No Union Busting Here, Folks....

In an unsigned editorial, the Washington Post prevaricates,

Ms. Rhee has been accused of trying to break the union when, in truth, she rejected a plan to bring in a firm adept at union-busting in favor of working one-on-one with local labor officials whom she believed shared her philosophy that children come first.

A more realistic interpretation is that she was told by the union busting firm, "It's not going to work here."

It tells you something about Rhee that, before opening negotiations, she even considered hiring a "firm adept at union-busting" to attack the teacher's union. It tells you something else about Rhee (and the Washington Post) that the dream plan she has for teachers - the plan the Post gushes over every week or two - is a highly classified secret, and isn't available anywhere for people, be they curious outsiders like me or teachers who are told how wonderful it is, to read. Rhee's not interested in union busting? Perhaps Fred Hiatt and his editorial writers should, you know, read their own paper.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee are discussing a dramatic expansion of their effort to remove ineffective teachers by restoring the District's power to create nonunionized charter schools and seeking federal legislation declaring the school system in a "state of emergency," a move that would eliminate the need to bargain with the Washington Teachers' Union.

Nope... not even a slight interest in union busting there....

I'm prepared to believe that Rhee's proposal is the best thing since sliced bread. But if it truly is such a wonderful plan, and is sustainable, why isn't she focusing her energies on publicizing the plan rather than keeping it under wraps?

What A Pathetic Display

The Washington Post, observing that the only proposal to save the auto industry is failing in the Senate - due to, of all things, a Republican demand for what amount to wage caps on auto workers - "What's Plan B?" It astonishes me that a Republican President can't convince enough of his own party's senators of the urgency of action, that they drop their filibuster threat. In what seems like "business as usual", a scheduled vacation appears more important to the Democrats than actually forcing the Republicans to break out their encyclopedias and, if they truly wish to block the bill, actually filibuster.

The short answer to the question, "What's Plan B", appears to be to use TARP money for the bail-out, which could mean that none of the restrictions, compromises, or demands placed upon the Big Three by the bailout bill will be implemented. The Republican Party may be giddy with the idea of harming or breaking the UAW and benefitting the foreign auto manufacturers who are located in "red states", but G.W. is worried about the tattered remnants of his legacy.

"Because Congress failed to act, we will stand ready to prevent an imminent failure until Congress reconvenes and acts to address the long-term viability of the industry," Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said.

And, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it is considering using the Wall Street rescue fund to prevent the USA's strapped carmakers from failing.

I like that - it's "because Congress failed to act", rather than, "Because the President couldn't convince his own party to back a bill he supports." Perino elaborated that "it would be 'irresponsible' to further erode the economy by allowing failure in Detroit", but how about some honesty here about just who it is that the President is describing as irresponsible.

The Washington Post repeats some common, yet silly, complaints about the auto industry,

Furthermore, if the Detroit carmakers are going to survive, they will have to completely overhaul the way they do business - and start building cars that people will buy.

Lets look back a whole year:

General Motors announced today that it sold 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide in 2007, which puts it in a dead heat with Toyota for the title of world's best-selling automaker.

Now the Big Three deserve criticism for disregarding the end of cheap oil, but really... but for the spike in gas prices this summer and the current financial crises, at current gas prices those highly profitable gas guzzling vehicles "that no one wants" would be flying off of car lots across the nation. (If auto makers booked their profits when those vehicles sold, as opposed to when they were shipped to dealerships, they would be looking a lot healthier right now - because sales appear to be picking up.)

For that, they are going to need new leadership, a rational assessment of their long record of failure and, yes, a much larger infusion of government cash.

We're back to that "new leadership" thing.... Something the Post isn't demanding of the finance industry, despite a perhaps unparalleled record of failure and incompetence by its leaders. Heck, the Post doesn't even appear upset by the astronomical wages, bonuses, and even stock dividends that bailed-out financial companies are paying with taxpayer money.

Perhaps we need a financial industry czar - somebody who saw that derivatives were, let's say, a "time bomb" or as "financial weapons of mass destruction"... Oh, but let's be realistic. Nobody could have seen the financial industry's problems coming. We need to find a Warren Buffett for the intelligence community, and apparently we need a Warren Buffett for the auto industry. It's truly a shame we can't find a Warren Buffett for the financial industry.

I've already commented, but it bears repeating - where exactly does the Post imagine that the Big Three will find "magic men" to lead them in a new direction? Ford got its CEO from Boeing; Chrysler's CEO used to head, of all things, Home Depot. How far outside the industry is far enough to satisfy this ridiculous demand - and what's wrong with looking for people within the industry who actually know about cars and may even have a track record of developing vehicles that are suited to the future?

Nobody - including the carmakers - fully understands the depth of Detroit’s problems or how much money it will take to dig them out. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told Congress last week that rescuing the companies would cost taxpayers $75 billion to $125 billion over the next two years. And that’s probably optimistic.

