The Senate Judiciary committee approved of a Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) plan to sell high tech work visa's and green cards to big businesses. The deal includes going back to 1991 and counting up all the unused visa's and then selling them to companies for $500 a pop.
This is an outrageous violation of fair immigration practice and a direct attack on high tech workers in this country.
The American people deserve better than these peddlers to big business and the sellout of the constituents who put these asshats in Congress.
I am not the only one outraged by this. NumbersUSA had this to say.
“Senators Specter and Kennedy’s plan is a travesty to American students studying to enter scientific, engineering and high-tech fields, as well as to those Americans who have worked hard to become masters of their craft,” said Roy Beck, Executive Director of NumbersUSA. “Selling huge numbers of additional jobs to foreign workers adds insult to injury for American citizens who are already having a difficult time finding full-time employment in their professional field at a family wage.”The plan was devised to satisfy the requirement for each congressional committee to come up with spending cuts or revenue increases to offset the profligate spending in recent years by Congress and the President. Senators Specter and Kennedy’s proposal sells hundreds of thousands of high-skilled American jobs over the next several years to corporations that will then be allowed to import additional foreign workers instead of hiring Americans. A portion of the jobs will be given for three to six years to foreign workers, and the rest of the jobs will be taken away from American workers forever by importing permanent foreign workers.
“It is truly unfortunate and tragic that the Judiciary Committee has decided to balance their part of the budget mess on the backs of unemployed and underemployed high-tech and other professional workers,” said Beck. “This action sends the message to American students that if they pursue a specialized field, they may not be able to find jobs in the U.S. This plan will cost corporations $500 per visa, but will cost American workers their livelihoods.”
If you are as pissed as I am you can call these Senators and voice your displeasure of the sellout of the American worker. Their numbers are listed below (courtesy of NumbersUSA
=========================
Pennsylvania
=========================
Sen. Specter, Arlen
(202-224-4254)
=========================
Delaware
=========================
Sen. Biden, Joseph
(202-224-5042)
=========================
Illinois
=========================
Sen. Durbin, Richard
(202-224-2152)
=========================
Kansas
=========================
Sen. Brownback, Sam
(202-224-6521)
=========================
Massachusetts
=========================
Sen. Kennedy, Edward
(202-224-4543)
=========================
New York
=========================
Sen. Schumer, Charles
(202-224-6542)
=================
Ohio
=========================
Sen. DeWine, Mike
(202-224-2315)
=========================
Pennsylvania
=========================
Sen. Specter, Arlen
(202-224-4254)
=========================
South Carolina
=========================
Sen. Graham, Lindsey
(202-224-5972)
=========================
Texas
=========================
Sen. Cornyn, John
(202-224-2934)
=========================
Utah
=========================
Sen. Hatch, Orrin
(202-224-5251)
=========================
Vermont
=========================
Sen. Leahy, Patrick
(202-224-4242)
=========================
Wisconsin
=========================
Sen. Feingold, Russell
(202-224-5323)
Sen. Kohl, Herb
(202-224-5653)
Originally posted at Diggers Realm
FAIR has released their latest report on the costs of illegal aliens to taxpayers. The main costs are in education, health care and prison costs for illegal aliens in jail.
California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based group that promotes stricter immigration policies.
Educating the children of illegal immigrants is the largest cost, estimated at $7.7 billion each year, according to the report. Medical care for illegal immigrants and incarceration of those who have committed crimes are the next two largest expenses measured in the study, the author said.
…
Jack Martin, who wrote the report, said Thursday that the $9 billion figure does not include other expenses that are difficult to measure, such as special English instruction, school lunch programs, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal immigrant workers.
“It's a bottom of the range number,” Martin said.
FAIR drew from the U.S. Census report and other sources. This study matches an earlier study By the Center for Immigration Reform (CIS) that I reported on (see: “Latest Report: Illegal Aliens Cost Taxpayers $10 Billion A Year” from Sep. 4, 2004). Of course you can't do any straight reporting on this issue without having some pro illegal alien advocate group playing the race card once again to justify the illegal behavior of these people who suck dry our tax system and run emergency rooms into bankruptcy.
Gerardo Gonzalez, director of Cal State San Marcos' National Latino Research Center, which compiles data on Latinos, criticized the report. He said it does not measure some of the contributions that immigrants make to the state's economy.
“Beyond taxes, these workers' production and spending contribute to California's economy, especially the agricultural sector,” Gonzalez said.
