Bill Manzi.com

As a French craft prepares to take off to reach the 100 billion dollar international space station (largely funded with American dollars) NASA now acknowleges that in three short years the United States will have no means of using its own craft to reach the station. This will leave us entirely dependent on Russia for manned flights to space. From MSNBC;

In 2 1/2 years, just as the station gets fully assembled, the United States will no longer have any spacecraft of its own capable of carrying astronauts and cargo to the station, in which roughly $100 billion is being invested. The three space shuttles will be retired by then, because of their high cost and questionable safety, and NASA will have nothing ready to replace them until 2015 at the earliest.

For five years or more, the United States will be dependent on the technology of others to reach the station, which American taxpayers largely paid for. To complicate things further, the only nation now capable of flying humans to the station is Russia, giving it a strong bargaining position to decide what it wants to charge for the flights at a time when U.S.-Russian relations are becoming increasingly testy.

What does NASA say about this gap?

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin calls the situation his “greatest regret and greatest concern.” For most of the five-year gap, he said, “we will be largely dependent on the Russians, and that is terrible place for the United States to be. I’m worried, and many others are worried.”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), chairman of the subcommittee that oversees NASA, went further. “This is a very serious betrayal of American interests,” he said. “This will be the first time since Sputnik when the United States will not have a significant space superiority. I remain dumbfounded that we’ve allowed this serious threat to our national security to develop.”

Will the Russians do this for nothing? Think again.

NASA’s budget calls for spending $2.6 billion for transportation to the space station between fiscal 2009 and 2013. As it stands now, much of that would go to the Russians.

We must admit that this administration is consistent. They are even outsourcing our astronaut jobs to foreign countries.

With plenty of anti-NAFTA talk coming from both Democratic candidates in Ohio that staunch foe of free trade Pat Buchanan has written a column attacking the agreement. Buchanan indicts not only the NAFTA agreement but attacks the Bush economic record pretty heavily. Some pretty intriguing factoids in the Buchanan column.

Our workers’ instincts are backed up by stats. In 2007, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico soared 16 percent to $73 billion, a record. Mexico now ships more cars to us now than we ship to the world. And where did Mexico get an auto industry?

What about our trade with China?

The U.S. trade deficit with China shot up 10 percent to $256 billion, the largest trade deficit ever between any two countries.

How does anyone consider that to be fair trade?

Charles MacMillion of MBG Services has run the numbers.

In manufactures, the United States had a trade deficit of $499 billion in 2007, a slight improvement over the $526 billion record in 2006. Yet that trade deficit in manufactured goods with the world is more than twice as large as our $224 billion bill for OPEC’s oil.

Under Bush, the U.S. trade deficit has doubled. Three million manufacturing jobs have vanished. And America has begun to run a trade deficit in advanced technology goods of more than $50 billion.

Our trade deficit in advanced technology goods with China is $67 billion, eight times what it is with Japan.

What do these numbers tell Buchanan? Well the obvious effect on manufacturing cannot be denied.

“Free trade is essential to the creation of high-paying quality jobs,” said Bush on Thursday.
But if exports create jobs (and they do), imports displace them. And if we import half a trillion dollars more in manufactures than we export, is not Bush trade policy literally slaughtering industrial jobs?

Buchanan then lays out the Bush record for all to see.

Is there not a correlation between $4.3 trillion in trade deficits under Bush, the 3 million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush, the fall of the dollar by 50 percent against the euro under Bush and the resurgence of inflation, signaled by a quadrupling of the price of gold, under Bush?

Buchanan cites the huge growth in the U.S. economy in years gone by when the country was at its most protectionist.

This is ahistorical nonsense. From 1860 to 1913, the United States was the most protectionist nation on earth and produced the most awesome growth of any nation in history. In 1860, the U.S. economy was half of Britain’s; in 1913, more than twice Britain’s.

And so Buchanan calls out his conservative bretheren, calling on Republicans to repudiate free trade.

America rose to power behind a Republican tariff wall. What has free trade wrought? Lost sovereignty. A sinking dollar. A hollowing out of U.S. manufacturing. Stagnant wages.
Wives forced into the labor market to maintain the family income. Mass indebtedness to foreign nations, and a deepening dependency on foreign goods and borrowings to pay for them. We have sacrificed our country on the altar of this Moloch, the mythical Global Economy.

