WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER 26,  2008

ANOTHER DEM COMEDIAN, EQUALLY UNFUNNY - 3:11 P.M. ET:  With comedian Al Franken contesting for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Norm Coleman, why not bring in other clowns?  The Democrats have their eye on Republican Arlen Specter's Senate seat, up in 2010.  The Los Angeles Times reports that another entertainer and would-be "journalist" is interested:

Leading the pack of prospects -- at least in celebrity -- is Chris Matthews, the MSNBC "Hardball" host and a former Capitol Hill Democratic staffer. The Philadelphia native has been toying with a run for months, and this week he sat down with state Democrats to discuss the prospect of taking on the five-term GOP senator.

He would certainly be the Senate's leading blowhard.  But I really doubt that senators, Democratic or Republican, want to start each session with someone shouting, "Let's play hardball!" 

Embarrassing.

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED TO HER ON THE WAY TO - 2:58 P.M. ET:  There'a a fascinating discussion underway on whether Hillary Clinton is Constitutionally qualified to be secretary of state.  The Marc Ambinder blog at The Atlantic explains:

Pete Williams of NBC raised the question on MSNBC this afternoon: Is Hillary Clinton barred by the Constitution from accepting the post of secretary of state?

Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:

     "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he    was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

Essentially, you cannot take a job if the salary was increased during your current congressional term. And the salary for cabinet officials has gone up in the past year. Even if it is lowered back down, constitutional scholars say that may not be enough to fix the problem.

The question is whether this would be an issue at confirmation - if Clinton is nominated to the post - and who would raise it. Senators traditionally grant their colleagues some deference and it could be considered politics at its worst if Republicans try to block her nomination with this argument. But senators may be loathe to vote for something scholars tell them is unconstitutional.

That being said, this development may make Obama, or Clinton, think twice about the appointment.

-Matthew Berger

If senators don't challenge her qualifications, I wonder who can.  Does an ordinary citizen have standing?  A group of Foreign Service officers? 

I'm just guessing that, if Hillary Clinton accepts the position and takes the salary paid before she became a citizen, the issue would kind of go away.  Or, with Bill's income being what it is, she could take no salary at all. 

Interesting Constitutional question.  I'm not qualified to comment beyond speculation.

November 26, 2008.

DOW NO WOW - 1:39 P.M. ET:  The Dow is up only 40, essentially flat, the euphoria of early in the week gone.

NUMBERS

Posted at 8:38 a.m. ET

We get some of our best information here at Urgent Agenda from informed readers. Reader Ray Cleveland alerts us to a remarkable set of statistics comparing the federal payouts being made to deal with today's financial crisis with payouts made in the past.  Consider:

If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let's give this some context. The current credit crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.

Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

That is $686 billion less than the cost of the credit crisis thus far.

The only single American event in history that even comes close to matching the cost of the credit crisis is World War II.  Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion.

The $4.6165 trillion dollars committed so far is about a trillion dollars ($979 billion dollars) greater than the entire cost of World War II borne by the United States: $3.6 trillion, adjusted for inflation (original cost was $288 billion).

Bianco Research, which crunched the numbers, is often quoted in financial news stories.

Ray Cleveland goes on to note a Bloomberg report that the total bailout this time represents $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. 

It seems to me that Americans, including many journalists, still don't understand the enormity of the federal bailouts and the implications for our economic system.  The federal government now has equity stakes in major American banks and corporations.  True, it can get some or all of the money back in the future, as the economy grows once more - if it grows.  There are no guarantees. 

And we are far from out of the woods.

November 26, 2008.      Permalink          

TIME TO GO

Posted at 7:42 a.m. ET

The British might describe it as "extraorinary."  We Americans, preparing for the holidays and thinking Turkey rather than Syria, might not notice.  But the world's chief nuclear inspector and desk warmer has gone way over the top in some of his public comments, proving once again that he's inadequate for his job and should be eased out.  Fat chance.  He's an "international civil servant," after all, and no level of derangement is considered too high for continued employment.

Now Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei lectures us as he defends his offer to help Syria, believe it or not, with a nuclear program.  This is really fantasyland.

The chief UN nuclear inspector has urged caution against prematurely judging Syria's atomic program by reminding diplomats about false US claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, comments released Tuesday show.

