significance of the strategy of clear, hold, and build to them and to us. He does this in simple graphic language that puts you in the scene. He shows how we won; and notes that the town went from only 32,000 citzens daring to vote before we cleared out the terrorists to over 175,ooo afterwards. He emphasizes the statements of the mayor of Tal Afar as further proof of that success, saying:

"One of the most eloquent is the Mayor of Tal Afar, a courageous Iraqi man named Najim. Mayor Najim arrived in the city in the midst of the al Qaeda occupation, and he knows exactly what our troops have helped accomplish. He calls our men and women in uniform "lion-hearts," and in a letter to the troopers of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, he spoke of a friendship sealed in blood and sacrifice."

He continues by summarizing the state of Iraq campaign and putting it in the context of a global struggle against a dangerous ideology, comparable to our earlier struggles agains fascism and communism. He says it better than I can, so the rest is from the President :

"The last three years have tested our resolve. The fighting has been tough. The enemy we face has proved to be brutal and relentless. We're adapting our approach to reflect the hard realities on the ground. And the sacrifice being made by our young men and women who wear our uniform has been heartening and inspiring.

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali, or workers in Riyadh, or guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. In the war on terror we face a global enemy -- and if we were not fighting this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and trying to kill Americans across the world and within our own borders. Against this enemy, there can be no compromise. So we will fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

In the long run, the best way to defeat this enemy and to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed. And today, Germany and Japan are democracies -- and they are allies in securing the peace. In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Central and Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. And today, these nations are strong allies in the war on terror.

In the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated. Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in the Middle East; and as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.

The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people -- and we will settle for nothing less than victory. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their citizens on their own, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation. There will be more days of sacrifice and tough fighting before the victory is achieved. Yet by helping the Iraqis defeat the terrorists in their land, we bring greater security to our own.

As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. But it's important for the Iraqis to hear this: The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again. We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness. Americans have never retreated in the face of thugs and assassins, and we will not begin now."

Read it all, including the question & answer session.

After posting about the substantially different job prospects for US and French college grads , I read this Wall Street Journal article on The Decline of France that draws an interesting lesson for the continued health of the US economy from the French job law riots. According to the article the recent widespread rioting is : "the latest symptoms of an ailing democracy.

The troubles began with student unhappiness about a new 'First Job Contract' law, adopted by the National Assembly two weeks ago. They grew into a protest movement once the unions joined in. A nationwide strike has been called for next Tuesday. The merit of the new law isn't the issue here. One can hate the new law as well as the tactics employed by the mobs to kill it. The bill is designed to reduce the youth jobless rate of 23%. But if France wants to reverse a 30-year pattern of low growth and high unemployment, it needs to tear down labor law barriers across the board, not just for people under the age of 26. .......

Yes, the banners of student groups add color to the street demonstrations. But look closer. The force with real bite is the public-sector employee unions. Blue-collar workers long ago abandoned the union movement, leaving civil servants who, like Charles de Gaulle once said of France's cosseted farmers, are desperate to hold on to their "mediocre but secure" posts.

The government workforce -- one-quarter of the population -- can terrorize the majority by stopping the trains or turning off the electricity. In other words, the state funds its own opposition, which torpedoes even modest efforts to modernize France. By marching with the public-sector unions to defend this status quo, the boys and girls of the Sorbonne are saying they want to be "mediocre but secure," too. What a dream for a 20-year-old. And a useful warning to Americans about the danger of giving public-sector unions too much power as well."

I didn't realize that the French union movement was so heavily dominated by public sector workers, after "abandonment" by blue collar workers. That is pretty much the pattern of union membership in the US as well. Union membership has been decling in the private blue collar sector while rising in the public sector. That makes the French problems a good early warning sign of potential problems here.

The danger arises from the fact that the public sector does not have a natural economic 'fail-safe' control over excess union demands since the demands can always be met by increasing taxes. Private companies have a 'fail-safe' factor in their ability (neccesity really) to declare bankruptcy if they can't pay the demands. It creates sort of an economic mutual assured destruction aspect to negotiations that make it viable to reduce union demands or gains as preferable to no wages in a bankrupt firm.

The French lesson is that our government organizations need to maintain an equivalent form of legal leverage if we don't want to lose our competitive advantage as a dynamic economy.

The US economy and employment continue to be very good, although it may not always seem that way from much of what we read. Perhaps recounting some recent news will give a better perspective on how well off most of us are. Consider the difference in job prospects between US college grads and their French counterparts. Start with this item fromUS News:

"U.S. college graduates are facing the best job market since 2001, with business, computer, engineering, education and health care grads in highest demand, a report by an employment consulting firm showed on Monday.

'We are approaching full employment and some employers are already dreaming up perks to attract the best talent,' said John Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

The firm pointed to a survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers which showed employers plan to hire 14.5 percent more new college graduates than a year ago.The survey also found higher starting salaries this year. "

That comes from a dynamic economy that has brought overall unemployment down to less than 4.8%; but this year's grads may do even better than that. The contrast with France is stark. Their national unemployment rate is over double ours at 9.6% and is a sysytemic problem, with much higher rates for the young.