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the backbone of the state's nearly $28 billion-a-year agricultural industry, Gonzalez and other researchers say.
More than two-thirds of the estimated 340,000 agriculture workers in California are noncitizens, most of whom are believed to be illegal immigrants, according to a 1998 study on farmworkers prepared for the state Legislature.
Local farmers say migrant farmworkers are critical to their businesses, and without them they would have to close their farms or move their operations overseas.
These advocate groups really don't have a leg to stand on. The only arguments they ever try to use is racism or that all these fact based reports are wrong and that the production of these illegal aliens is higher than if a legal worker earning a decent wage and didn't require all the tax sucking benefits.
Martin disagrees. He said illegal immigrants displace American workers by taking low-skilled jobs, keep wages low by creating an overabundance of workers and stifle innovation by reducing the need for mechanized labor.
“The product of the illegal immigrant is not included (in the report) because if that is an essential product it will get done one way or another,” Martin said. Employers “would have to pay better wages or invest money on mechanization.”
Martin's study looks specifically at the costs of educating illegal immigrants' children, providing medical care to illegal immigrants and jailing those convicted of committing crimes. The report estimates the total cost at $10.5 billion each year, but that is offset by about $1.7 billion in taxes that illegal immigrants pay.
OK, sounds pretty backed up by facts. Sounds reasonable. So what could the advocates for illegal aliens possibly say about this report and its facts?
Good rebuttal there by a representative for illegal aliens.
“I think FAIR is without doubt an extremist organization that tries to portray itself as a mainstream group,” said Christian Ramirez, director of the San Diego office of the American Friends Service Committee, an advocate group for legal and illegal immigrants.
The article goes on to break down the numbers in the report further. Go read it for specific numbers. One that stands out though is the estimated $7.7 billion in education spending for illegal alien children. Having kid in Californian schools I can attest to the huge class sizes, low student-to-teacher interaction and the extraordinary amount of time wasted on those students who can't speak English fluently enough. So while the dollar number is $7.7 billion, the overall costs to actual legal citizens of this country's children who pay for these schools is immeasurable.
In this time of California's budget crisis this should be priority one in reducing expenses in the state.
Martin said states bear most of the cost of illegal immigration.
“State costs are much higher on a per capita basis because of the fact that the largest expenses are medical care and education and those are borne at the local level, not the federal,” Martin said.
Tipped by: La Shawn Barber. Go read her take on the report and some of the comments at her entry.
Originally Posted at Diggers Realm where there may be more comments.
From the 10/13 debate, President Bush:
…I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do the job…
I wonder how many nurses, teachers, or high-tech workers would work for $8 an hour. Wait, you didn't know that Bush's “guest worker” plan would be open to those people too?
That's what they have in mind. And, there would be no wage-related restrictions on it other than the minimum wage. So, employers could offer a teaching job for $8 an hour. American teachers would either take that rate or, more likely, they wouldn't. So, the employer could hire that “guest” worker from Bangladesh. The Bangladeshi would consider that a king's ransom. All the requirements of Bush's plan had been met: there wasn't an American willing to do the job.
Bush's plan would force millions of previously higher-wage jobs down near the minimum wage. What phrase would most Americans use to describe such a plan?
See Analysis: Bush temp worker plan open-ended and Bush “guest worker” program to be “open to any type of employee”. Also, “Hutchinson’s Remarks Indicate Cheap Labor Bias of Administration” and the links here.
…they're able to go back and forth to see their families… See, the card will have a period of time attached to it.
What exactly does he mean by “families”? Will their immediate family come with them or not? If not, are we going to be able to split up families? Not all people coming here would be Mexicans or from the parts of Mexico near the border. Is Bush going to require men to travel hundreds of miles to see their immediate family?
If, however, they're bringing their immediate family with them, there will no doubt be hundreds of thousands of children born, and those children will be U.S. citizens. Who's going to be able to make them go home after they've had a U.S. citizen child? And, won't most “guest” workers intentionally have children here so it will be harder to make them go home?
And, given that, doesn't this plan consist not just of an amnesty, but as a massive incentive for a huge chunk of Mexico's population to come here? Was any thought put into the consequences of this plan at all?
A Bush assistant addresses those questions in Bush “guest worker” program to be “open to any type of employee”. No change to the 14th Amendment is expected to accomodate the “guest worker” plan.
If somebody is coming here to work with a card, it means they're not going to have to sneak across the border.
