Those Darn Subsidies

Having been wrong, yet again, on the Middle East and his prediction that Hezbollah would be blamed for the damage to Lebanon once a ceasefire took hold, in War on Daddy's Dime, Thomas Friedman takes on subsidies:

I’m not sure yet who’s the winner in the war between Hezbollah and Israel, but I know who’s the big loser: Iran’s taxpayers. What a bunch of suckers.

Isn’t it obvious? As soon as the reckless war he started was over, Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, declared that Hezbollah would begin paying out cash to the thousands of Lebanese families whose homes were destroyed. “We will pay compensation, a certain amount of money for every family to rent for one year, plus buy furniture for those whose homes were totally destroyed,” said Nasrallah. “These number 15,000.”

I guess we'll leave aside for the moment the contradiction between Friedman's opening sentence, asserting that Iran's taxpayers are footing the bill, and his overall thesis, which is that Iran's rulers use state oil revenues to provide massive subsidies to keep their people reasonably content.

I understand why Mr. Friedman is upset. He predicted that Hezbollah would take a post-war P.R. hit and be blamed for the bombing damage, but here they are using Iran's oil wealth in a manner that may well further expand their popularity. It is also beyond obvious that high oil prices provide huge revenue streams to many undesirable regimes. But isn't this really an expression of his upset at having been blindsided by the obvious?

I have to admit that I am amused by statements like this:

To buy public support, Iran’s regime subsidizes housing, gasoline, interest rates, flour and rice.

What sort of nation, after all, would subsidize its oil industry? Offer subsidized housing or interest rates? Or subsidize agricultural products? Why, I even understand that there's a country which instituted subsidies on bee farming during WWII so that they would have sufficient beeswax to waterproof munitions for overseas shipment - and those subsidies remain in place, for no good reason, even today.... Where do you suppose that could be? (More here.) Perhaps Mr. Friedman should join forces with the Club for Growth.

Oh, I'm not arguing that U.S. subsidies are equal in scope, or have the same direct purpose as those in nations like Iran and Syria, but then what about Kuwait - are its subsidies okay, even though it remains a misogynistic dictatorial monarchy, because it isn't belligerent? Last I checked, its subsidies of its population made Iran's look small.

If we could cut the price of crude in half, it would mean that all of Iran’s oil income would go to subsidies — which would be unsustainable and therefore a huge threat to the regime.

Well, in theory.... But in practice, they made it through 2004 and early 2005, so even assuming an unlikely plunge in oil prices to a "mere" $35/bbl I think they would somehow keep up the bad fight.

The Unhappy Client.... Ouch?

Over at lawinfo.com:

Lavender12 - In August of 2003 I hired an attorney along with his partner as co-counsel for my son who was facing a three strikes count. For the next two years the case was continually postponed, and the lead counsel refused calls from myself and my son. The co-counsel disappeared after payment and have not heard from him to this day. Of course my son was found quilty, the lead counsel was not prepared, and said so. If any one has had this same problem, please advise, I have been to the State Bar, and they say this is a case of payment dispute? What dispute, they took my money and did nothing! Remember this name, [Law Firm]. Learn from my mistake.

[Law Firm] - Your son was convicted after a jury trial. You cannot possibly believe that we took your money and never showed up to court. That is a flat out lie. Furthermore the State Bar has already ruled in my favor and you should move on with your life. Stop this nonsense or I will sue you for making these defamatory remarks. Your son has already caused you and society enough grief. Move on.

I think this is a reminder that email and even moreso forum posts are not the same as conversation - there's a written record which may be public. I suspect that had this law firm been writing a letter to the client, they would have been more circumspect in their comments.

I know I've been intemperate at times in an online context, and for that matter still am, so I'm not judging. But when things like this appear in Google for your law firm name, even where people accept that the allegations are entirely untrue, it can affect whether a potential client will contact your firm.

Giving the Benefit of the Doubt to George Allen

Most people already know the story. Even those who seem inclined to believe that Allen intentionally used a racial slur question why he would do so. I think it's a reasonable inference that parts of his story are true - he did pick up the term from his staff, and he didn't realize that it was a racial slur. The sticking point is, he does not want to admit that his staff includes racists who know "white supremacist" code word ethnic slurs, and he has no good response to the question of why he engaged in what amounts to racial taunting even if he did not know he was using an ethnic slur.