Now that's a fair criticism. Chrysler, for example, is pretending that the bailout will result in a quick return to profitability. Does it believe that, or is it spinning a fairy tale? If the former, there's good cause to question the competence of its leadership. If the latter, it appears to be part of a mendacious plan by Cerberus Capital Management to get a taxpayer subsidy that allows it to avoid taking a loss on a bad investment. As you already know, I think it's the latter.

If the Big Three are glossing over a future that, realistically, will require a taxpayer bailout exceeding $100 billion, we should be sending them back to revise their plans to reflect that reality - and to demonstrate how they could recover with a smaller infusion of taxpayer money.

Beyond the Post's dream that the Big Three will find "magic men" to take over for their present leadership, it whines,

And the bill doesn’t set any conditions to ensure automakers invest in fuel-efficient vehicles. Any long-term plan must make sure the automakers don’t simply keep making gas-guzzling trucks and sport-utility vehicles, whose popularity - unfortunately - has recovered as gas prices have declined.

There's not even a slight effort to achieve internal consistency. If the idea is to force auto manufacturers to build cars that consumers want, it appears that they are doing so - as long as gas prices are low. If the idea is to force them to give up their gas guzzlers in favor of fuel-sipping vehicles, that's something quite apart from getting them to build the vehicles people want to buy. Let's be blunt - if you could build a car the size of a small house, have it get 25 MPG, do 0-60 in less than ten seconds, and sell it in various forms for $20-$30K, it would be the most popular car in America. (The auto manufacturers are about as likely to be able to create such a car as they are to find the Post's "magic man" leaders, so don't accuse me of being unrealistic.)

It should go without saying, but it doesn't - so here we go again. If the goal is to create a competitive domestic auto industry, you can't do that by hamstringing auto makers and forcing them to build under fuel efficiency standards that don't apply to their competitors. If you want more fuel efficient cars on the road, build an even playing field by instituting new, meaningful CAFE standards that apply to everyone.

If the Post is correct, that it's going to take $75 - $125 billion to turn around the domestic auto industry, then perhaps its time to think about something far different from a bailout that tries to keep the three auto makers in business. There are a number of options, short of and including bankruptcy, that should be considered in the new year. Assuming GM and Chrysler aren't already in bankruptcy by then.

But how about at least passing a contingency plan - an authorization of aid to parts suppliers to keep them out of bankruptcy in the event that Chrysler and/or GM file Chapter 11. If we're going to risk that they fail, let's at least try to keep them from dragging Ford down with them.

How Can Obama Help Rhee?

Today, Fred Hiatt asks if Obama can help Michelle Rhee reform the D.C. schools. Although he doesn't say so, it seems implicit that the help he wants Obama to offer is assistance in breaking the teacher's union. Hiatt remains the leading advocate of Rhee's "mystery meat" compensation system for teachers - yes, aspects of the proposal are intriguing, but why are the details being kept secret.

For example, given that only short-term funding is available for the new compensation program, a valid question is what happens when the money runs out? Does Rhee expect increased public funding? substantial corporate contributions that continue even after her program is old news? Or will it be "back to the old compensation scheme" but with no tenure? I'm not affected by the proposal and I want to know, so why cant the teachers who are being asked to get behind the proposal?

Hiatt serves up a couple of anecdotes, the first of which is a pretty typical story about Rhee, and I think it highlights why she inspires such support.

A principal recently was defending a teacher whom D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee had observed in the classroom and found wanting.

"Would you put your grandchild in that class?" Rhee asked the principal.

"If that's the standard, we don't have any effective teachers in my school," the principal replied.

Recalling that comment a few days later, Rhee is still steaming. "I said, 'That is the standard,' " Rhee says, and you think: Whew, glad I'm not that principal

That story also highlights why she wants to be able to do something about D.C.'s teachers - clean house of perhaps entire schools full of underperforming teachers, and pay enough that good teachers who wouldn't otherwise consider D.C. may consider signing up.

I'm personally skeptical that good teachers can be transplanted into classrooms where the kids don't behave and don't want to learn while retaining their efficacy - achieving and maintaining classroom order, particularly in a difficult school environment, is a separate skill from being a great, inspirational teacher. But other than through high compensation, I'm not sure how else D.C. even has a shot at attracting quality teachers.

On the other hand, this anecdote about Rhee gives me pause:

Recently, she recounted at the Aspen Institute forum, a man approached her, spitting mad about her experiment to pay some middle school students for good behavior and good grades. "It is a sad day," he said, "when we are paying kids to be doing something they should be doing anyway."

"No," Rhee replied, "yesterday was a sad day, when only 8 percent of our eighth-graders were at grade level for math, and we weren't really doing anything about it."

This reminds me of the arguments I have heard for cutting music and art programs while maintaining football - despite its very high cost, it's "necessary" to have football teams because otherwise a body of marginal students would lose their principal incentive to go to school and pass tests. Now they get "paid" as well, to do what every other student is expected to do for free? While the services and amenities that make school a nicer place for diligent and well-behaved students continue to get cut? And what's the lesson? That the only way Rhee wants to throw money at you is if you're a good teacher or a crappy student?

