You can do it to the country

but apparently you can't do it to a private company.

from CNN:

U.S. prosecutors on Monday charged David Stockman, a former chief executive of Collins & Aikman, and seven other former company officials with fraud and conspiracy related to alleged financial misdeeds at the bankrupt auto parts maker.

Stockman, a former Reagan administration budget director, and three others are accused of misleading the company's investors to hide its declining financial condition, according to an indictment brought by federal prosecutors in Manhattan.

It sounds rather similar to what Stockman was doing for the Reagan administration, which he allegedly suffered remorse for. Unfortunately we can't prosecute him, or the rest of the Reagan administration, for what they did to the US financially.

More important, we can't prosecute the even more irresponsible Bush II administration. At least we can't prosecute them for this. We can prosecute them for so much more, and we have to, if only to get them out of office before they do further damage.

Republicans are in their own little world

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

Yes, Senator Chuck Hagel actually believes that you "might see calls for [Bush's] impeachment" in the future. Someone should alert him to the fact that a very large proportion of Americans, possibly a majority, want the president impeached. It is long since that large majorities said they wanted him impeached if he lied about Iraq. It is long since that that he has been proved to have lied about Iraq. IMPEACH HIM ALREADY!!!

This is from Op-edNews.com:

Sentiment for impeachment among several impeachment polls conducted in early 2006 ranged from 30%-42%. However, by October support was increasing. A Newsweek poll, which was hardly publicized, found 51% of Americans supported impeachment, with 44% opposed.[*]

But the major media have increasingly ignored these polls. As impeachment sentiment has risen, so has the reluctance of the press to address the issue.

Did he confess to the Lindbergh kidnapping, too?

From Ann Wright at Truthout:

Graham said with a twinkle in his eye that "Americans don't mind torture; they really don't." Then he smiled broadly, almost gleefully, and said that the US had used certain interrogation techniques on "Sheikh Mohammed, one of the 'high-value' targets" - techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

If they tortured him, how can we believe anything he says? Or doesn't Senator Graham care how truthful his confession is, as long as it helps Republicans win elections?

The US budget deficit - What is to be done?

Here it is, the reality:

Deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as far as even the lying Bush White House can figure it.

A gross federal debt that amounts to more than a third of annual GNP, with no plan to pay it off. Ever.

It's funny how this issue has gone from being a conservative issue to being a liberal issue, but it's really a result of conservatives not really understanding Keynesian economics. Keynesian spending policies are supposed to be countercyclical. When the business cycle is going down, you run a deficit to stimulate the economy out of the recession. (The exact mix of fiscal (spending) and monetary (money supply, i.e. interest rate) policy is a matter of policy, but the role of the government in stimulating the economy out of a recession is accepted by most economists these days.) When the business cycle is on the upturn (what used to be popularly referred to as "good times") the government should run a surplus to take some of the 'irrational exuberance' out of the economy and cool it down. That's what BIll Clinton was doing during the 1990s boom. Say what you will about Bill, but he was an economic policy wonk.

There's a new kind of "vulgar Keynesianism" on the right (apologies to vulgar Marxists) that has resulted in the assumption that deficits don't matter. This new conservative orthodoxy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what modern Keynesian economics and its countercyclical policies are all about. These people may understand the microeconomics of running a business enterprise (although Bush doesn't), but they do not understand the macroeconomics of running the American economy.

Someone else asks "Are conservatives naïve or just plain stupid?" I wonder myself, but I think that either way what this really means is that conservatives (or most of them) just don't understand modern Keynesian economics. I honestly would like to make survey macroeconomics a required course in American universities. But back to economic policy.

I can only see four ways out of this. There's not enough fat in the budget to cut, and ending foreign aid won't solve this.

Oh, and don't even THINK about not paying it. The 14th Amendment says you can't even QUESTION the national debt.

1. Throw out the Defense Department. There's enough expenditure there to balance the budget, but there goes America's stature as a world power. There goes the safety of Americans in the world, I would say. It would be effective national suicide.