French employers are not beating down the colleges doors to recruit young talent. Instead the students and other demonstrators were rioting at the elite Sorbonne University and throughout France over their fears of a competitive job market. As Forbes reports French police arrest over 160 as protests over labor law turn violent: "Calm returned to Paris early Sunday after riot police teargassed scores of demonstrators in the wake of a demonstration by an estimated million people who took to the streets of France to protest a widely unpopular new labour law. "

The law in question is the government's First Employment Contract (CPE) ; from the article: "The CPE, a contract for under 26-year-olds that can be terminated in the first two years without explanation, is supposed to encourage employers to take on young staff.

Drawn up in the wake of riots late last year in high-immigration city suburbs -- where youth unemployment can be as high as 50 percent -- the CPE was approved by parliament last week as part of a wider equal opportunities law. But the opposition says the CPE is a step back from hard-won labour rights, and will make it more difficult than ever for young people to find long-term employment."

That's a strange form of socialistic logic being expressed there; and it explains why the French have such high unemployment. Once you get hired in France, labor rules make it practically impossible to fire you. That's great if you do get hired. But it makes employers very reluctant to take a chance on young unknown talent. Hence the extremely high national youth unemployment rate of over 20% , rising to 50% in the immigrant suburbs.

The CPE is hardly a draconian law; it merely gives employers the right to fire new workers who are under 26 years old with less than 2 years on the job. It gives a lot more youngsters a chance to get a first job, and may add some dynamic competitveness to the French economy. But I guess the French prefer that a few get lifetime job guarantees than that all get a chance to work - even though that choice locks them into high unemployment.

I don't begrudge the French their social choices, but the contrast does make me feel very fortunate to be an American and to know my children have a lot more opportunity here than anywhere else.

While seeking information for my last post on Pennsylvania lobbyist-disclosure rules, I learned about some other current issues worthy of discussion. Since the Governor's toothless edict on lobbying is about money influencing political decisions, it might be interesting to look at political decisions influencing money. Let's start with his signature issues of slot machine gambling and what may be a $2 Billion giveaway.

The gambling initiative was supposed to bring about major reductions in our property taxes while benefitting the schools, among other things. But it ran afoul of school districts that refused to sign up. Now there are different bills pending to reduce property taxes for some or all property owners, using mostly future gambling income or supplementing that with new taxes on sales or income. Reforming the way we pay for education is a story for another time.

For now, focus on what's missing in the current discussions and legislation ; namely how to allocate the $2-3 Billion that the state should get up front from the sales of those slot machine gambling licenses. $2-3 Billion ? Where?? Good Question.

You don't hear about it, because most of that money has been or is being given away by the State to a smal number of real estate and gambling investors, according to this Alleghany Institute for Public Policy report (pdf here). It's a classic case of political decisions influencing money - often, as here, not to the advantage of the citizens.

This PittsburghLIVE article calls it The state's $2.1 billion giveaway: "Legislation authorizing the slot machines set the price for a slots license at $50 million, even though experts argued that price would leave money on the table. One expert, Jeff Hooke, chairman of the Maryland Tax Education Foundation, claimed that 'by the time the remaining licenses are flipped, the State of Pennsylvania will have lost over $2 billion.'
Government officials rejected the arguments for holding an auction and now appear to have been terribly wrong. "

Once the State decided to issue 14 gambling licenses, those 14 licenses became a limited number of 'shares' in a state sponsored gambling monopoly and worth a considerable amount of money. The state knew this and planned to sell the licenses; but the real question was how to get the most money or the best price for them. When in doubt about fair value, a market approach (e.g. an auction) is a good idea. It's the way the federal government sells communications spectrum for cell phones and other uses. That was the approach that Mr. Hooke advised and that the State did not take; instead it is selling each license for $50 Million or a total of $700 Million (or $0.7 Billion).

Was that the best, or even a fair price? Probably not. Based on an analysis of the sales of three racetracks which will obtain licenses, there is a good case that the State could have sold each license for $200 Million, making the14 licenses worth a total of $2.8 Billion. If so, the State lost over $2 Billion in sales revenue. That would sure go a long way to help reduce property taxes.

Let's follow the money anaysis of three racetrack transactions in the article :
"The parent company of the Meadows, Magna Entertainment, which bought the track in 2001 for $53 million, just recently sold the track for $225 million -- an increase of $172 million or 325 percent. Pocono Downs, with an estimated value of $20 million, was sold for $280 million -- an increase of $260 million. Harrah's bought a half interest in Chester Downs for $275 million.

In addition to these payments, the new owners will still have to pay $50 million for the licenses themselves and for improvements at the tracks to accommodate the slots machines. The new owners of Pocono Downs, the Mohegan Tribal Game Authority, has estimated it will cost $175 million to upgrade the facility to handle slots while Harrah's estimates it will spend $100 million on upgrades at Chester Downs."

Looking at the difference between the racetrack "value" before slot licenses and after indicates, for example, that the ability to have slots increased the real estate value of Pocono Downs by $260 Million. Since a very savvy casino operator bought the track with the intention of paying another $50 Million for the license, it's reasonable to say that the total increased value of Pocono Downs, due solely to the ability to operate gambling there, was at least $310 Million . The State created that increased value by legislation that authorized gambling and allowed for one of 14 slot machine licenses to go to Pocono Downs. By selling the license for $50 Million, the State left a $260 Million windfall profit for the real estate investors who owned the track.

