Say What?

I got a letter from Senator Dole today. It begins:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond.

What follows is the standard set of GOP talking points: 9/11 changed everything, it's legal anyway, blah blah blah.

Funny thing is, though, I never wrote her about the NSA — I wrote her about the network neutrality issue. Here's the email I sent her.

I didn't expect to hear back from her office that Senator Dole agreed with me on this issue and had decided to vote for a bill sponsored by a Democrat. I didn't really expect hear back from her at all. But really, if she's is going to write back to constituents, then her staff should at least take the time to figure out what the original message was about. Otherwise, it's just kind of insulting.

Update: I got another letter from the Senator. The letter used my address, but was written to a Stefan Pienkny, thanking him for his letter about the Alito nomination. What's up with that?

Friday Cat Blogging

What are you looking at?

Feel the Love

Long thought to be out of fashion, compassionate conservatism is alive and well in Columbus, Indiana. While many people don't spend much time weighing the costs and benefits of legal sanctions, Republican State Senate candidate Greg Walker is thinking out of the box, trying to come up with some kinder and gentler ways to punish criminals. And what better place to look for inspiration than the Bible.

"It's not a core value for me, but it's part of the inspired word of God, so I know it works," he said. "If that makes me a radical, then so be it. I'll accept the label. But I don't think it's a radical position…."

[Walker describes it as] a "compassionate" alternative to jail for some people convicted of crimes such as drug abuse or being drunk in public….

"I want to see what works to change behavior," he continued. "This is about public humiliation. Public humiliation has been an effective deterrent for centuries."

So what is this mild-mannered accountant suggesting? What new, compassionate alternative should we consider? Flogging, of course.

31

The latest NYT/CBS poll is out, and everyone is talking about "31" — Bush's job approval rating. This is a new low for him in this particular poll, and with this number he matches his dad's record low. Funny, that — you try to do everything differently, and you end up in the same place.

But there are a couple of other numbers that bear close scrutiny. First, there is "63" — Bush's disapproval rating. That's up 5 points from the last poll, and also a new record.

We also have "29" and "55" — Bush's favorability and unfavorability ratings. Both are records for Bush. I never thought I'd see the day when his personal approval would drop below his job approval, but there you have it. When things are going well, then Bush's folksy, bumbling style might be somewhat endearing. When things are going badly, however, it just makes him look like a clueless boob.

Next is "50" — the percentage who say that the Democrats come closer to sharing their moral values; Republicans get this love from only 37 percent.

And finally there is "45" — the percentage who believe that Democrats have more new ideas than Republicans. In contrast, only 21 percent think it's the other way around.

There are a lot of things to take away from these numbers. But what Democrats need to internalize is that they are doing a pretty good job of moving their message. No doubt they could be doing a better job, but the next time Chris Matthews talks about how likable Bush is, or David Ignatius criticizes the Democrats for lacking new ideas, or the religious right screams about liberalism's intrinsic opposition to family values, they should remember this poll. While the punditocracy remains wedded to its old narratives, many of our fellow citizens have already moved on.

Just Do It

Yesterday, the Washington Post editorial board signed on to the idea of a sliding scale gas tax to keep oil prices high and encourage private sector research and development of alternative fuel technology. Max Boot said basically the same thing a few days ago in the LA Times, so this looks like a meme that's on the rise.

It is certainly true that the private sector has dropped the ball here. According to Kammen and Nemet, spending on research by the energy industry is an order of magnitude below the "average R&D intensity of U.S. industry," and the trend is downward. For example:

In the early 1980s, energy companies were investing more in R&D than were drug companies; today, drug companies invest 10 times as much in R&D as do energy firms. Total private sector energy R&D is less than the R&D budgets of individual biotech companies such as Amgen and Genentech.

No one disputes the need for more private-sector R&D, but what is telling is the inability of the Post or Boot to find a positive role for the federal government apart from imposing a gas tax. It is a hallmark of conservative thought that indirect encouragement of the private sector is always preferable to direct public sector action, and the Post doesn't hesitate make that claim:

This approach [government-sponsored research] assumes that government knows which technologies are worth backing. It assumes that if government researches a new technology, the private sector will see a business case for bringing it to market. And it neglects the fact that government research into alternative energy is engaged in an arms race with private research into oil extraction….

To boost less carbon-intensive fuels, Mr. Bush needs to focus less on how the government spends its small research budget and more on how companies spend their enormous ones.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, government sponsored R&D assumes that science knows which technologies are worth investigating. Let the NAS dole out the research dollars and there will be a peer-reviewed, merit-based process in place. Second, if research into a specific technology is successful and the business community doesn't take it to market, that's really an indictment of the private sector's decision-making capability, not the research itself. Third, Kammen and Nemet show that high public sector R&D spending is an essential component of encouraging private sector investment — it doesn't compete with it.