2. Drop Social Security. That seems to be Bush's preferred solution, but he can't get any traction for it. Fuggedaboutit.

3. Print money. This one doesn't get much attention because of the US's bad experience with inflation in the 1970s. I wouldn't favor it, but you could pay off the debt by printing money. As more and more of this debt is held overseas, this may become a more and more popular solution. But it would wreak havoc on the economy, and it would be VERY difficult to get the effects out of the economy. Just ask anyone in Latin America.

4. Raise taxes. I mean, honestly, they shouldn't have been cut in the first place. This administration's solution to everything is to cut taxes. It's time to get real about the economy. We have to repeal the Bush tax cuts. Then we have to figure out what to do about the economy, which may involve raising taxes even higher to pay for the accumulated debt. Of course the details will depend on the business cycle, not to mention policy considerations, but it's time to stop worrying about being called a "tax and spend" liberal. It's better than being a "spend and spend and spend" conservative.

The media horse race and the presidency

I don't want any more unqualified presidents. I don't want any more Fundamentalists, or ideologues who want to abolish Social Security, or anyone else with fringe ideas, either, but the worst problem with Bush is his complete lack of qualifications (and I don't mean credentials, or other paper qualifications) to be president.

Hillary is a nice person, who knows a lot about health insurance but not much else. Most of the people who back her seem to think she would bring Bill back to the White House, and that is what they are really interested in. Nineties nostalgia is what it's all about. Bring back the nineties.

Barack Obama is wonderful. I love him, but as a first term Senator, with no foreign policy experience, and little national experience, he's just not qualified yet. He's got plenty of years to go (I know, we thought that about Jack Kennedy, too, until his assassination - but you can't worry about that except to try to prevent it) so there's no hurry to make him president.

Edwards? Please. He couldn't carry his own state last time, and didn't even run for Senate from there because his own fellow North Carolinians were ready to dump him. His whole thing seems to be that he's southern, and the Democrats have to nominate a southerner if they expect to win the White House again. Maybe, but Edwards won't win the south.

All of these people will go down in flames in the general election. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for them. I can't imagine voting for any Republican over any of them, but I know they're going to lose the general election.

General Clark is the most qualified to lead the country out of the two wars we are in. If you're worried that electing a general will lead to militarism or more wars, there's no historical precedent for it. Of the six professional military generals we've had for president (Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower) only Eisenhower has had a war during his term. He inherited the Korean War and shut it down as fast as he could. Eisenhower is also the only president who has warned us about the military industrial complex.

General Clark promises to do the same thing to Bush's war in Iraq, and he is the only candidate who knows how to do it safely. Furthermore, he knows as much about economic issues as the other candidates, and is the only candidate who will unabashedly call himself a liberal. But somehow the media keep ignoring him.

He's the only candidate who knows what he's doing. All he has to do to get my vote is to ask for it.

Oh, and he's a southerner, if you're worried about that. I don't care. I'll vote for him anyway. ;-)

Secretary Rice's history lesson

I already said she had the wrong qualifications for an administration with two wars going on in the Islamic world.

Keith Olbermann lets the world know just how bad it is.

Bush losing even his new friends

Remember how Bush's "tough" policies had (supposedly) finally tamed Colonel Qaddafi? How Bush's invasion of Iraq had convinced Qaddafi to stop terrorism and turn in his WMD, before he got invaded likewise? Well, this is just in from the BBC:

Britain and America now suggest the Libyan leader is a model for others to follow.

Libya - by rejecting terrorism and then, in 2003, surrendering its nuclear and other unconventional weapons research - earned the lifting of sanctions and lost the status of a pariah.

But still Col Gaddafi can be combative.

"Libya has not been properly compensated, so other countries, like Iran and North Korea will not follow his lead."

"This should be a model to be followed, but Libya is disappointed because the promises given by America and Britain were not fulfilled...

"And therefore those countries said we are not going to follow Libya's example because Libya abolished its programme without any compensation... This destroyed that model... no-one is going to follow that model as a result," he said.

Read the rest of the Interview at the BBC website.