No, really, the idea of throwing money at mediocrity isn't what bothers me. Nor is the funding of school programs for marginal or disinterested students at the expense of the diligent and gifted. Even in a school district that's supposed to be reinventing itself as an example of excellence, what else can you really expect? But dare I ask, is there any evidence that paying students does more than inspire a few more kids to show up in class, if that? Is that truly the best use of the money? And what after the money runs out or a student receives the maximum payment? Even a child can tell you that - literally.

Betts is talking about kids like Daamantae Brown, 14, a tall and lanky eighth grader. He's also a borderline C student and star athlete with a temper that can get him into trouble.

Brown is more afraid of being banned from playing football because of bad behavior or grades than missing out on the cash incentives for good academic and social performance.

Still, the boy says most students will behave as long as the money lasts.

"If the bad students, if they was acting up before this, then after it's done [the program], they're going to act the same," Brown says.

The evidence that this works? Let's ask the principal advocate of this idea, Harvard economist Roland Fryer:

"We don't have any data yet," says Fryer.

To me, "pay for performance" sounds like a gimmick. But you know, I'm willing to wait to see the data. The program is underway, so we'll have a pretty good idea of whether or not it works at the end of the school year. But here's a thought - what if it doesn't work? Will this experiment leave its subjects less motivated to show up in class when they're no longer being paid?

Fred Hiatt's Last Minute Potshot

Remember Fred Hiatt's execrable column on how everything's coming up roses in Iraq? His editorial page mindlessly regurgitates his views today, in a last minute potshot at Obama. But apparently, this time around nobody wanted to sign the thing.

Aren't People Embarrassed To Make This Argument?

... Yet it inevitably comes:

If rewards for America's entrepreneurs and firms are reduced through higher marginal tax rates, their incentives to earn, invest and create jobs will be diminished. Americans will have less incentive to save, and firms will have less incentive to pay dividends. Tax avoidance will become more profitable. A smaller capital stock will mean a less productive economy and lower wages for middle-class and other workers. These disincentive effects also mean that the revenue gain is likely to be smaller than Obama envisions.

Even assuming it ever becomes reality, where in recorded human history have the wealthy thrown up their hands and stopped trying to make money because they faced a 4.6% income tax increase? When in recorded history did a <40% tax on a nation's highest income earners (before deductions) cause entrepreneurs to close up shop?

Despite the authors' effort to offshift the notion onto Obama, there's also a huge element of "Who is Obama to interfere with our free lunch" in this type of argument. Obama's tax and spending proposals are not consistent with what I would do. I wouldn't struggle to slash spending or balance the budget during a recession, but my long-term view would be toward fiscal responsibility. Yet by all accounts, McCain's proposals are even worse for our long-term fiscal picture - the Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's tax plan will add $5 trillion to the national debt while Obama's plan will add $3.4 trillion.

It also gets into the pie-eyed wishful thinking that we can deficit spend, in increasing amounts, forever. If we're to support McCain's larger deficits because Obama will impose a modest tax increase on the wealthy, this argument isn't, "We can't raise taxes on the rich." It's, "We can never raise taxes at all, and we should deficit spend until the end of time." They argue that middle class tax cuts must be accompanied by spending cuts - but leaving aside the short-sightedness of that notion as we enter what appears to be a serious recession, haven't they notices the giant hole that their boy, G.W., burned in our pocket? Or the even bigger hole McCain is eagerly proposing to burn? You don't even get into Grover Norquist-style nonsense about drowning the government in a bath tub - the authors aren't even pretending to oppose McCain's out-of-control spending proposals and massive deficits.

Funny... it took three people from the American Enterprise Institute, a fount of low-quality anti-Obama hit pieces, to write this claptrap. Three? And this is the best they can do? Well, if it's good enough for Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post, it should be good enough for everybody. Right?

Michelle Rhee's Secret Plan for Teacher Pay

The Washington Post is again pushing Michelle Rhee's plan for eliminating tenure at for new hires and any teachers who join the new program, and increasing teacher pay for those teachers:

The bold plan of D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee is two-tiered: Salaries as high as $130,000 would be available to teachers who forgo tenure and tie their pay to student performance, while those retaining tenure would still receive generous raises. No teacher with tenure would be forced to give it up under the voluntary plan.

I remain puzzled by this, for reasons also raised by this editorial:

Montgomery County teachers have been told that they'll probably have to forgo the 5.3 percent pay raise they had been promised for next year because of a worsening economy. Fairfax County, which this year could afford only 2 percent cost-of-living raises for its teachers, has no idea what it will be able to provide with revenue shrinking.

In other words, funds for increased teacher pay are unlikely to come from taxpayers - and given the state of the economy, school budget woes can reasonably be expected to get worse before they get better.

Still, union leaders have balked, thus jeopardizing the $200 million that Ms. Rhee says she has raised from national foundations willing to fund the contract -- but only if the District revamps how teachers are compensated.

Finally a hint at how D.C. will pay for the plan - at least initially - but more details are needed. That $200 million will last how many years? Followed by what? Massive reductions in salary? Teacher layoffs? Seriously - what's the plan to sustain this level of expenditure?