No, it doesn't. People will sneak across the border for many reasons, but primarily for employment. And, if employers are willing to employ people illegally - under any guest worker plan - people will keep coming here illegally. People don't hire illegals primarily because of a lack of legal workers. They hire illegals because of the cost or to avoid paperwork or safety laws. If those who currently employ illegals want to continue to do so, they will under any guest worker program unless they're stopped. If Bush won't enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens now, what makes anyone think he'd enforce the laws under his plan? And, note that under the last guest worker program (the Bracero program) illegal immigration went up during and after that program.
See “Employer fines plummet for hiring illegals” and “The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers”.
…I don't believe we ought to have amnesty. I don't think we ought to reward illegal behavior…
His plan is perceived as an amnesty, and it's caused an uptick in those coming here expecting to take part in the amnesty. Whether it's truly an amnesty hinges on how exactly we define amnesty. And, when you get down to the level of minute differences in definition, you might as well be Bill Clinton.
See “Border Agents Warn of Influx” and “[Bush] Immigration plan envisions 'incentives' to illegal aliens”.
Well, to say that the borders are not as protected as they were prior to September the 11th shows he doesn't know the borders. They're much better protected today than they were when I was the governor of Texas… We have much more manpower and much more equipment there.
Bush was governor of Texas before 9/11. I'd hope the borders are better protected now than they were before that date. But, are they? What of all the chatter about terrorists attempting to infiltrate the U.S. via Mexico? What of the report of 25 Chechen terrorists possibily having succeeded in that effort?
Once again Bush's rhetoric just doesn't match up to reality. If the administration would take the novel approach of fining those companies that employ illegal aliens, all that manpower and equipment would have a much greater impact. As it is, to a certain extent they're just there for show.
This year's choice isn't between Bush and Kerry so much as between Bush and divided government with Kerry at the helm.
Under President Kerry, the GOP would control the House and the Senate, and they would help to keep any of Kerry's “liberal” impulses in check.
Bearing that in mind, what is the argument against such a divided government?
(Today's suggested reading: Bob Barr's An agonizing choice: Conservatives have plenty of cause to abandon Bush)
WSJ editorializes on the Kerry budget plan (with tough words for all players):
According to last month's estimate from the National Taxpayers Union, Senator Kerry is promising to increase net spending by $226 billion in the first year, or $6,066 per taxpayer over four years. And that's a lowball figure. The calculation used the lowest cost estimate of each spending proposal. …
[H]ow can Mr. Kerry blow out the budget so badly? It's not hard if you promise to be all things to all people. On top of Mr. Bush's huge education spending increases, the Democrats want to add $75 billion more in the first year alone. Another $56 billion is earmarked for public works and social programs. The Kerry health care proposals will cost another $71 billion that year, or $653 billion over 10, according to a former Clinton Administration economist. His original estimate was nearly $1 trillion until he found some miraculous savings.
…
The Democrats are trying to spark nostalgia for the Clinton era of supposed fiscal discipline. But remember the latter was achieved largely by cutting military spending. As the table nearby illustrates, Bill Clinton and a GOP Congress balanced the budget by withdrawing a “peace dividend” at a time when al Qaeda was declaring war. Mr. Bush, and presumably a President Kerry, must now walk that back up the hill.
Yes, you may be saying, but John Kerry says he can pay for all this by taxing those who make more than $200,000 a year — raking in $860 billion over the next decade. There are just a few problems. Current budget projections are based on current laws, which say the Bush tax cuts will phase out over the next five years unless Congress renews them. So the real take from soaking the rich a few years early will be modest, while the deficit projections will increase by a much larger margin if the middle-class tax cut is made permanent, as Mr. Kerry promises. Over the 10-year horizon his overall tax plan would reduce revenue by $602 billion, according to the Urban Institute.
The biggest canard is that Mr. Kerry will control spending by relying on spending “caps” and restoration of the “paygo” system, which required legislators to find offsets for any new tax cuts or spending. These only apply to the discretionary portion of the budget, not entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. The U.S. has just created the biggest new entitlement in half a century with the drug benefit for seniors, and Mr. Kerry wants to expand health spending still further. So paygo will do nothing to control the biggest sources of new spending.
The entire editorial is worth your time.
To listen to Democrats you'd think that there are three basic economic classes … poverty, middle class, and the upper 1%. The election year rhetoric has expanded the definition of middle class to include just about everyone in the US. An interesting statement in last night's debate serves as good evidence. Edwards, in the midst of answering a question on health care policy, made the following statement: “When we lift Americans out of poverty … we actually strengthen the economy because we put them in the middle class, which is the engine of this economy.” Straight from poverty to the middle class huh? That's a helluva subsidy!