A more market-savvy approach, like an auction, would have kept a large part of that windfall profit for the State by forcing real estate investors and gambling operators to team on bids for the licenses. And they might well have bid more than $310 Million for slots at Pocono Downs. We don't know how much more, if any; but we do know that a very savvy gambling operator is planning to spend another $175 Million to upgrade the facilties. That tells us there is a lot of money for slots investment in a very limited number (14) of licenses. If the real value is about $300 Million, instead of $50 Million, then the State might have gotten a total of $4.2 Billion for the 14 licenses or $3.5 Billion more than it will get under the current approach.

The article follows the same logic to an even more conservative estimate of lost revenue:
"If the slots licenses can be very conservatively estimated to average $200 million each, then the 14 licenses (seven at racetracks, five stand-alone parlors, and two resort casinos) could have netted the commonwealth $2.8 billion. Instead, by selling them at $50 million, the state will collect $700 million, leaving $2.1 billion on the table -- the amount Mr. Hooke, as quoted earlier, estimated. Even if the number is $1.5 billion, it still represents a huge amount of money the state should have gone after rather than ill-advisedly settling for $50 million per license."

Well, that's the story of how poltical decisions can influence money. The decisions created a gambling industry, causing money to flow to a few investors and operators but did not get a very good price for the increased value created. The tax payer lost on the deal and can look forward to getting property tax reductions at the added cost of sales or income tax increases.

Some deal! The Governor got his Slots. Where's our Billions??

PS - If you are concerned about the corrupting influence of money on politics, look first and hard at how politcal decisions influence money and profits. Fix that process and the lobbyist problem will take care of itself.

"Wet Noodle"? Well, OK; perhaps "Belated Wet Noodle" is a better descriptor for the Governor's new edict requiring registration of lobbyists who want to influence his executive offices and departments. And that's being politely circumspect, at best. Let's start with some facts and then examine how Pennsylvania became the only state without a lobbyist-disclosure law.

From the LancasterOnline: "The Democratic governor's order, which applies to lobbying in state departments and agencies, is loosely based on the Senate's system. But it includes some new twists, such as requirements that lobbyists file their reports electronically and that all participants in lobbying 'coalitions' of three or more lobbyists register with the state Department of Administration. ..... The policy, an expansion of the Gov.'s Code of Conduct, contains no penalties for violations because it was established by an executive order, Rendell said.

The Senate policy provides for stripping violators of Senate lobbying privileges, although that has never happened in the three years it has been in effect, Crompton said."


Note that the Senate has an existing informal policy with some teeth, unlike the Governor's order. It's informal because the Senate adopted it as an immediate self- discipline action after the PA Supreme Court struck down the original Lobbyist-Disclosure law in 2002. So, we did have a law that was struck down in court, but the Governor did not get around to doing anything about it for his branch of government until now - almost 4 years later. Oh, and the disclosure data must be filed electronically into a data base that may not be available to the public for six months (election time?). Taking that long to issue a simple toothless 'executive order' seems a good qualification for a "belated wet noodle" action.

But that title may be too polite. Let's review the who's and how's of that court action and its aftermath. Start with this delightful article that considers Lobbyist regulation an exercise in absurdity: "Most pundits viewed Rendell's edict as either a political ploy or unenforceable decree only marginally better than nothing. Given the history in the only state in the nation without a lobbyist disclosure law, such reaction does not seem inappropriate."

The article recounts the history of the successful law suite by a lobbyist, Mr. Gmerek, to rescind the law on the basis that only the court ( and not the legislature) can regulate the actions of lawyers (including lawyers engaged as lobbyists). Mr. Gmerek obtained the services of a politically prominent lawyer, Mr. John Estay, to help win the case. With the case won and Rendell the new Governor, Mr. Estay immediately became chief of staff to the Governor in January 2003. Then, last July, Ms. Patty Welty, the governor's deputy secretary for legislative affairs, was hired by Mr. Gmerek as a senior lobbyist. If this is hard to follow, the article provides a nice summary:

"Rendell is demanding a state lobbyist disclosure law. His chief aide, Estey, successfully killed the previous state lobbyist disclosure law while working for Gmerek, who recently hired as a lobbyist another one of Rendell's top assistants, Welty.

The staffs of the governor's office and one of the state's major lobbyists appear virtually interchangeable. No wonder scant attention was paid to Rendell's election-year plea for lobbying reform."

The less politely circumspect might call this a revolving door policy coupled with a sleight of hand publicity ploy at election time. But I like the image of a belatedly swung wet noodle.

UPDATE : Corrected to reflect PA Supreme Court decision date in 2002, not 2000 as originally mis-typed.

My earlier post, here , generated a comment about the Oxford Research International poll that produced the Iraqi opinion statistics used in the article. We agree that the poll was positive, but the comment asks for more detailed demographic breakout data. Since I don't have any more information than is available at Oxford or the BBC, I thought I'd mention a blogger who is much more knowledgeable about polls and polling techniques and has some interesting data about terrorism.