The Post complains about a critic of the plan:

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, criticized the plan in a letter to the editor of the New York Times even though, as she admitted to us, she hasn't seen the plan.

So the Post believes you can't comment on this plan unless you've seen it? Even though they have yet to print the plan, post it on their website, or point people to a place where they can read the plan?

I can't really argue with that, as I want to see the plan and its details so I can evaluate it for myself. I would like to know the specifics. Weingarten may be encountering the same problem I am having - the details of the plan appear to be a closely guarded secret, so to comment on the plan you have to rely on inferences and second-hand accounts.

But wait a second:

The union's refusal to put the proposal to a vote before its general membership is telling. Much misinformation about the proposal has been floated. Contrary to what has been said about the plan, there is apparently an appeals process for teachers who are terminated, as well as programs to aid in teacher development.

Apparently? So the Post hasn't seen the plan either, and the authors of this unsigned editorial are relying upon second-hand descriptions that they don't even know to be true. I guess it's okay to support a plan you haven't read, just not to oppose it.

Discouraging Candidates From Presenting "Tough Choices"

Anybody who reads the Washington Post's editorials knows that they're a huge advocate of Social Security reform, approaching the subject like Chicken Little - they'll run pretty much any piece about how the entire system is about to collapse on our heads. And Post readers also know that their unsigned editorials often appear to be unsigned because nobody with any sense of self-respect would want to attach their name to the piece.

Today, we get a twofer. Commencing with a whine about how candidates aren't willing to talk about fixing Social Security during a presidential election campaign, the Post devotes a paragraph to McCain's plan - or lack thereof. How he made a "no new taxes" pledge, followed by stating in specific relation to a possible payroll tax increase, "There is nothing I would take off the table," followed by a full retreat through a spokesperson:

"There is no imaginable circumstance where John McCain would raise payroll taxes," said spokesman Tucker Bounds. "It's absolutely out of the question." Except that it might not be. "Sen. McCain believes you can solve Social Security without raising taxes, but he also believes you can't start a negotiation with an ultimatum," said spokesman Taylor Griffin.

So what does the Post have to say about McCain's flip-flops on taxes, his complete lack of ideas, and his belief that you can fix deficits of all sorts with magic without raising taxes? Absolutely nothing.

Then then move to Obama, who actually has proposed measures to improve the future of Social Security. Yes, he's committed to increasing payroll taxes, but the tax won't be put into effect until the date of a projected shortfall between what Social Security takes in and what it pays out. Oh, the horror. The Post whines,

But surely President Obama could find some way to bring in money sooner without letting Congress fritter it away on other needs.

So they want Obama to start talking about... a Social Security lockbox? Right....

The Post then expresses that the additional Social Security taxes Obama would impose on the wealthiest taxpayers would be modest, describing that choice as "only sensible". They then complain that if imposed on all income as opposed to earned income it would be too high. Then they complain that even if the new tax is too high, it needs to be higher. No, wait, let's read between the lines: They're complaining that taxes also need to be raised on the middle class, but aren't honest enough to say that directly. Incredibly, they then offer these rhetorical questions:

So does Mr. Obama get credit for being brave - or foolhardy - enough to put out a tax proposal that is sure to be used against him? Does he get demerits for failing to be more specific, and more honest, about what will be required?

If you took the Post at face value, Obama would get credit for being brave. But if you read the Post's analysis, McCain gets kid gloves treatment for flip-flopping on payroll taxes and pretending that all budget woes can be fixed without tax increases. (If the author of this piece were more honest he might have noted that McCain's claiming to be able to do this while promising additional tax cuts.) Obama gets savaged for proposing a tax increase the Post deems inadequate.

Meanwhile, beyond the Post's lack of candor in relation to the new taxes it wants to impose on the middle class, the Post lacks the courage to share any specifics of what it believes to be necessary. The Post wants higher taxes? Who will pay them? What tax rates does it advocate? How will the "lockbox" work? The Post wants the new taxes to be implemented soon. When?

Or does it turn out, sadly, that the "textbook Washington campaign" he derided Clinton for running, in which "you don't present tough choices directly to the American people for fear that your answers might not be popular, you might make yourself a target for Republicans in the general election," has something to recommend it after all.

Republicans, nothing. If the Post's conduct is any indication, proposing any sort of tough choice makes you a target for mendacious unsigned editorials.

Protecting Democracy

The Washington Post offers a curious, unsigned editorial that is in my estimation unduly credulous of Mikheil Saakashvili. Although not entirely endorsing his claims, the Post conveniently drops from mention the dubious claim that Russia tried to bomb a BP pipeline. They don't share his discredited claim that the U.S. military was going to take control of Georgia's ports and airports - the type of overstatement that casts a shadow across anything he says and perhaps illuminates the type of self-delusion that could have caused him to believe that the U.S. military would back his venture even if everybody told him otherwise.

Part of the blame-the-victim argument is tactical - the notion that the elected president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, foolishly allowed the Russians to goad him into a military operation to recover a small separatist region of Georgia. Mr. Saakashvili says, in an article we publish on the opposite page today, that the facts are otherwise, that he ordered his troops into action only after a Russian armored column was on the move. If that's not true - if he moved first - he was indeed foolish, and if Georgian shelling targeted civilians, it should be condemned.

