Op-Ed Columnist: The Halliburton Shuffle By BOB HERBERT, NYTimes

[Halliburton] adamantly denies that its offshore subsidiaries are used to shift income out of the U.S. But it’s indisputable that somebody is doing a dandy job of limiting Halliburton’s tax liability. When I asked how much Halliburton paid in federal income taxes last year, a company spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, said, “After foreign tax credit utilization, we paid just over $15 million to the I.R.S. for our 2002 tax liability.”

That is effectively no money at all to an empire like Halliburton. Less than pocket change. Dick Cheney must be having a good laugh over the way his old company, following his road map, is taking the U.S. for such a ride.

In the early 90’s, when Mr. Cheney was defense secretary under the first President Bush, he hired the Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to determine what military functions could be outsourced to private profit-making companies. Brown & Root came up with myriad ideas in a classified study and was handed a lucrative contract to implement its own plan.

Mr. Cheney took over as chief executive of Halliburton in 1995, and the defense contracts just kept on coming. When he returned to government as vice president in 2001, no firm was better positioned than Halliburton to cash in on the billions of dollars in contracts that resulted from the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq.

Op-Ed Contributor: Givers and Takers By DANIEL H. PINK, NYTimes

Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party — their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country’s fiercest critics of government, yet they’re also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states — the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers — are left to carry the load.

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution — and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It’s shrewd politics.

This is an intriguing take on a different national division. mjh

FactCheck.org President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits

The President holds out the prospect of major cost savings if Congress will pass a law limiting what injured patients can collect in lawsuits. He wants a cap of $250,000 on any damages for ”pain and suffering” and other non-economic damages. His administration projects savings to the entire economy of between $60 billion and $108 billion per year in health-care costs, including $28 billion or more to federal taxpayers.

But both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings — if any — would be relatively small.

Republicans often fume about trial lawyers. The President snarled twice in the State of the Union Address about ‘frivolous’ lawsuits. How about a little indignation over unsafe products and malpractice? mjh

Op-Ed Contributor: The Dead Center By ROBERT B. REICH, NYTimes

Self-styled Democratic centrists, like those who inhabit the Democratic Leadership Council, attribute the party’s difficulties to a failure to respond to an electorate grown more conservative, upscale and suburban. This is nonsense. The biggest losses for Democrats since 1980 have not been among suburban voters but among America’s giant middle and working classes — especially white workers without four-year college degrees, once part of the old Democratic base. Not incidentally, these are the same people who have lost the most economic ground over the last quarter-century.

Democrats could have responded with bold plans on jobs, schools, health care and retirement security. They could have delivered a strong message about the responsibility of corporations to help their employees in all these respects, and of wealthy elites not to corrupt politics with money. More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II — including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power.

But Democrats did none of this. So conservatives eagerly stepped into the void, claiming the populist mantle and blaming liberal elites for what’s gone wrong with America. The question ahead is whether Democrats can claim it back. …

As we head into the next wave of primaries, the Democratic candidates should pay close attention to what Republicans have learned about winning elections. First, it is crucial to build a political movement that will endure after particular electoral contests. Second, in order for a presidency to be effective, it needs a movement that mobilizes Americans behind it. Finally, any political movement derives its durability from the clarity of its convictions. And there’s no better way to clarify convictions than to hone them in political combat.

A fierce battle for the White House may be exactly what the Democrats need to mobilize a movement behind them. It may also be what America needs to restore a two-party system of governance and a clear understanding of the choices we face as a nation.

Robert B. Reich, former United States secretary of labor, is a professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis University and the author of the forthcoming “Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America.”

CNN.com – Rumsfeld allows more troops in Army – Jan. 29, 2004

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has granted the U.S. Army permission to add 30,000 troops temporarily to its congressionally approved limit of 482,000, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The increase will last about four years, the Army chief of staff said.

The Army is already above that limit by 11,000 troops because of “stop-loss” orders keeping soldiers from leaving the service during military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those troops count toward the newly authorized 30,000, which will bring Army troop strength to 512,000.

Mark Fiore captures Scalia
Duck Season 1/28/04

mjh’s Weblog Entry – 04/23/2003: ‘Most of the rights that you enjoy go away’

”The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.” — Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, 03/18/03

Search blog for Scalia (and Impeach the Bastard!)

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

President Proposes to Make Tax Benefits of Health Savings Accounts More Lucrative for Higher-Income Individuals – Revised 1/26/04

The President’s proposal to permit individuals with Health Savings Accounts to deduct their health insurance premium costs would do little to help low- and moderate-income uninsured families obtain health insurance, would primarily benefit the higher-income individuals who can already use HSAs as a lucrative tax shelter, and would further weaken comprehensive employer-based coverage.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has plenty of wonkish article — check it out. mjh

CBO Figures Indicate Lower Revenues, Not Higher Spending, Account For The Large Deficit – 1/26/04
New CBO estimates show revenues in 2004 will be exceptionally low, falling to their smallest share of GDP since 1950. Spending won’t be particularly high; as a share of GDP it will be lower than throughout the administrations of Presidents Carter and Reagan, and the first President Bush.

The advocates of ”starve the beast” (kill the federal government by cutting off funds) are still demanding less spending, and in this they are a bit frustrated with Bush and the Republicans in Congress. mjh