D.J.Drummond posts extensively on these topics on the PoliPundit and Stolen Thunder blogs. He has begun a Stolen Thunder series onBlood and Bigotry . This excerpt from Part 2 of the series develops a very interesting insight from available data:

"According to the Terrorism Knowledge Base, since the September 11th attacks 45.6% of all terrorist attacks have happened in the Middle East and 57.7% of all fatalities from such attacks (here). North America has only received 0.5% of the attacks and 0.04% of the fatalities. Even Western Europe has only suffered 10.6% of the attacks, and only 1.4% of the fatalities. Only 2.17% of terrorist attacks have been against military targets in that time, while 2.53% of the attacks have been terrorists attacking other terrorist groups. 17.69% of the attacks have been attempts to destabilize governments, with 12.27% against private businesses, 7.34% against police and 6.02% against transportation, like buses and trains.

What this means in plain English, is that the terrorists are attacking Arabs more often than Americans, and civilians much more often than police. The terrorists are trying to destabilize Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt, far more than they are doing anything in France or England or Spain, no matter what we see on TV. The terrorists are worried about the Iraqi Army and Police, and about regular people. One must consider the import of that fact."

I think that's an interesting insight; it's important to keep a broad perspective of events to understand an enemy's intentions and strategy as well as his real strength or weakness.

A while ago, I posted that that Rendell had vetoed the Voter ID bill; my timing was off ( just call it foresight) based on this news item today - Rendell vetoes voter ID bill.

Gov. Rendell stated that the bill, which required voters to show one of many easily obtainable forms of ID, would create a hurdle to people voting. He also said government should make it easier for people to cast their ballots, not harder. As a PoliPundit blogger phrased it: "Let’s hope making it easier doesn’t cause the vote tallies to exceed the registered voters."

Rendell said he doesn't think voter fraud is a major problem. Perhaps he views it as an opportunity instead. That would be understandable considering the substantial Democratic turnout in Philly which has always been dubious given the location of polling places in abandoned buildings and in the homes of politicians. And this year, Rendell may need all the help he can create. The last Strategic Vision poll shows him in a dead heat (44% to 44%) with Lynn Swann.

Don't underestimate the importance of assuring voter integrity in large areas like Philly. In the 2004 election, PA went "blue" by about 120,000 votes with Kerry winning Philadelphia County by 400,000 votes. In other words, all of PA, except for Philly, went for Bush by a 280,000 vote plurality. That's why this veto is far from unexpected, especially in this election year.

The New York Times editorial page expresses great outrage over the prospect that ordinary citizens and bloggers could be allowed to speak their mind about politics prior to an election. This ability, which most of us thought was protected by the First Ammendment, is endangered by a recent court interpretation of the Campaign Finance Law. Since the court interpretation is seen by many as not following the will of Congress when it enacted the legislation, the Congress is doing it's duty by stating it's intentions more clearly in new legislation that has strong bi-partisan backing. Up for a vote this week is House Bill HR1606, aptly named 'The Online Freedom of Speech Act'.

But where the Congress and I see freedom, the NYT sees anInternet Campaign Loophole ; ranting that: " For all the avowals to put the brakes on ethical lapses, the House is showing its true colors with an attempt to turn the Internet into a free-flowing big-money trough for uncontrolled political spending."

The editorial is full of overblown and false rhetoric. I could pick it apart, but that's already been done here very well here , and here .

So, I'll content myself with noting that the NYT starts it's rant with a concern about "big-money" "free-flowing" on the Internet. Now that's clearly a false statement about HR1606; but it's probably true that the NYT fears the loss of some "big-money" without it's monopoly on political speech when it counts most. ( Congressman Jack Kingston share that view in his Blog post on "Elitist Media v. Bloggers: H.R.1606").

Wondering if you are getting both sides of the story in Iraq ? Try this article by Richard Nadler in NRO . It's full of interesting facts presented by some smart articulate ex- military folks.

You can learn about things like increases in electrical supply, doubling of oil revenues, enormous increases in cell phones, cars, and satellite TVs; as well as a 60 percent decline of infant mortality and improved access to schooling and medical care. All happening now in post-Saddam Iraq and discussed by Lt. Indyk, returned from a tour in Iraq.

And there's former Corporal Gibson talking about how, in 6 months in 2005, the number of civilian tips informing on insurgents increased from 483 to 4,700, as numerous Sunni tribes declared outright war on al Qaeda. In Gibson's words - "The insurgency in Iraq is being dismantled by the equivalent of a Tips hotline."

A key point about modern information warfare is made by former Marine Sergeant and combat reporter J. D. Johannes - "Everyone knows that the history of war is written by the victors. But the war in Iraq has shattered that truism. In Iraq, history is being written by the losers. Baathist kidnappers and jihadist bombers are planning their operations not to win the war in Iraq, but to win it in America. To that end, they are assessing what American news organizations are willing to cover, and what American reporters are willing to risk. As an immediate result, many of the feeds on the nightly news are coming from Arabic sources that are either non-professional in their journalistic standards or hostile to American policy aims. As a long-term result, the American public is broadly misinformed on a war that Coalition arms and Iraqi democrats are, in fact, winning."

Read the article. If you want to see and hear more from these men, check this post to Watch Some TV and Feel Really Good.

I like watching movies; but I don't watch many of the latest greatest releases. Some movies are great entertainment and keep me fascinated; some are great soporifics and keep me well-rested. I like being able to pick and choose to suit my moods and needs. NETFLIX , with it's 50,000 DVD titles, works much better for me than movie theaters.