Now, normally I would be fully prepared to accept that Russia "moved first" or did something exceptionally provocative. And it's clear that Russia was prepared for Georgia's military action. But I am to believe that all of this occurred beneath the notice of the U.S. intelligence community and the U.S. military (including advisors posted in Georgia), and Saakashvili didn't feel obligated to inform them of his detection of Russian troop movements or even of his own intentions before initiating his military action. The Post is correct that the alternate version of events - the one consistent with the story given by the U.S. government, U.S. military, and U.S. intelligence - would make Saakashvili look foolish. And if Saakashvili's story is true, it makes the U.S. government, U.S. military, and U.S. intelligence look foolish.

So why not take a step back and give us an analysis of which side - which of the two allies - is most likely lying? And provocations or not, can we truly believe that either the U.S. or Georgia (so capable of detecting Russian troop movements) overlooked Russia's build-up? It seems far more likely that Saakashvili believed G.W.'s hype - and that either Russia would be cowed by the idea that the U.S. military would rush to Georgia's aid in the event that his incursion was repelled, or that the U.S. military would quickly force a Russian retreat. Which brings us to the rest of the editorial:

But if the charge is that the Bush administration encouraged Georgia's yearnings for true independence, the verdict surely is "guilty" - just as when the Clinton administration encouraged Georgia under Eduard Shevardnadze and as the first President Bush welcomed the freedom of Warsaw Pact nations when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Now we are told that Russia's invasion last weekend proves the improvidence of this policy: The United States should have helped Georgia to understand that it lies in Russia's "sphere of influence," beyond the reach of American help.

No. What it shows is that the United States should not be suggesting to small, weak countries that it will help them militarily when it does not intend to do so. It also shows that you can meet every standard the U.S. wants - build up a military you can't afford, send a huge percentage of your armed forces to support a U.S military action, create a "flat tax" structure consistent with various U.S. right-wing ideologies, etc. - and still not be important enough to merit military intervention. (And democracy's all about voting and economics, right? So we should overlook little transgressions that don't appear to much matter to the Bush Administration.)

But today, Fred Hiatt and friends don't like realpolitik:

At first blush, that may sound like common sense. What is Georgia to us, after all, far away and without natural resources? And yet, where would the logic carry us? Poland, too, used to be in Moscow's "sphere" -- and Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, and on and on. Should they, too, bow to Vladimir Putin? Why not Finland, while we're at it? You can quickly begin to see the reemergence of a world that would be neither in America's interest nor much to Americans' liking.

With all due respect to the "slippery slope", failing to draw a line in the sand on the northern border of Georgia doesn't mean we won't draw a line in the sand somewhere - just not there. More to the point, where's the cry for democracy and freedom in Taiwan, where the U.S. constantly tiptoes around China's sensitivities? What about non-democracies gripped by humanitarian disaster - the Darfur region, for example. Now, I think it's obvious that Russia wanted this demonstration of force to serve as a warning to other nations on its border, but it's simply not the case that the United States can or should intervene militarily whenever a democracy is engaged in a political battle with... whatever classification we are giving to Russia's government this week. (If Venezuela's democracy is threatened, will the Bush Administration intervene to support it? Or celebrate.)

If a democratically elected Ukraine chooses not to join NATO -- and Ukrainians are divided on the question - NATO will not force itself on Ukraine. But if Ukrainians -- or Georgians, Armenians or anyone else - recoil at Russia's authoritarian model and choose to associate with the West, should the United States refrain from "egging them on"?

No, by all means, invite them to join the West, associate with the West, emulate the West.... Just don't suggest to them that their admiration for and emulation of the West is going to result in their falling under Western military protection in the event of an armed conflict with a neighbor - even one that doesn't have a large military force and nuclear weapons.

How, and how effectively, the United States can support those aspirations inevitably will vary from case to case and from time to time, and supporting those aspirations certainly won't always involve military force. But for the United States to counsel a "realistic" acceptance of vassal status to any nation would mark a radical departure from past principles and practices.

Except for Taiwan? No, really, we can support the aspirations of small democracies while making it clear to them that they can neither excessively provoke military powers on their borders, nor (as appears to be more apt here) see a large, juicy worm dangled by a military power, just across the border of a contested region, and expect us to get them off the hook if they have the poor sense to take the bait. The Post reports that the U.S. government instructed Saakashvilii to demonstrate restraint, and seems to accept that had Saakashvili listened this wouldn't have happened.

What the West should do is keep its promises to the young, weak democracies it wishes to foster. If the Post believes the Bush Administration misled Saakashvili into believing that the U.S. Armed Forces would rescue him in this sort of confrontation, that's where they should direct their scorn.