It took Rip Van Republican 20 years to wake up to the disaster of open borders and five years to realize the folly of igniting wars in which no vital interest was at risk. How long before the GOP wakes up to the reality that globalism is not conservatism, never was, but is a pillar of Wilsonian liberalism, in whose vineyards our faux conservatives now daily labor.

A pretty good indictment of the failed economic policies of this administration. And as Buchanan is fond of saying the chickens are coming home to roost.

Read the Buchanan column here.

I read a very interesting post from the Eisenthal Report dealing with the recent Concord Coalition budget analysis of President Bush’s budget submission. The numbers cited are staggering. Read the Eisenthal posting here. David has done a superb job of summarizing some of the salient financial points involved in the report, and his posting is worth a good hard look. I realize that many have become numb to the warnings of budgetary doom that always seem to be out there, but I truly believe that the course we are charting is simply unsustainable. The Concord Coalition report highlights some of the obvious problems underpinning the Bush Administration budget assumptions, and deals with the long term effects of no change in fiscal policy. That brings me to the continued fighting over the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the concept of “pay-go”. The Alternative Minimum Tax, originally designed to snare millionaires who were totally avoiding federal tax liability, is begining to ensnare millions of people who it was not designed to hit. (No provisions were made originally to index for inflation)From todays Washington Post:

House Democrats want to use a parliamentary maneuver to push a $70 billion tax increase through a reluctant Senate, a move intended to spare millions of taxpayers from an unpopular tax without driving up the deficit.

Under the plan, the House would prevent the alternative minimum tax from expanding to include more than 20 million additional households at tax time in April 2009, a change that would ordinarily deprive the Treasury of billions of dollars. To cover the cost, House tax-writers said they would come up with a proposal to raise the money elsewhere. That bill would be sent to the Senate in a fast-track package that would need only a simple majority to pass, denying Republicans and conservative Democrats the chance to filibuster.

And while Democrats take the fiscally sound position of reforming the ATM while not increasing the federal deficit the Republicans balk.

Senate Republicans and White House officials assailed the newest proposal. “The administration does not believe the appropriate way to protect 22 million additional taxpayers from [the AMT] is to impose a tax increase on other taxpayers,” said Christin Baker, a spokeswoman for the White House budget office. Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, accused House leaders of “doing the Senate’s dirty work.”

The Republicans notion of reform in this case is to modify the ATM and simply add billions to the federal deficit. They decry pay-go as the Democratic way of passing automatic tax increases. But pay-go doesn’t mandate tax increases to make up for revenue loss. It simply says that the revenue loss or spending increases must be balanced out. (Increased spending would require increased revenue to pay for it-Tax cuts would require spending cuts or other revenue enhancements). The problem here is that neither party wants to give an inch on their political agenda, and that refusal to face reality leads to the type of numbers cited by the Concord Coalition. It is time for a reality check before it is to late. If spending is worthwhile then we must raise revenue to pay for it. If it is not or if the feeling is that it is unaffordable we must cut the spending. Republicans need to come clean about what areas of spending they really want to cut, and Democrats need to articulate how much revenue they really need to balance our budget and straighten out the entitlement mess and highlight areas in the federal budget that they would cut. Both parties will need to tell their base things that they will not want to hear. That is my spending rant for today. Read the Washington Post AMT story here.

Read the Concord Coalition report here.

Senator Hillary Clinton, on the proverbial ropes, came back strongly last night, scoring impressive wins in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas. Senator Barack Obama won the Vermont primary, as expected. While her wins will not put her in a position to substantially whittle the Obama lead in elected delegates it certainly allows her to push on. She will make a stand in Pennslyvania, and has the ability to inflict additional losses on Obama. These wins will be helpful in stanching the flow of super-delegates to the Obama camp. The potential for re-votes in both Florida and Michigan now become crucially important. If that occurs and Clinton can win both then this race goes into real unchartered territory. The results:

Ohio
Clinton 54%
Obama 44%
Other 2%

Texas (primary)
Clinton 51%
Obama 47%
Other 2%

Texas (caucus)
Obama 52%
Clinton 48%

R.I.
Clinton 58%
Obama 40%
Other 2%

Vermont
Obama 60%
Clinton 38%
Other 2%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23475188#23475188

Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist is indicating support for a re-run of the Florida primary, essentially having the State accede to the national Democratic Party demands on time frame and hence allowing the delegates from Florida to be seated without a floor fight. From Bloomberg:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said he’s open to the possibility. Primary elections are paid for by a state’s taxpayers, so the offer from Crist, a Republican, is “very helpful” because money is an issue, Dean said.