I never thought much about any "cultural message" to be found in my lack of interest in most new movies or the Oscars, which I never watch. I just accepted it as a personal preference. Nor did I ponder much about the news items that most (all?) leading nominees for the Oscars had relatively poor box office returns. Although it seems an odd culture that gives awards to the least successful, I ascribed that to the importance of show in show business.

But Peggy Noonan has thought more seriously about these things and has an interesting perception that she writes about in OpinionJournal :
"You don't have to be a genius to figure out that viewership of the Oscars is down because movie attendance itself is down, and that movie attendance is down because Hollywood isn't making the kind of movies that compel people to leave their homes and go to the multiplex.

There are those who think Hollywood hates America, and they have reason to think it. ..... I don't think it is true that studio executives and producers hate America. ..... I think they find it hard to find America, ..... What they care about a great deal is status, and in their community status is bestowed by the cultural left. ........ Which gets us to George Clooney, and his work. George Clooney is Hollywood now. ....... (and regarding his Oscar speech) I don't think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn't even know he's not heroic. He thinks making a movie in 2005 that said McCarthyism was bad is heroic.

How could he think this? Maybe part of the answer is in this: The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they've experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven't experienced life; they've experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life. This is how he could take such an unnuanced, unsophisticated, unknowing gloss on the 1950s and the McCarthy era. He just absorbed media about it. And that media itself came from certain assumptions and understandings, and myths.

Most Americans aren't leading media, they're leading lives."

I think this is a good point about the dis-connect between Hollywood film makers and many of us film viewers; and it may apply equally well to many of the highly PR'ed "must read" books that are so hard to finish reading. Maybe the Oscars are the reward for good behavior in the Media Trap.

No. It's not another protest march. It's a natural phenomenon; but it may be the harbinger of future protest marches. This Reuters article reports the Sun's next 11-year cycle could be 50 pct stronger: "Sun-spawned cosmic storms that can play havoc with earthly power grids and orbiting satellites could be 50 percent stronger in the next 11-year solar cycle than in the last one, scientists said on Monday."

I thought there was something missing the article. So did James Taranto who notes in the OpinionJournal that:"What Reuters doesn't mention is what effect this may have on the Earth's weather. But a BBC story from 2002 reports that 'German scientists have found a significant piece of evidence linking cosmic rays to climate change':"

The amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth is largely controlled by the Sun, and many solar scientists believe the star's indirect influence on Earth's global climate has been underestimated.

Some think a significant part of the global warming recorded in 20th Century may in fact have its origin in changes in solar activity--not just in the increase in fossil-fuel-produced greenhouse gases."

So if in fact the solar cycle turns out to be particularly active, we can forecast that there will be no letup in 'global warming' alarmism."

Drudge Reports cites a reference to proposed New Jersey Assembly bill A1327. The bill's summary states:
"This bill would require an operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish, maintain and enforce a policy requiring an information content provider who posts messages on a public forum website either to be identified by legal name and address or to register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website.

The bill requires an operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.

In addition, the bill makes any operator or Internet service provider liable for compensatory and punitive damages as well as costs of a law suit filed by a person damaged by the posting of such messages if the operator or Internet service provider fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required by section 2 of the bill."

I think there are too many lawyers and not enough freedoms in NJ. Reminds me of the great road sign that PA once had on it's side of the PA-NJ border - it said 'AMERICA BEGINS HERE'

I think this as a great decision. Even though the lawyers at PowerLine felt it was a slam dunk case, it still sends a resounding and important message. Read the details and links at Power Line: A FAIR decision:
"The Supreme Court, in the case of Rumsfeld v. FAIR, has unanimously reversed the Third Circuit's ruling that the Solomon Amendment is unconstitutional. The Third Circuit had held that requiring colleges and universities to treat military recruiters like all other employer-recruiters as a condition of receiving federal funds violates the First Amendment. By an 8-0 vote, the Supreme Court disagreed. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Alito did not participate. There were no concurring opinions.

...... We should also congratulate our friend Dean Polsby of George Mason University Law School, who filed an outstanding amicus brief supporting the government's position. ......

Dean Polsby had this to say to Power Line about the decision:
"This is really a stinging rebuke, not only to FAIR but to an entire industry that has become complacent and self-indulgent. Many law professors really do believe, with the late Justice Brennan, that their own strongly-held policy preferences are all encoded somehow in the Constitution. This is a timely reminder that it just isn’t so.""

Dean Polsby's comment is on target. Let's hope for more changes in other anti-government university policies or a else a simple refusal to take tax dollars. In particular, it should be a wake-up call to the guild of language professors who feel entittled to take federal funds intended to create a body of linguists for national security needs while obstructing students from pursuing those needs.

When my wife and I were looking for a place to retire with our horses, we started looking first at Vermont, with a plan to continue south to the Great Smokey's. We never got past NE PA and are grateful for our good fortune. A recent NYTimes article reminded me of that decision and of some similarities and differences between Pennsylvania, Vermont and Europe.

Let's start with four excerpts from the NYT, Vermont Losing Prized Resource as Young Depart:
"Vermont, with a population of about 620,000, now has the lowest birth rate among states. ..... Vermont also has the highest rate of students attending college out of their home state — 57 percent, up from 36 percent 20 years ago. Many do not move back. The total number of 20- to 34-year-olds in Vermont has shrunk by 19 percent since 1990."