Carving Out Space

In standard form for one of its unsigned editorials, the Washington Post has some silly things to say about the current election campaign. The sort of thing that, understandably, would make any self-respecting columnist hesitant to sign the thing:

There was, no doubt, a calculated element of tactical foul-crying in the McCain campaign's loud and immediate protestations that Mr. Obama had not only "played the race card" but dealt it "from the bottom of the deck." This assessment was overstated. But just as the Obama campaign is free to do what it can to counteract the complications of running as the first African American nominee, the McCain campaign needs to carve out space to wage a vigorous campaign without fear of being labeled racist at the slightest criticism.

I agree with the assertion that Obama shouldn't be suggesting that his opponent is making an issue of race when that's not the case. But when I first heard an actual recording of the "dollar bills" comment and found out that Obama used the line to elicit a laugh from his audience, it seemed pretty clear that he was attempting to defuse race as a potential issue, not inject it. And I still don't see how anybody but McCain benefits from making race an issue - as evidenced by his campaign's working overtime to keep it front and center.

Beyond that, as the Post describes,

[McCain]'s not entitled to be dishonest, as he was, for example, in the ad suggesting that Mr. Obama preferred to play basketball rather than visit wounded troops on his trip to Germany.

And boy, was that dishonest. After all, didn't that footage in fact come from a military base? But hold on a second... did you say basketball? You have an ad comparing Obama to two young, white women whose recent media attention has been driven by scandal, followed by an image of him playing basketball (and playing it well)? [Addendum: David Gergen states that McCain's "The One/Messiah" ads are racist "code", adding yet another example to the series of dubious allusions.] With the ads produced by some of the most sophisticated smear artists in the business? Who clearly want race to be an issue? We're supposed to believe that it's all innocent, because the smear artists say so?

If Fred Hiatt and his gang wanted to be honest about what is going on, they would confront the McCain campaign based upon the most reasonable interpretation of their over-the-top statements and continued effort to keep this issue at the top of the news - they're trying to set up a context where when they inject race into the campaign (whether deliberately or accidentally) and Obama responds, they can shrug and say, "There he goes again". Is Hiatt being deliberately obtuse in playing along?

Anti-Obama Duplicity In The Washington Post

When I saw this unsigned editorial last night, my thoughts were, "It's no surprise that the author lacked the courage to attach his name to it," and "I'm tired, so I'll wait for others to reply to it." So far I've come across a post in Tapped taking on the Post's characterization of Obama's positions as "eccentric"

One wonders what word the Post will use to categorize McCain's policy when someone asks him whether he'll stick by his pledge to leave when Iraqi leaders request it. Peculiar?

and a TPM Election Central post taking on the Post's claim that Iraqi officials don't support Obama's plan. But I think a response should also be made to this claim:

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Right now, the U.S. is maintaining the status quo in Iraq. The Sunni factions would like to regain control of the entire nation. They surely have some justifiable fear that if the U.S. pulls out, they might become subject to treatment similar to what they dished out to Shiite factions under G.H.W.B.'s watch after the first Iraq War, or given the short end of the stick on oil revenues. But the reality is, one of the reasons there is so little meaningful progress on political reconciliation is that right now the Sunni factions don't have to negotiate. They can stonewall, and fall back on U.S. protection. A drawdown, rapid or otherwise, could force them into a political compromise that gives them far less than what they want. But maintaining the status quo gets us no closer to any sort of compromise.

Also in the Post, Ruth Marcus lets us know that, in a military conflict and post-conflict occupation, the "reward of careful perseverance may become visible only in the long arc of history", something that of course can be said about any armed conflict. Unfortunately, it does not inexorably follow that continuing an occupation will inevitably make things better, nor does it inexorably follow that the costs (financial and otherwise) of continuing an occupation will outweigh the possible long-term benefits. (And we face those great unknowns even if we hand out lots and lots of candy to Iraqi children.)

What's So Hard About Putting It In Writing?

The Washington Post is in a tizzy because the D.C. teacher's union is skeptical of proposed meetings between school administrators and teachers about Michelle Rhee's alternative compensation proposals:

Teachers should ask who benefits by shutting out Ms. Rhee. Certainly not teachers, who could receive some of the highest salaries in the country with the compensation plan she proposes. Under the proposal, teachers get a choice: Stick with the traditional pay scale with small raises, or forgo many tenure and seniority protections and get big money based on effectiveness in the classroom.

But why are meetings necessary to educate teachers about the proposals. It's fair to assume that most D.C. teachers can read. So why not put the proposal, in its full glory, up on a website? If it's that important to the Post, why not publish the details in the paper for all to see?

I really would like to see the details. If this is such a great deal, why the secrecy?

We're Not Winning?

The Washington Post shares the alarming news, we're "Not Winning the War on Drugs". No, wait... beyond the latest details, that's been the story of the War on Drugs from day one.

Pots, Kettles, and the Washington Post

Although unsigned, the Washington Post's editorial about Gen. Clark's comments about McCain got off to a decent... first paragraph. Then this:

Casting guilt by surrogate association is a bipartisan affliction, so ours is a nonpartisan lament: Cut it out! The Clark blooper is no more revealing than was the Charles R. Black Jr. pseudo-outrage or the James A. Johnson ersatz scandal. What Gen. Clark had to say - that Sen. John McCain's military experience was not "a qualification to be president" -- was stupid, substantively and politically.