Maybe Tuesday’s results make this academic, but Clinton wins in Texas and Ohio could make a new Florida primary a very big part of who gets nominated. A great move by the Republican Governor, who may have just made his state a critical factor in the Democratic race.

Dean said the dispute over seating delegates is the fault party leaders, not Florida voters.

“If they would like to fix that problem so that we can seat Florida without any problems, of course we would like to seat Florida,” he said.

Crist said, “I think it’s very important though that those delegates are seated.

“I’m hopeful that the Democratic National Committee comes to the conclusion it’s the right thing to do,” he said on CNN today.

Crist may have successfully flanked the Democrats on this issue. Does the possibility of a Florida redux play any role in Hillary’s determination after Tuesday?

With the Texas primary upon us what better time to review the Robert Caro LBJ book “Means of Ascent”. Caro has written a series of LBJ books, and is supposedly working on the fourth and final installment dealing with the LBJ presidency. This book deals with a short period in LBJ’s career, but focuses on the single most important event in his life to that point, the 1948 Senate election which Johnson managed to “win” over the hugely popular ex-Governor of Texas Coke Stevenson. Caro’s depiction of these events has been criticized heavily by Johnson partisans (John Connally especially) but from my point of view they appear very well researched. The systemic rigging that occurred in many sections of Texas is undeniable, and a good argument is made that Johnson was out rigged in his first run for Senate in 1941. A very interesting portion deals with the brilliant legal stategy developed by Abe Fortas (later named by Johnson to the Supreme Court) as Johnson appeared to be on the verge of defeat in the legal skirmishing that was occurring after the election. Back in 1948 Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, sitting in review of a Court of Appeals ruling, issued an order that stopped a federal master from opening and reviewing data that likely would have proved fraud. I guess Bush v Gore was not the first time the Supreme Court had ordered a halt to the count. A great book by a great author.

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=billmanzicom-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=067973371X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr

Two new polls show that in both Texas and Ohio the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is to close to call. From MSNBC:

According to an MSNBC/McClatchy/Mason-Dixon survey in Texas, Obama is ahead of Clinton, 46%-45%, although that lead is within the poll’s 4% margin of error. The subgroups break out in predictable ways: Obama leads among men (54%-37%), those under 50 (56%-36%), African Americans (86%-6%), and independents and Republicans (55%-34%); Clinton leads among women (51%-40%), those over 50 (54%-38%), whites (53%-38%), Hispanics (62%-30%), and Democrats (50%-42%).

And we see a similar situation in Ohio, with the same sub-group breakouts.

In Ohio, per a new Cleveland Plain Dealer/Mason-Dixon poll, it’s Clinton 47%, Obama 43% — and that, too, is within the survey’s 4% margin of error. Also, the subgroups in Ohio mirror those in Texas, with Obama winning among men, African Americans, those under 50, and those wanting change; while Clinton leads among women, whites, those over 50, and those wanting experience.

With Obama roughly outspending Clinton two to one in paid media he has been able to close the gap in both states, with a knockout blow ready to be delivered. Tuesday should be an interesting day for political addicts.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that heavy pressure against the Texas Democratic Party is being exerted by Senator Clinton over the possibility of Texas caucus returns being reported on Tuesday night, potentially diluting the effects of a Clinton win in the primary portion of Texas delegate selection process. Texas has 228 delegates at stake, but only 126 will be chosen through the primary. Another 67 will be chosen through caucuses that start after the polls close at 7:00 p.m. in 8000 precincts throughout Texas. From the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

In past years, the caucuses have generated little attention or interest, but not this year. Now questions are being raised about procedures, whether there’s enough space to accommodate a flood of caucus participants and just how the results will be recorded and reported.

While both camps are looking closely at the procedural issues involved Clinton has been the most aggressive in threatening litigation. This is an interesting sub-plot to the vital Texas primary and caucus. Obama could make it moot with a primary win, but if Clinton wins Ohio and the Texas primary, but loses the Texas caucus Obama will be able to say that Texas was not a total victory for Hillary. Hillary cannot afford “split decisions” at this point. Her angst is understandable, but the backlash against legal action will likely be strong. So what do you think? Is Hillary still a candidate after Tuesday?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/player/wpniplayer_viral.swf?thisObj=fo168594&vid=030308-13v_title