"While Vermont's population of young people shrinks, the number of older residents is multiplying because Vermont increasingly attracts retirees from other states. It is now the second-oldest state, behind Maine. Arthur Woolf, an economist at the University of Vermont, said that by 2030, there would be only two working-age Vermonters for every retiree."

"The worker shortage recently forced (Gov.) Douglas to say he would not drive out illegal immigrants working on Vermont's dairy farms. "I respect the laws of the United States, of course," Mr. Douglas said. "But the cows have to be milked."There is also a serious housing shortage, with mountains and environmental restrictions barring building in many places."

"And Daniel M. Fogel, the University of Vermont's president, says some have not grasped the seriousness of the problem. They believe a shrinking population will prevent overdevelopment, but these "antisprawl folks are the very people who tend to value very highly the environmental protections and the social programs, which the state is not going to be able to afford if the working population shrinks," Mr. Fogel said."

It seems appropriate that Vermont, one of our most eastern and liberal states, should be afflicted with the European social problem of too few young workers to support an ageing population resulting in the need for immigrant labor to fill the gap. But, I do not think there is a real westward trend of creeping socialist-welfare malaise from Europe; although the article does raise that image.

I do think Vermont's situation reflects some of the problems (incompatibilities?) of trying to have both a rural working environment and a rural leisure environment; and that's a problem we share in Pennsylvania. For, example, Mr. Fogel's is absolutely realistic in contrasting the desire for anti-sprawl and environmental protection with the ability of the working, tax-paying population to afford those policies. We face that problem today in NEPA; and as we pursue regional zoning, we may also face a reinforcing common problem of having "a serious housing shortage, with mountains and environmental restrictions barring building in many places".

Another common problem is the shrinking of the younger workforce. I do not think our declines are quite so severe as Vermont's, but they are real. (Don't get too concerned about large declines that cite the 20-34 year-olds from 1990, since that population segment includes 10 years of the Baby Boomers; hence, the declines may not represent an exodus so much as just folks getting older.)

These problems are not insurmountable or inevitable and there are lessons to be learned from how Vermont handles them. Perhaps, Vermont can offer some views of our future as well as of their mountains.

The Morning Call Online begins the first in an occasional series on where Republican Sen. Rick Santorum and his likely Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., stand on key issues with questions on Iraq. This is a good series - simple questions and brief answers.The following excerpts show some considerable differences of opinion between the two candidates (on troop withdrawel, neither advocates a timetable) :

1) Do you believe the United States was justified in invading Iraq? Why or why not?

CASEY: Knowing what we know now about (weapons of mass destruction) and the faulty rationale for going to war, there wouldn't have been a vote in the first place.

SANTORUM: Yes. I believe that toppling Saddam Hussein's regime was the right choice for our nation's security. The intelligence available to us at that time demonstrated that Saddam Hussein posed a grave danger to our nation and to the world.

2) Can you provide examples of what you think the United States is doing either right or wrong in Iraq?

SANTORUM: I believe that we have not accurately communicated with the American people about the successes and the challenges that we are facing in Iraq. Earlier this year, I raised these concerns with President Bush. (Santorum has asked President Bush to commission a panel to look at the situation in Iraq. The American people, he wrote the president, ''should hear objective and unbiased assessments of both military and civil operations ongoing in Iraq.'')

CASEY: The Bush Administration planning during the post-combat phase has been disappointing. For example, the administration erred by: not adequately planning for the non-combat phase of the Iraq war; after the invasion, shifting intelligence forces away from the insurgency and toward finding (weapons of mass destruction) in order to support the Bush justification for war; and dragging their feet in the training of Iraqi troops. � We need to build a political consensus within Iraq and develop a strategy among neighboring countries � . We must also build Iraq's capacity to govern and provide vital services to the Iraqi citizens. And we need to speed the transfer authority to the Iraqi security forces. (Casey also said U.S. troops are doing an ''outstanding job.'')

3) Please explain if your position pertaining to the Iraq war has changed, and if so, how.

CASEY: Like most Americans, my feelings toward the war in Iraq changed as more evidence about the buildup to the war was revealed. If it was known then what we know now about (weapons of mass destruction) and the faulty rationale for going to war, there wouldn't have been a vote to go to war in the first place.

SANTORUM: I continue to believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power and working to establish a Democratic government in Iraq is the right choice for our nation's security.

4) In what ways do you think America's image has been affected by the war in Iraq?

SANTORUM: There are many who believe that we made the wrong decision to topple Saddam Hussein's regime and give the Iraqi people the chance to live freely and establish a democratic government. However, I believe that years from now, when this conflict is over and Iraq is stabilized, we will see that this war was worth the sacrifice because the Middle East will be anchored by democracy not terrorism.

CASEY: The Bush Administration's go-it-alone foreign policy has alienated our allies and has weakened international support for our activities around the globe. This tarnishing of our image internationally can and must be repaired.

5) Do you believe the Iraq war has prevented terrorism in the United States? Why or why not?