As ridiculous as it sounds, it is actually a pretty reasonable assertion considering no one really knows what the “middle class” is. In opinion surveys most people will consider themselves middle class because … let's face it … no one wants to believe they are poor, but no one really believes they are rich. Economic measures are no more certain. The median household income is around $40,000 according to the 2000 census, but depending on where you live this as radically different meanings. In rural Arkansas 40K is certain middle class, but in NYC I would bet it doesn't go far.This WaPo Special Report puts the amoebic morphology of the middle class into perspective. Due to this ambiguity political rhetoric is always about the middle class … which would seem to imply that it isn't really about anything at all.
Some thoughts on the Bush Administration's domestic agenda, cross-posted at my blog.
One of the burning questions that has surrounded George W. Bush since he arrived on the national scene has been, how conservative is he, really? Four years ago, I thought I had an answer. Today, I'm not so sure.
To make sense of Bush's proper place on the Right, it's necessary to look at two significant political movements that have come to the fore in the past 15 years or so. Traditionally, the conservative movement has been driven by small-government conservatism, the idea that government is too big and intrusive and spends and regulates too much. Ever since the Reagan years, the small-government conservatives have been trapped in a sort of limbo: they've won the battle of ideas, but lost the political battle, most spectacularly with the failure of Newt Gingrich's 1994 revolution to eliminate any significant government programs.
Partially in response to this, we've seen the growth of what (at the risk of adding another sub-category) I've long liked to think of as Reform Conservatism. The central insight of Reform Conservatives has been that the most important problem with government programs is not that they involve the government, but that they take choices away from individuals. The classic Reform Conservative solution is including privately controlled accounts within the Social Security system; rather than stage a losing battle over trying to scale back or get rid of the program, Reform Conservatives have focused on introducing within it an element of private choice to make the operation of Social Security more like a non-governmental program. The other signature issue of Reform Conservatives, school choice, operates the same way: it's still redistributing taxpayer money, but the decisionmaking authority over the use of that money is shifted to parents and away from school system bureaucrats.
As described, of course, many of the Reform Conservative ideas date back to Goldwater, but they have particularly boomed in recent years. It's clear that some of the high priests of the movement, like Jack Kemp, genuinely believe that Reform Conservative solutions are an optimal form of governance; most others more likely view it as a tactical compromise strategy to introduce at least some level of personal freedom and private choice into our system as it currently exists. In that sense, one can argue that Reform Conservatives are the truly conservative ones, trying to work with the system as it exists rather than perfect a utopian system that has no chance of adoption. (In either case, of course, most Reform Conservatives would still agree with traditional small-government conservatives that there has been plenty of spending the past four years that can't be justified under any view of conservatism, but that's another day's post).
The polar opposite of the Reform Conservative movement is the neoliberal movement, of the Pat Moynihan/New Republic/Mickey Kaus variety (Bill Clinton knew how to talk the talk of neoliberalism). The neoliberals generally agree with the conservative critique of the liberal public policies of the Great Society era — that they erode personal responsibility and public accountability and incentives to work — which is why they are more often quoted by their adversaries than by their allies. But neoliberals part company with the Right over the solutions to those problems, preferring instead to have government enforce standards that demand such accountability, rather than depending on individual self-interest.
The classic divide here is in education, between the Reform Conservative solution of school choice (competition! accountability to the parents!) and the neoliberal solution of requiring schools to meet standards (accountability to government!). On that score, Bush has come down firmly on the neoliberal side, abandoning all but the most tepid school choice provisions in the No Child Left Behind act in favor of federal standards. Reform Conservatives are restive.
Bush's “Compassionate Conservatism” was supposed to be a Reform Conservative movement, coopting many of the themes of the Steve Forbes '96 presidential campaign:
*School choice
*Private accounts within Social Security
*Medical savings accounts and other private choices within Medicare
Even the faith-based initiative was sold this way: loosening government restrictions so that aid-dispensing groups had more autonomy to practice their faith. Ditto for opposing campaign finance “reform” while proposing additional disclosure requirements.
Anyway, one of the things I'll be looking for - and taking a look at as the campaign grinds on - is the extent to which Bush tries to reclaim some of the Reform Conservatism in his platform. We conservatives love Bush for his foreign policy, judicial appointments, and tax cuts, but on the core issues of domestic governance, there's been little to show for the past three years in the way of reform of the way government interacts with the people. If Bush runs as a neoliberal, he'll be sacrificing a big part of what made him such an attractive alternative to Shrumist populism in 2000 by offering genuine, rather than rhetorical, empowerment.