The bluntness of remarks by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, reflected tensions over whether Syria should be given potentially sensitive nuclear guidance at a time it is being investigated for alleged secret atomic activities.

Yeah, I'd say there are tensions.  And remember - while we didn't find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, we found the programs, ready to be restarted once the UN lifted sanctions on Saddam Hussein.  That's the part of the WMD story the mainstream media never details.

"There are claims against Iraq, which proved to be bonkers, but only after a terrible war," ElBaradei said after the US and its allies questioned Syria's right to his agency's help in planning a power-producing atomic reactor.

Bonkers?  Every major intelligence organization in the world agreed with our assessment.  And, again, the programs were found.  ElBaradei is Egyptian, and again seems to side with Arab countries, as he has before.  Even the thought of giving nuclear aid to Syria strikes most Western governments as, well, bonkers.

"There is one thing called investigation, another called clear-cut proof of innocence or guilt ... and all of you, even if you are not lawyers, know that people and countries are innocent until proven guilty," he said.

We're talking Syria here, buddy, one of the most irresponsible countries in the region.  Reasonable people err on the side of caution. 

A report circulated last week by ElBaradei confirmed that soil samples taken at the site of a building in Syria bombed last year by Israel revealed "a significant number" of uranium particles.

The report also said that satellite imagery and other information appeared to bear out US intelligence that the building was a nuclear reactor - one Washington said was nearly completed and almost ready to produce plutonium, a fissile warhead component.

Yeah, yeah.  Mohamed, are you reading your own reports, bro?  Maybe you can get the cassette version and listen in your car. 

Beyond helping the Syrians develop expertise, the $350,000 aid project would send the wrong signal about a country under investigation by the IAEA, critics like the Americans argued.

In Washington, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said it was "totally inappropriate, we believe, given the fact that Syria is under investigation by the IAEA for building a nuclear reactor outside the bounds of its international legal commitments."

The US also used the Vienna meeting to express its opposition and received backing from the European Union, France, Britain, Australia and Canada.

We even have France with us.  That says something. 

Commenting on ElBaradei's scrappy stance, a senior diplomat with good connections to IAEA staff said the agency chief personally sent text messages to key aides telling them to stand tough on the Syria issue.

And we should stand tough on him.  It's time for him to go.  He's biased and ineffective, and his position on Syria proves it.  Nuclear proliferation is too serious to be left to a party-line hack.

November 26, 2008.      Permalink          

TUESDAY,  NOVEMBER 25,  2008

SOBER UP II

Posted at 6:45 p.m. ET

Early today, in Sober Up I, we revealed the sad state of America's nuclear deterrent, a reminder that there's a world outside money and stock market results.  Now, here is another area of grave concern, the possibility of an EMP attack on the United States.  The issue has been brought up before, and then quickly forgotten.  With Iran making the kind of progress it's making in nuclear weapons, we dare not forget this time:

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us. And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:

First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.

Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.

Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.

That is clear thinking.  It will be rejected by the intellectual fashion plates in the universities and the press.  But it remains clear thinking.

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

The politics of fear, the politics of fear.  Say it over and over.  You might even start to believe it.  But, again, it remains clear thinking.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century...

...Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Who could the culprit be?  I wonder.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP.

Always attributing evil motives to peace-loving peoples.  How American.

The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.

Sadly, we will probably continue to lack that will, especially with people like John Kerry running the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Finally...

An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.

Enough said.  Now it's time for action.

November 25, 2008.      Permalink          

MARKET CLOSE - 4:39 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed up only 36 points, essentially ending the brief rally surrounding Obama's naming of his economic team.  We're back to reality.

REPORT - GATES TO STAY - 3:26 P.M. ET:   Sources tell ABC News that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will be staying on in the top Pentagon job, for at least the first year of the Obama administration. "It is a done deal," a source close to the process tells ABC News.

COMMENT:  We could do a lot worse.  The idea is to keep Chuck Hagel's hands off national defense.