CASEY: Our original initiative to destroy the haven for terrorists in Afghanistan was the correct thing to do, and it was initially very effective. We should be intensifying our efforts to destroy al-Qaida. It's hard to make the same kind of positive case in Iraq. Our troops have had success battling the insurgents, but there is also mounting evidence that Iraq is becoming a haven for terrorists.

SANTORUM: Yes. We cannot ignore the fact that we have not seen another attack on our homeland since Sept. 11, 2001.

Simple questions and brief answers; you can draw your own conclusions.

My personal take is that Casey dodged the last question because he doesn't want to admit the point that Santorum makes in his answer. Casey's views reflect most Democrat positions and show a serious lack of understanding of the nature of the threat facing this country from Islamist terrorsts. If he understood our security situation better, he might see that it's a good sign to have terrorists fighting in Iraq rather than attacking in America.

I've done some posts on Bush's India visit and his initiative there. When Casey says Bush has isolated us, perhaps he should count the populations - starting with 400 million in all of Europe(with a declining birth rate) and over 1,000 million in India(with an increasing birth rate). By the way, India knows it has a real problem with Islamist terrorists; and Europe has been trying to avoid facing their problem. That may account for some of India's friendliness to us and our policies; and presage a shift in Europe's view as they recognize their in-country problems.

My earlier post on Voting Machine Replacement Questions addressed a local court ruling against replacement of machines in one county due, at least in part, to a state constitutional requirement to have voters approve any cahnge in the voting method. That ruling was reversed recently.

As PennLive reports: "Pennsylvania's highest court ruled Thursday that a county may replace its mechanical lever voting machines without voter approval in a case that pitted new federal election laws against the state constitution."

It's amazing how fast the legal system can work at times - especially when incentivized by the need to capture a share of $135 million in federal funds.

It's hard to keep up with some of the really good bloggers; and
Power Line is one of the best. They have two posts up now that are worth a look.

One is titled "The AP clarifies what the AP muddied". It discusses the AP false story about Bush and the Katrina tapes; note that Power Line had debunked it almost as soon as the story broke -- but most main stream news media went ranting away without any fact-checking.

The other is " President Bush, as the Indians saw him" and is a great summary, with photos, from Indian newspapers of the President's recent visit. It seems Bush got a pretty happy reception from Indians and good reportage from their press. Quite a contrast from the US media performance as exemplified in the first post.

If you are interested in a conservative or libertarian slant on public policy issues in Pennsylvannia, check out the upcoming Pennsylvania Leadership Conference , which will be held on Friday, March 31, 2006 and Saturday, April 1, 2006 at the Sheraton Four Points Hotel near Harrisburg, PA.

The featured speakers include former Congressman Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's nightly 'Scarborough Country'; U.S. Senator Rick Santorum ; Governor candidate Lynn Swann; Club for Growth president and former CongressmanPat Toomey; and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal. The conference agenda and registration details are on the website.

I see quite a few articles and blogs are celebrating the US-India deal with me. Of course the NYT and some others are stuck too deeply in examining grains of sand to see the sun rising over the horizon.

James Bennett and the Vodkapundit are welcoming India to the Anglosphere. Bennett makes an interesting projection :
"As to where India stands with the Anglosphere, well, that's a work in progress. The key issue at this point is the rate at which English fluency and Anglosphere-linked jobs (IT and call-center) penetrate below the traditional English-speaking elites of India. That appears to be happening at a fast, maybe even exponential rate. At some point before too long (probably between 2015 and 2020) India will have more home users of English than the US; not much longer afterwards, there could be more home users of English in India than the rest of the Anglosphere combined. This (especially given the cheapness of electronic publishing and dissemination) will mean that the bulk of English-language media will be produced in India. (If Bollywood learns how to appeal to US audiences, which it eventually will, that will also be true of visual media as well.) That means that not only will the Anglosphere change India, but India will change the Anglosphere.

Not many people are thinking about what this really means. They should be. Bush's trip to India, and the deal made there today, may end up being the single most consequential act of the Bush presidency."

I Agree! Or at least one of the top two. And add Rich Lowry and The NRO Editors to the chorus.

(This a 2fer post, since I originally put these thoughts on my Warmed Over Cold Warrior blog; but they seem worth the duplication. )

As expected, President Bush has made a major nuclear policy agreement with India, setting both countries on the path to what may become our most significant 21st century alliance. As this news report states :
"Reversing decades of U.S. policy, President Bush ushered India into the world's exclusive nuclear club Thursday with a landmark agreement to share nuclear reactors, fuel and expertise with this energy-starved nation in return for its acceptance of international safeguards. .....

'I'm trying to think differently, not stay stuck in the past,' said Bush, who has made improving relations with India a goal of his administration. Celebrating their agreement, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, 'We have made history today, and I thank you.'

"The U.S.-India nuclear deal was seen as the centerpiece of better relations between the world's oldest and most powerful democracy and the world's largest and fastest-growing one.
India has more than 1 billion people, and its booming economy has created millions of jobs along with consumer demands that have attracted American businesses. ..... Bush acknowledged that Washington and New Delhi were estranged during the Cold War, when India declared itself a nonaligned nation but tilted toward Moscow. "Now the relationship is changing dramatically," he said."