From The Armchair Analyst:
Hoover?Twice this morning I've read a news byte about how Bush has the worst employment record since Hoover. What does this mean exactly? Nothing. Like Hoover, Bush took office right after an era of irrational post-war optimism irresponsible investment. I'd bet good money that the 90's witnessed the biggest economic bubble since the roaring 20's. Which means that the bursting of that bubble would likely cause the biggest jobs fall off since the late 20's. Add to that 9/11, two wars and the perpetual uncertainty they've caused and I'd say Bush is doing pretty well.
Read More
A Sunday ago Lieberman made a bold pronouncement on Fox News: "…if we're against trade [and] for protectionism -- which never created a job -- we don't deserve to run the country." Here, Here. From this it would seem Lieberman could give Bush a lesson on Free Trade. But Lieberman is still a democrat, and still relies on protectionism prone unions to get elected. So to no surprise, Lieberman was in New Hampshire the very next day promoting his plan to bail out the US manufacturing industry by offering tax credits to companies who keep their production stateside. This plan is positively protectionist though without explicitly violating any trading agreements, which makes honest Joe possibly the biggest hypocrite in the primary heat.
There's more!!! Read the Full Article Here
Iraq could prove a model of economic success: Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq can feed itself - the 'fertile crescent' of the Tigris and Euphrates was the cradle of our own civilisation.
Iraq, more so than any other Arab country, has an opportunity to thrive and do so relatively easily. The article, which I've excerpted at length, explains why Iraq has more than just oil going for it.
Initially basic utilities have to be restored and a stable government must be put in place. Order must be restored -- no more looting, no matter how much steam they may need to blow off -- and a stable legal system that enforces contracts and enforces property rights. Once this has been accomplished the combination of capital developed from the sale of oil and foreign investment should lead to a prosperous Iraq. Low to nonexistent tariffs and quotas will help as well.
The article correctly points out that relying too much on oil will be harmful in the long run. If people become dependent on oil stipends and don't work to improve themselves then their economy will reflect this. They'll be like Saudi Arabia, the land of 10,000 princes and day-to-day loafers because of the massive oil wealth they have. Saudi Arabia will suffer for this shortsightedness, and really already have. The net worth of the kingdom has been cut in half since 1980, I recently read.
Iraq needn't follow that model and probably won't. With Iraqi exiles coming back from the United States having experienced life in a robust, dynamic society they can add this experience to the existing Iraqi culture and create something uniquely their own.
Iraq currently has an income per head estimated at $3,600 (£2,300) a year, similar to that of Egypt or Morocco. But there is no reason why its 23 million people should not have an income three or four times that level. This is not at all a basket case – it should become one of the richest countries of the Middle East. The question is: how to get there from here?The first stage must of course be to get basic public services working again. Here there is the need both for immediate humanitarian relief and for investment to repair damage from the war. But overlaying these is the need for a civic administration to oversee law and order. The sooner order returns, the sooner the condition of Iraqi citizens can be improved.
[....]
The second stage is more difficult because it involves re-establishing the apparatus of a modern state. There has to be a functioning and acceptable currency, there has to be a tax-collecting system, there has to be a budget, there has to be a civil police force – and so on. There is now quite a lot of experience of that too. We have learnt a lot from the experience in Bosnia and Kosovo. But there is no single model and Iraq will of necessity be different from previous exercises.
In one sense it should be easier, for the new governing authority will quite quickly have access to revenues from oil. It has been much harder, for example, in Kosovo, where there was no single source of revenue. And until the governing body has its own funds it will not be able to exert its own authority.
In another sense it will be harder. To be effective the new interim government has to be seen to be competent in economic terms and legitimate in political terms. The first is hard enough. Given the history of the Middle East, an imposed administration may find it harder to achieve the second.
Then comes the third stage, the building of a self-sustaining, prosperous modern economy. This cannot be imposed from the top down. All the experience of economic development is that success comes when societies control their own affairs, make their own decisions, determine their own fate.
There is a practical reason for this. One of the key common features of successful economic development, at least over the past 20 or 30 years, is the need for foreign commercial investment. Such investment does not only bring in money. It brings in know-how and it gives access to international markets. But the companies only invest in countries that are politically stable. They don't have to be Western democracies – look at the surge of investment into mainland China – but they do need to be able to give credible assurances to foreign investors. To give credible assurances they need to be credible themselves. A puppet state would not have that credibility.