EXPE RTISE FROM A READER - 1:21 P.M. ET:   This morning, under the title, Sober Up I, we published a warning about the state of our nuclear deterrence.  Reader Tom Bullock was a nuclear-weapons professional, and sends us this informed letter: 

Having worked for thirty  years in weapons business I can attest to the woeful status of our nuclear weapons capabilities. When the Rocky Flats plant near Denver, CO, stopped  manufacturing plutonium triggers, or more commonly referred to as “pits” we  lost the ability to build new weapons to replace the aging units in the  stockpile. To my knowledge, the backup facility at the Las Alamos National  Laboratory (LANL) has yet to demonstrate the capability to fabricate a  “diamond stamp pit." This exceedingly, precise criteria is difficult to  duplicate requiring years of experience to attain the ability to machine a  tantalizing and unforgiving material such as plutonium.
 
The  Department of Energy (DOE), a top-heavy bureaucracy, has for years, going  back to the early 1990s, attempted to reconstitute the weapons manufacturing  capacity. The first attempt was called Complex 21, whose mission was to have  a new and more efficient plants operating in the early 2000s. This program  morphed into the Weapons Complex Reconfiguration Project with an expanded  scope. I was part of the Fluor Daniel project team that provided DOE with  design data for the new complex. The scope of this program was eventually  reduced to developing plans for a new tritium supply only.  
 
When I retired over eight years ago, DOE was still struggling  with when and how could the nation revive the weapons program as nuclear  weapons in the stockpile continue to corrode and experience higher radiation  levels as the plutonium slowly decays.

The new president is on the political left.  Powerful elements in his party pride themselves in their showy hostility to national defense.  This is a critical situation that the mainstream media continues to ignore. 

The word "crisis" is overused.  But I'd say this is a real one.

WELCOME TO POWER, MR. OBAMA - 12:48 P.M. ET:   Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The decline in U.S. house prices accelerated in September and the economy shrank in the third quarter at a faster pace than first estimated as the grip of the credit crunch tightened.

The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index fell 17.4 percent from a year earlier. The Commerce Department said gross domestic product dropped an annual 0.5 percent as household spending slid the most since 1980. While consumer confidence rose this month, the Conference Board’s gauge remained near the lowest on record.

COMMENT:  The president-elect may well have to deal with a public backlash if Americans conclude that the vast billions being spent aren't helping them personally.  That's one reason why tax cuts are so critical.

THE BILL FOR BILL - 10:29 A.M. ET:  (CNSNews.com) - Four major banks, including one that collapsed, two that received federal bailout money and one that filed for bankruptcy this past September, paid former President Clinton $2.1 million for 13 speeches he delivered on their behalf between 2004-2007, according to Senate financial disclosure statements filed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

COMMENT:  What did they actually get for that money?  His financial advice?

GEORGIA, GEORGIA

Posted at 9:12 a.m. ET

First the bad news:  The election isn't over. 

Now the good news:  There may be some good news.

There's a runoff Tuesday in Georgia, starring incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss against Dem challenger Jim Martin.  The election is critical.  If Martin wins, and if the Dems pick up the Minnesota seat held by Norm Coleman, the Democratic majority will have 60 seats, enough to break a filibuster and insure unrestrained Democratic rule.  But Chambliss, according to The Washington Times, is holding his own:

Mr. Martin is behind in polls, has half the cash of his opponent and early-voting turnout among black voters is stagnating - a crucial block for any Democrat in this mostly conservative state where Republicans also hold the other U.S. Senate seat, the governor's office and majorities in both houses of the state General Assembly.

That doesn't bode well for Mr. Martin and Senate Democrats eyeing an unexpected victory Tuesday to put them one vote away from a filibuster-breaking 60-vote majority and the power to ram the party's agenda through the chamber.

And...

"The holiday, the cold weather, the relatively lackluster campaign [by Mr. Martin] will put Senator Chambliss in the winning column," said University of Georgia political science professor Audrey A. Haynes. "With all of the potential issues that are positive for Martin and negative for Chambliss, it should be a Martin win, albeit a bit of a squeaker. But there just doesn't seem to be any fire."

Good.  Quench that fire, quench that fire.

Both campaigns overhauled their get-out-the-vote drives to counter the voter fatigue typical in runoffs. But Mr. Martin needs more of a turnout boost than his opponent. He finished nearly 110,000 votes behind Mr. Chambliss in the general election, despite the enthusiasm generated by Mr. Obama at the top of the Democratic ticket.