The Ground Shifts Beneath GW's Feet

George Will published a column today, The Triumph of Unrealism, which criticizes the Bush Administration, not only without savaging the Democratic Party, but while actually endorsing the ideas of John Kerry.

In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

An accidental omission, or is the ground crumbling under GW's feet?

It's Not About The Oil....

The world according to Ken Mehlman....

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said the Democrats have embraced a side of their party that wants to block President Bush's tougher anti-terror measures and would abandon Iraq to terrorists.

"Imagine a failed state on the second-largest oil reserves in the world," he said on NBC. "That's what would happen if we cut and run in Iraq, which unfortunately - which is what the Democratic Party has now made their orthodoxy."

I know that people have been making fun of him for conveniently forgetting the Bush Administration's insistence that we "Stay the Course," proposing that reference the Bush Administration's succession of failed plans for Iraq as a strategy to "Win by adapting". But this one deserves ridicule as well.

First, as you surely recall, "It's not about the oil". So how is it that the biggest concern Mehlman can describe as resulting from a premature departure from Iraq is who may end up controlling "the second-largest oil reserves in the world"?

Second, if it is about the oil, or if the oil was actually the last of our concerns but we choose to throw our hands up in despair about everything else, if we choose we can retain control of the oil fields. Or we can utilize our military might to prevent a "failed state" from pumping oil. Or we can utilize the UN to implement another "oil for food" program, although perhaps this time with better safeguards against corruption.

Third, how well are we actually doing at managing the oil fields and oil production? Giving all due respect to the pipe dreams of people like White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, that the war would increase oil production and lower oil prices, Iraq is still producing oil in quantities below pre-war levels and the price of oil is... well, high. Oh, I love this stuff....

It is hard to say what impact this might have on oil prices, but markets clearly expect lower prices. On the eve of hostilities, oil was selling for about $37 per barrel. At this price, Americans would be paying $270 billion per year for oil. But once it became clear that Iraq’s liberation was at hand, the price quickly dropped to about $28 per barrel, cutting our annual oil bill by $70 billion. With full Iraqi production, the price might drop to $20 per barrel or less, giving us the equivalent of an annual tax cut of about $120 billion per year. And this is a tax cut the entire world benefits from.

I guess this means that, with oil trading at over $72 per barrel, Bruce Bartlett is now arguing that the Bush Administration brought us the equivalent of a $270 billion tax increase? No, I'm sure he would argue that any increase in the price of oil is due to factors completely independent of anything within the Bush Administration's sphere of control.... But if the goal truly is to keep oil wealth out of the hands of nasty people, the question of who controls Iraq's oil fields seems peripheral to the fact that the unpleasant regimes which control a significant number of oil producing nations are rolling in cash these days.

Don't Assume The Worst Of The Deponent

In my work for the past few years, my exposure to depositions has been pretty much limited to reading transcripts. I miss actually conducting depositions. From a transcript, I can't see the witness sweat, I generally can't see awkward pauses (although sometimes a lawyer will note them for the record or the court reporter will use ellipses), and I can't hear tone of voice. The textual presentation cleans up the testimony in a way that removes a lot of the personality. But that's not always the case.

In one case, where I happen to know background information, a lawyer did a very diligent job of walking the witness through a chronology of events. But the lawyer came into the deposition with the apparent perspective that the witness would be hostile, and he questioned the witness in a manner that was at times patronizing, condescending, and at times combative and insulting. There were various points where if he had listened more carefully to what the witness was saying, rather than assuming that the testimony fit his preconception, he would have been able ask questions which would have led to some very valuable information. He also would have avoided antagonizing a witness who was in fact neutral, and might have realized that some of the answers that seemed evasive were designed to protect his position and not the adverse party's.

Independent Joe....

What's wrong with this picture:

I wonder if he'll further expand his search for "independent voters" by getting voter lists for registered Republicans....