[....]
We do not know what the oil price will be in five months' time, let alone five years. You can, however, see the potential impact of oil revenues on living standards by looking at Saudi Arabia. It has a similar population to Iraq – 21 million – produces about 9 million barrels a day and it has at present a GDP per head of $12,000 (£8,000). So it would be quite plausible for Iraq's income per head to double just on the strength of oil exports.
It should do much better. Unlike Saudi Arabia, it can feed itself – the "fertile crescent" of the Tigris and the Euphrates was the cradle of our own civilisation. It has a sophisticated and well-educated population. It has the resource of some two million exiles in Europe and North America who are maybe even better educated. And it has the great historical sites of Babylon, Nineveh, Ur, Nimrud and so on. Given stability, this could be the greatest place for cultural tourism on the planet.
If a country has oil and not much else, it can become a curse. It becomes a single product economy, with oil pricing other potential exports out of world markets. Not only does that mean near total dependence on one source of revenue and employment. It also means that much of the wealth accrues, though oil royalties, to the government, which then becomes a "lady bountiful", distributing largesse to the populace – and crowding out other self-generated economic activity.
Iraq, unlike most other Middle Eastern oil producers, has a much more broadly-based economy. It has been hobbled by UN sanctions and by appalling governance. But these will now be swept away. It does not need to follow optimal policies to do much better. If it can establish a broadly-based market economy it would become a beacon to the whole Arab world.
Turns out Al Jezeera just can't catch a break this week. ISH, a german news site, is illegally broadcasting the feed over the internet and charging for it.
ArabNews: Civilians Slaughtered
This column is an outrage, an obscenity. The tortured logic of an amoral man, a cesspool of consequences without context, a dilution of the gene pool that Darwin somehow missed, the smoldering, reed-thin arguments of a writer still outraged. This missive from a single British journalist defies all logic -- more than 22 million Iraqi civilians could be sent to Courts of the Revolution for summary execution or run through industrial plastic shredders because the journalist who cares so deeply for them won't countenance the accidental deaths of civilians.
Robert Fisk is an embarrassment to the human race. Rational thought escapes him. He ignores the brutality of Saddam Hussein and the tyranny the Iraqi people live under. He instead focuses on accidents that cost civilian lives in the process of liberating a country from a tyrant.
How people like this can live with themselves is beyond me.
It was an outrage, an obscenity. The severed hand on the metal door, the swamp of blood and mud across the road, the human brains inside a garage, the incinerated, skeletal remains of an Iraqi mother and her three small children in their still smoldering car. Two missiles from a single American jet killed them all — more than 20 Iraqi civilians, torn to pieces before they could be ‘liberated’ by the nation which destroyed their lives.Telling the truth is fine, even admirable. Reciting facts without providing context is monstrous when put to the use you would, Mr. Fisk.Who dares, I ask myself, to call this ‘collateral damage’? Abu Taleb Street was packed with pedestrians and motorists when the American pilot approached through the dense sandstorm that covered northern Baghdad in a cloak of red and yellow dust and rain yesterday morning. It’s a dirt poor neighborhood — of mostly Shiite Muslims, the same people whom Messers Bush and Blair still fondly hope will rise up against Saddam — a place of oil-sodden car repair shops, overcrowded apartments and cheap cafes.
Everyone I spoke to heard the plane. One man, so shocked by the headless corpses he had just seen, could only say two words. “Roar, flash,’’ he kept saying and then closed his eyes so tight that the muscles rippled between them.
How should one record so terrible an event? Perhaps a medical report would be more appropriate. But the final death toll is expected to be near to 30 and Iraqis are now witnessing these awful things each day; so there is no reason why the truth — all the truth — of what they see should not be told.
Today's Consumer Confidence and Existing Home Sales data were no big surprise.
Even though Consumer Confidence was lower (62.5 vs. prev. 64.8), it came in almost in line with expectations. Absolute index levels, however, are lowest in a decade. Future "buying" isn't looking good also, as the index fell for the 9th time in ten months. Geopolitical fears and increasing (at the time of poll) energy prices contributed to consumer demand abating slightly. Weak labor markets and diminishing household cash flow also contributed reduced plans to buy major appliances and houses in the future.
Jittery consumers also came through in the Existing Home Sales data, which was down in February. With mortgage rates backing up now, the housing is expected to be more subdued.