We can win this.  We'll look for any good news we can get.

November 25, 2008.      Permalink          

THE SAFETY RACE - 8:25 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety designated 72 vehicles as winners of their top safety pick award. The award recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting motorists in front, side and rear crashes and have anti-rollover technology called Electronic Stability Control, or ESC.

COMMENT:   Of the 72, only 19 are American, about 25 percent.  Not a good showing, especially when the auto makers are begging for government money.

SOBER UP I

Posted at 8:17 a.m. ET

The Wall Street Journal, as it often does, brings us back to reality, reminding us that money isn't the most serious problem out there.  This is the first of two pieces we'll run today dealing with the nation's defenses, and the gaping holes in same.  The first, I think, will shock you: 

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear weapons program has suffered from neglect. Warheads are old. There's been no new warhead design since the 1980s, and the last time one was tested was 1992, when the U.S. unilaterally stopped testing. Gen. Kevin Chilton, who heads U.S. Strategic Command, has been sounding the alarm, as has Defense Secretary Robert Gates. So far few seem to be listening.

Even our "soft" allies are doing a better job:

The U.S. is alone among the five declared nuclear nations in not modernizing its arsenal. The U.K. and France are both doing so. Ditto China and Russia. "We're the only ones who aren't," Gen. Chilton says. Congress has refused to fund the Department of Energy's Reliable Replacement Warhead program beyond the concept stage and this year it cut funding even for that.

Please notice all the details you've been given on this story by the mainstream media.  Apparently The New York Times has better things to do, like revealing national secrets.

Congress's behavior should finally convince us why it's necessary to win back the House and Senate in two years.

Our nuclear weapons are old, old, old, General Chilton says.  Some of them still use vacuum tubes.

And here comes the punch line: "This is the technology that we have . . . today." The technology in the weapons the U.S. relies on for its nuclear deterrent dates back to before many of the people in the room were born.

And yet, we are spending trillions to bail out companies with negligent executives.  But we scrimp on the deterrent that keeps us safe.  And more modern weapons are also more secure:

It's possible to design a terrorist-proof nuke, the general says. "We have the capability to design into these weapons today systems that, should they fall into wrong hands -- [should] someone either attempt to detonate them or open them up to take the material out -- that they would become not only nonfunctional, but the material inside would become unusable."

And get this:

The general stresses the need to "revitalize" the infrastructure for producing nuclear weapons. The U.S. hasn't built a nuclear weapon in more than two decades and the manufacturing infrastructure has disappeared. The U.S. today "has no nuclear weapon production capacity," he says flatly. "We can produce a handful of weapons in a laboratory but we've taken down the manufacturing capability." At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. produced 3,000 weapons a year.

And...

There's also the issue of human capital, which is graying. It's "every bit as important as the aging of the weapon systems," the general says. "The last individual to have worked on an actual nuclear test in this country, the last scientist or engineer, will have retired or passed on in the next five years." The younger generation has no practical experience with designing or building nuclear warheads.

This is genuinely alarming, yet the nation is not alarmed. And the views of the president-elect?

The president-elect likes to talk about a nuclear-free world and has said, "I will not authorize the development of new nuclear weapons." He has not weighed in on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.

Finally...

Gen. Chilton says the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons is "an important issue for the next administration in their first year." At the very least, he says, the U.S. needs to "go out and do those studies" on design, cost and implementation. As for his own role: "You've got to talk about it. You can't just one day show up and say we have a problem."

This should have the highest priority.  Our deterrent is our lifeline.  But I fear that the leftists in Congress will consider it a point of pride to continue to do nothing.  They're for peace, you know.

November 25,  2008.      Permalink          

THE CASH BOX - 7:18 A.M. ET:  The president-elect indicated yesterday, in announcing his economic team, that he favored a huge stimulus package, and his Democratic congress will apparently present him with one on inauguration day.  Further, the feds are moving in to bail out Citigroup.  Now, I've noticed there is a growing buzz centering on a question:  Where will we get all this money?  The subtext of that is, will we need foreign help?  Watch for these questions to grow in the public debate in the weeks ahead.  Bloomberg notes:

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

Important money.