Finally, if you honestly look at the numbers, you'll find that the federal government already spends about 3 times as much on energy R&D as private industry does. There simply isn't an "enormous" industry research effort today, and the Post should know that.

The Post is right about one thing, though: the focus should not be on how to spend the government's small research budget. Instead, the focus needs to be on spending a much larger research budget. Government has to kickstart the process, and it needs to do more than tweak the tax code and hope that the private sector, which seems averse to doing real research right now, sees the light and starts working in earnest. The public sector needs to ramp up spending and make strategic investments to encourage additional research all across the board. If we really want to move beyond oil, that's the meme that needs to get some serious traction.

Bad Example

Mike McCurry has been doing a lot of arguing against network neutrality recently, on behalf of his telecom industry clients. Here's the latest:

…the debate is about how to define network neutrality: some want "regulated net neutrality" (that would be the net neuts who are having great sport with me at the moment) they want the government to regulate the way content is provided on the Internet so that no network provider can introduce ways to speed some content faster than it would otherwise go on an Internet the government regulates.

Everyone gets the same service (everyone gets the Postal Service and the UPS and Fed Ex innovators do not get to charge for the service).

But McCurry's example proves the opposite of what he thinks it does. The parallel here isn't between communications networks and the USPS, it's between communications networks and transportation networks, namely, highways and skyways. We have FedEx and UPS precisely because the the government has made this infrastructure available to everyone on equal terms. If, on the other hand, the government had discriminated against Postal Service competitors (e.g., setting a lower speed limit for their vehicles, or not allowing them to use jet planes), we certainly wouldn't have the "innovators" that McCurry praises.

And it's important to keep in mind that, despite his posturing to the contrary, McCurry isn't defending the entrepreneurs here. He's defending the largest telecom companies who see a way to make a whole lot more money by skimping on network capacity and then charging access fees to content providers to use their cramped networks. The only winner here is the telecom companies; the rest of us lose.

Net Neutrality

I just sent the following email to my congressional delegation: Rep. Mel Watt, Senator Elizabeth Dole, and Senator Richard Burr.

The Internet is a crucial engine for economic growth and democratic discourse. We need to take steps now to preserve network neutrality, the First Amendment for the Internet that ensures that the Internet remains open to innovation and progress.

The telecommunications companies that want to abandon network neutrality have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and a leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

Without net neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether people can choose the content and services they want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for them.

[Dole and Burr got this:] As a constituent who values a free and open internet, I urge you to support S.2360, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, which would ensure network neutrality.

[Watt got this:] As a constituent who values a free and open internet, I urge you to support the Network Neutrality Act of 2006, which would ensure network neutrality. I also urge you to oppose the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, which lacks strong network neutrality provisions.

If you can, take a minute to write your electeds about network neutrality. The internet is a terrible thing to waste.

"L'État, c'est moi"

Question: What do you call one man who claims the power to make, interpret, and enforce the law? Answer: President Bush.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

It's not just FISA anymore. Why aren't more people worried about this, and more importantly, why isn't anyone doing anything about it?

Suing Merck

A whole lot of people are suing Merck over Vioxx, and Sebastian Malleby thinks that's just crazy. Bush should use this episode of litigation-gone-wild, Malleby says, to push for tort reform and rescue his domestic agenda.

Now, I don't know if these lawsuits have merit or not. I tend to think they're not frivolous because they're actually getting to trial. And while the science here might be difficult and ambiguous, let's not forget that Merck got itself in trouble for systematically suppressing research that raised questions about Vioxx's safety. Perhaps this is more a case of "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up", but in any event Merck certainly isn't an innocent victim here.

But maybe Malleby is right to suggest that it might not be the best thing for Merck to be looking at thousands of lawsuits costing billions of dollars. But Malleby certainly misses the point entirely by describing this as a tort-reform issue. It's not — it's a regulatory one.

If the FDA had taken its job seriously and actually regulated the pharmaceutical industry, then we might not be looking at these lawsuits right now. If the FDA prioritized safety rather than drug industry profits, we might not need lawsuits to pick up the slack as bad drugs come to market. I'd be willing to consider trading some meaningful reforms of the drug approval process for some new restrictions on lawsuits in this area, but that would require action by Congress against a powerful and "helpful" interest group; I'm not holding my breath. As for cynics like Malleby, these lawsuits are best seen as a political opportunity to bash the Democrats, rather than as an indicator that something has gone wrong with the process. Hence his refusal to recognize and engage the core problem.