Except Gen. Clark did not say anything of the sort.

Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

So the Washington Post's attack on Clark is a fabrication - a smear - and the author doesn't have the courage to sign his name to it. Go figure.

By the same token, there's also no reason to believe that Gen. Clark's blunder has anything to do with Mr. Obama's fitness for the presidency. Had Mr. Obama not immediately repudiated the comments, that would be noteworthy. Under the circumstances, we find it hard to understand why this was even a one-day story.

Could it be... because reporters and pundits who are dishonest, inept, or both keep mischaracterizing Gen. Clark's comment? Really - could it?

The Post suggests that the Obama campaign may have been behind the remark:

If Sen. Barack Obama's campaign somehow whispered in Gen. Clark's ear to adopt this approach, the campaign has obviously been taken over by people other than the smooth crew that helped Mr. Obama win the Democratic nomination.

Is there any basis for that innuedo? If not, why compund the sin of misrepresenting Gen. Clark's comment by breathing life into baseless innuendo?
______

Update: Giving credit where credit is due, Maureen Dowd remembers the 2000 campaign:

When McCain zoomed in the New Hampshire polls in 2000, W.’s supporters insinuated that McCain’s years in Vietcong dungeons, including two suicide attempts, left him with snakes in his head.

Now McCain is trying to magnify the words of Obama surrogates on Vietnam to tarnish his self-styled postpartisan rival as partisan. On the way to Colombia, he talked about Clark and said it was time for Obama to “cut him loose.”

Yet McCain himself has joked: “It doesn’t take a lot of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane.”

Medical Equipment Costs

The Washington Post opines,

There is little doubt that Medicare has been paying far too much for equipment — including wheelchairs, hospital beds, oxygen concentrators, diabetic test kits, and walkers — under fee schedules based on historical charges. According to federal officials, Medicare currently pays $1,825 for a hospital bed that can be bought online for $754, and $4,023 for a power wheelchair that can be bought online for $2,174.

There's a big element missing from that price comparison. A local equipment vendor will often deliver equipment to a patient's home, set it up, and train the patient in its use. They often arrange service and repairs, and may offer a loaner unit while repairs are being conducted. A mail order vendor will add a shipping charge to deliver the item to your driveway, and that's about it.

I'm not arguing that there's not a lot of waste, or that some vendors may be charging too much for some of the services they provide, but I think the Post is grossly oversimplifying the issue and missing other potential areas for cost savings. For example, what happens to the hospital bed Medicare purchases after the patient dies or moves into a nursing home? Why aren't the beds, or other pieces of expensive equipment, collected, refurbished, and used for other patients?

Meanwhile, many patient-oriented groups have also called for a delay, apparently fearing that switching suppliers, perhaps from a local company with personalized service to a lower bidder elsewhere, could diminish the quality of service. These fears seem overblown and should be easily addressed in coming months, partly by strengthening oversight by ombudsmen and surveying beneficiaries to detect and remedy any problems.

Appointing an ombudsman does little to help a patient with an urgent health need. Surveys? Really.... The patient fears may be greater than are justified by the program, but if you're going to claim they can be "easily addressed" you should do just that rather than dismissing them.

Different Visions of Rev. Wright

The New Republic attempts to explain what might have attracted Obama to Rev. Wright. Presenting a passage from David Mendell's biography of Obama,

Wright remains a maverick among Chicago's vast assortment of black preachers. He will question Scripture when he feels it forsakes common sense; he is an ardent foe of mandatory school prayer; and he is a staunch advocate for homosexual rights, which is almost unheard-of among African-American ministers. Gay and lesbian couples, with hands clasped, can be spotted in Trinity's pews each Sunday. Even if some blacks consider Wright's church serving only the bourgeois set, his ministry attracts a broad cross section of Chicago's black community.

* * *

But more than that, Trinity's less doctrinal approach to the Bible intrigued and attracted Obama. "Faith to him is how he sees the human condition," Wright said. "Faith to him is not . . . litmus test, mouth-spouting, quoting Scripture. It's what you do with your life, how you live your life. That's far more important than beating someone over the head with Scripture that says women shouldn't wear pants or if you drink, you're going to hell. That's just not who Barack is."

The article suggests,

So, if you buy Wright's account [as given to David Mendell] - and it rings pretty true to me - it was his intellectualism and social progressivism that won Obama over. Certainly it's hard to imagine that someone like Obama, who came from a progressive, secular background, would have felt genuinely comfortable in a socially conservative, anti-intellectual church. The problem for Obama is that the flip-side of these virtues was a minister with a radical worldview and a penchant for advertising it loudly.

That interpretation would help explain why Obama might accept Wright, warts and all, into his life. And why he would give Wright a chance to redeem himself, rather than issuing the renunciation some demanded from "day one" of this petty scandal.