This agreement has grown from an early Bush administration intitiative to shift America foriegn policy from an Europe-Centric focus to one emphasizing Asia and the Mid-East as well. In doing this, India is the key partner. India shares our democratic political and economic philosophies and is on the path to becoming the world's most populous country and largest economy. It has a higher birth rate than China, has embraced market economics and is investing heavily in educatiing its populace - and we share a common language and political heritage from the British.

There will be many more practical political and diplomatic hurdles to be worked out over the years; but, I believe, this is the event marking a second major paradigm shift for our national policy. I expect this recognition of national interest, friendship and partnering will prove as important to our future as the recognition of the need to wage war against a global network of Islamist terrorists and to deny them the Mid-East as a breeding ground.

In both cases, the key element was the presence of a national leader with the ability to recognize the pattern of global reality, the vision to see over traditional paradigms to a novel approach, and the determination to pursue that path in the face of internal and external obstacles. In my mind, truly great leadership is all about getting the really big directions right and pushing the nation in that direction. I think President Bush is doing that; I think he will fare much better in future history than in current polls.

Last week, I saw a number of news article with ledes or themes about a decline in growth of family earnings and net worth based on the just released triennial Survey of Consumer Finances by the Federal Reserve. Some articles, like this one, were well-balanced and informative about the differences between mean and median figures, referring to median as capturing the "typical" family and to mean as "average", although even that is mis-leading to most people. The measure, "average wealth", includes the fortunes of everyone from a pauper to Bill Gates, which tends to produce a high "average" number that does not represent any real "average" family.

Most news articles had a negative tone about the economy. None discussed how much positive growth, in both income and net worth, there has been for real people. To do that, you need to compare the wealth of today's 50 year old family head to the wealth of a 40 year old family head ten years ago. Real people get older; so you can't just look at static statistical snapshots if you want to see the trends for real families over their lifetimes.

Michael Barone has done that analysis and reports in this blog post on The wealth of the nation:

"Last week, the Federal Reserve released a report on family finances and household net worth. As usual, press accounts focused on the fact that most Americans don't have significant wealth. The Fed report typically leads off by discussing the differences between the top and bottom income groups—though no one is locked into these groups over time—and pays relatively little attention to the differences in wealth between age groups. But of course this misses the biggest part of the story. Wealth accumulation is a lifetime project. In no society known to man do young people, aside from a handful of heirs, have significant net worth."

He provides a sound analytic discussion on economic trends and offers two conclusions:

"Conclusion 1: Most Americans do accumulate significant wealth during the course of their lifetime. Americans 55 to 64 in 2004 had median wealth of $248,700. In other words, the ordinary person accumulated a quarter of a million dollars. That's not enough wealth to live on. But it doesn't include the present value of Social Security benefits or defined benefit pension plans.

Conclusion 2: Most Americans are continuing to enjoy significant wealth increases over time. The following table compares the wealth of people by age group in 2004 with the wealth of people in the age group 10 years younger in 1995. (These are not precisely the same people, because 2004 is only nine years after 1995, but the fit is pretty close.) I'll classify them by birth years from the 2004 groups.

Birth year Wealth '95 Wealth '04 Increase Percent increase
1960–69 $14,800 $69,400 $54,600 367%
1950–59 $64,200 $144,700 $80,500 125%
1940-49 $116,800 $248,700 $131,900 113%
1930-39 $141,900 $190,100 $48,200 34%
1900-29 $136,600 $163,100 $26,500 19%

The two oldest age groups have the lowest dollar increases in net worth—but they show increases in net worth, even though by 2004 they had all passed the traditional retirement age of 65, beyond which people tend to draw down net worth. Those born in the 1940s showed a whopping increase in net worth, in both dollar and percentage terms.

As for the two youngest age groups, those born in the 1950s had a lower percentage increase in net worth, but in dollar terms their increase was greater than that of those born in the 1960s. And those people—of the age when home equity starts rising and college debts are paid off—showed a huge percentage increase and a rise in net worth from the negligible to something starting to be considerable."

Read it all; you'll learn a lot and never look at static statistics the same again.

There is good news about educational opportunities for rural areas in this New York Times article, altough it doesn't quite say that. From the article:
"It took just a few paragraphs in a budget bill for Congress to open a new frontier in education: Colleges will no longer be required to deliver at least half their courses on a campus instead of online to qualify for federal student aid.

That change is expected to be of enormous value to the commercial education industry. Although both for-profit colleges and traditional ones have expanded their Internet and online offerings in recent years, only a few dozen universities are fully Internet-based, and most of them are for-profit ones. .....

The Bush administration supported lifting the restriction on online education as a way to reach nontraditional students."

The NYT isn't completely happy with this improvement, harping on it as a case of Republicans giving benefits to private for profit colleges. I think the reporter overplays this, since many public and not for profit colleges can take advantage of this change - and there are a lot more of them out there.

Far more important is the encouragement for all colleges to offer more online courses to more students. Current law has inhibited the growth of online education by all types of colleges due to the threat of loss of federal aid if more than half the classes were not given on campus. I recalll that being a concern at some community and state colleges as they explored offering a significant number of online courses to students in rural areas.

The real beneficiaries of this change are students who can't get to campus easily. That class of students includes both working adults and all rural residents. With the greatly increased availability of high bandwidth internet service, this legislation should help a lot of rural folks improve their education with the help of federal student aid. And, hopefully, will encourage more colleges to offer more courses online.