The Washington Post in an unsigned editorial (and it seems almost cowardly to say this without attaching an author's name) opines:

We didn't join the renewed and growing chorus calling on Mr. Obama to renounce the Rev. Wright after the minister's all-about-me rant at the National Press Club on Monday, but the candidate's motivation is pretty obvious. The Rev. Wright praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, said it was plausible that AIDS was a genocidal tool of the U.S. government to kill African Americans and proclaimed that attacks on him were an attack on the black church. He also delivered a deliberate poke in the eye to his former parishioner, suggesting that Mr. Obama's conciliatory Philadelphia speech was nothing but politics. With each defiant utterance Monday, the Rev. Wright dug a deeper political hole for Mr. Obama.

Did Mr. Obama climb out of that hole yesterday? It seems to us that the whole sorry episode raises legitimate questions about his judgment.

You can't pat yourself on the back for supposedly not calling for further repudiation of Wright while insisting that Wright's comments raise questions about Obama's judgment - the two go hand-in-hand. Moreover, do try for some internal consistency. Yesterday's similarly unsigned editorial proclaimed,

None of this is helpful to Mr. Obama, who could face more calls not only to denounce such inflammatory comments but also to renounce his longtime pastor. We will not join in that chorus. In his address on race in Philadelphia last month after video of the Rev. Wright's fiery sermons burst onto the national scene, Mr. Obama condemned, "in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy." The candidate credibly explained how he could understand his minister's anger without sharing or approving of it. Having had a closer look at the Rev. Wright, voters will have to decide for themselves how much weight to give Mr. Obama's long association with the pastor. But it is the Rev. Wright, not Mr. Obama, who yesterday chose to further discredit himself.

So yesterday Obama had given a credible response to attacks over Wright, and today he has insufficiently responded to "legitimate questions about his judgment"?

The saddest part here is that Wright had a choice to make. He could have stepped up by presenting himself as a solid, Christian leader who had been misunderstood in one sermon. He could have engaged in a gentle dialog on race, discussed the difference in style between his style of preaching and the more restrained version many Americans are used to. He could have deflated the use of the out-of-context "G-D America" clip by Obama's opponents. But no, he instead chose to act the part of, in Jim Sleeper's words, a "wounded, raving, preening narcissist". It has to be painful to have your career reduced to a caricature, to have your good works ignored, and to have the Washington Post suggest that anybody who would voluntarily associate with you is unfit for national office. But Wright needs to take responsibility for the fact that he just made that pain a lot worse.

Heinous Crimes

The Washington Post, in an unsigned editorial, argues,

There is no crime more heinous than the rape of a child. But does the Constitution allow states to impose the death penalty for such a crime when the child's life has not been taken?

Well, if we accept the first premise, the obvious answer is "yes". But homicide is pretty horrific (and that's without getting into, say, mass murder or genocide), so perhaps we shouldn't start playing a game of "My 'heinous' is bigger than yours." The Post recites,

[A coalition of social workers and interest groups that work on behalf of victims of sexual abuse] argues convincingly that the already gross underreporting of child sexual abuse might only be exacerbated if the death penalty were imposed in such cases. In most such cases, the perpetrators are family members or acquaintances; children might be even more frightened to report a crime if they thought they'd be responsible for the death of someone they knew or even loved. Even if the child was brave enough to come forward, a family member with ties to the offender could prevent disclosure to law enforcement authorities.

Here's something else that probably should have occurred to them: if the penalty is the same whether you leave your victim alive or dead, some will choose the latter. The "Lindbergh laws" imposing long sentences or even the death penalty for kidnapping are often described as having reduced the chances of recovering a kidnapping victim alive.

Attacking Obama On Campaign Financing?

For the second time, the Washington Post has an unsigned editorial attacking Barack Obama for declining to take full federal funding for the general election. There's plenty of room for criticism, given Obama's history of statements in favor of campaign finance reform and public funding. But talk about a free pass for John McCain....

We praised Mr. Obama last year when he asked the Federal Election Commission to let him raise private money for the general election but later give the money back and decide to participate in the public financing system if he were able to persuade the Republican nominee to do the same. In that circumstance, Mr. Obama's spokesman vowed, he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Well, the Republican nominee turns out to be John McCain, who agreed way back when to Mr. Obama's challenge. Where's Mr. Obama's aggressive pursuit now?

Um... that would be the same John "McCain-Feingold" McCain who accepted federal money for his faltering primary campaign, used it to secure a loan for his campaign, and then flip-flopped the moment he discovered that his pledge would limit his spending?

It's also flat-out false that McCain has agreed to use only federal funding for his presidential campaign. Or, more accurately, he did make that pledge but then repudidiated it, adding a new condition that Obama has to commit to public funding first.

“It was very clear to me that Senator Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign if I did the same thing,” he said after a town hall meeting here. “I made the commitment to the American people that if I was the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”

Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well...."

As for Obama,

Mr. Obama did not rule out the possibility of accepting public financing, but declared on Friday, “I’m not the nominee yet.”

“If I am the nominee, I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations with respect to the general election going forward,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference in Milwaukee. “It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I am locking into something when I don’t even know if the other side will agree to it.”

Do the members of the Post's editorial board read their own paper? Or does this fall into the category of the mendacious, embarrassing brand of editorial that is unsigned because nobody wants to associate their name with it?