Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Looking for a reason to justify the battle of Iraq? Perhaps this might offer a clue. If nothing else, at least the Al Qaeda people are too busy ambushing us in Baghdad to be able to bomb us in NY!
Rising Tide of Islamic Militants See Iraq as Ultimate Battlefield
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
ULAIMANIYA, Iraq, Aug. 11 — In much the same way as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan stirred an earlier generation of young Muslims determined to fight the infidel, the American presence in Iraq is prompting a rising tide of Muslim militants to slip into the country to fight the foreign occupier, Iraqi officials and others say.
"Iraq is the nexus where many issues are coming together — Islam versus democracy, the West versus the axis of evil, Arab nationalism versus some different types of political culture," said Barham Saleh, the prime minister of this Kurdish-controlled part of northern Iraq. "If the Americans succeed here, this will be a monumental blow to everything the terrorists stand for."
Recent intelligence suggests the militants are well organized. One returning group of fighters from the militant Ansar al-Islam organization captured in the Kurdish region two weeks ago consisted of five Iraqis, a Palestinian and a Tunisian.
Among their possessions were five forged Italian passports for a different group of militants they were apparently supposed to join, said Dana Ahmed Majid, the director of general security for the region.
Long gone are the bearded men in the short robes believed worn by the Prophet Muhammad that the Arabs who went to Afghanistan favored. Instead, the same practices that allowed the Sept. 11 attackers to blend into American society are evident.
The fighters steal over Iraq's largely unpoliced borders in small groups with instructions to go to a safe house where they can whisper a password to gain admittance and then lie low awaiting further instructions, say Iraqi security officials in northern Iraq and in Baghdad.
"They come across as civilians, they shave their beards and have clean-cut hair," said a senior security official in the Kurdish region.
Iraqi officials say they expect a broad spectrum of Muslim militants to flood Iraq. They believe that Ansar al-Islam, a small fundamentalist group believed to have links with Al Qaeda, forms the backbone of the underground network. The group was forced out of northern Iraq by a huge attack during the war.
Mullah Mustapha Kreikar, the founding spiritual leader of Ansar al-Islam, said in an interview on Sunday with LBC, the Lebanese satellite channel, that the fight in Iraq would be the culmination of all Muslim efforts since the Islamic caliphate collapsed in the early 20th century with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. "There is no difference between this occupation and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979," he said from Norway, where he has political asylum.
"The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion, it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate," he said. "All Islamic struggles since then are part of one organized effort to bring back the caliphate."
Such appeals appear to be attracting a wide range of militants. The fight against Al Qaeda and its numerous offshoots worldwide during the last two years has severely disrupted their coordination, but details emerging from either suspects captured in the last few weeks or from recent surveillance indicates that Qaeda training methods in everything from forgery to establishing sleeper cells are being applied here.
Al Qaeda Web sites carry long treatises on the need for jihad, or holy war, and argue that the effort should not be dissipated in meaningless activities like peaceful demonstrations. Chat-room discussions occasionally focus on how to sneak across borders.
Once established in Baghdad or in the Sunni triangle north of the capital, where much of the armed resistance occurs, the Islamic militants often make common cause with members of the former Baathist government who are also determined to fight Americans.
At least one Saudi and one Egyptian formerly linked to Al Qaeda helped establish an initial training camp three weeks ago where new recruits are lectured on the theological underpinnings of jihad, a security official in Baghdad said.
"All previous experiences with the activities of the underground organizations proved that they flourish in countries with a chaotic security situation, unchecked borders and the lack of a central government — Iraq is all that," said Muhammad Salah, an expert on militant groups and the Cairo bureau chief of the newspaper Al Hayat. "It is the perfect environment for fundamentalist groups to operate and grow."
United States troops have arrested two clerics from Islamic Kurdish groups — once all part of one big organization — suspected of providing logistics help to Ansar fighters, Iraqi officials said. More than 150 members of Ansar al-Islam are believed to have slipped into the country in recent weeks, said a security official in the Kurdish region. Smugglers are believed to be bringing them over daily.
In addition, there are an estimated 100,000 former members of the Iraqi security services without gainful employment, all concentrated in the Sunni triangle north of Baghdad. Perhaps 2,000 of them, especially those with no source of income and no hopes of gaining any kind of amnesty, would be likely recruits for the fundamentalists, the official said.
Although attacks like the deadly car bombing outside the Jordanian Embassy that killed 17 people last Thursday are most likely the work of militants, security officials say, some attacks are carried out either for money or by Iraqis who just do not want Americans here. But the officials anticipate that militant organizations will carry out more attacks.
The training around Baghdad so far has been in three stages, a security official said. Some sort of initial contact is made — usually after prayers in a mosque — and then a second meeting is arranged. Some recruits are weeded out then, but the third round of likely candidates are the ones who make it to the training camp, the official said. They are told to move away from their families and not communicate with anyone.
Some candidates are believed to be the men who worked for Muhammad Khtair al-Dulaimi in the Special Operations Directorate, the branch of the Iraqi secret service that specialized in remote control bombings, poisoning and other operations. The former chief is still at large and is suspected of putting his employees to work against the Americans, the source said.
But the main group organizing an underground route of safe houses and coordinating the various efforts is believed to be Ansar al-Islam, or the Islamic Partisans in English, whose suspected ties to Al Qaeda were among the reasons the Bush administration used to justify the war against Iraq. Although initially a strictly Kurdish organization, its ranks swelled with Arab fighters after the United States attacked Afghanistan in October 2001.
Before the Iraqi war the group was believed to have some 850 members, but up to 200 were killed in the attack against them by Kurdish and United States Special Forces troops in March. Several hundred more were either captured or turned themselves in, leaving an estimated 300 to 350 who fled to Iran.
The extent of their activities remains cloudy. But Web sites believed linked to Al Qaeda are clear enough about the envisaged fight: "The struggle with America has to be carefully managed, the `electric shock method' must be applied, relentless shocks that haunt the Americans all the time everywhere, without giving them a break to regain balance or power."
Rising Tide of Islamic Militants See Iraq as Ultimate Battlefield
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
ULAIMANIYA, Iraq, Aug. 11 — In much the same way as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan stirred an earlier generation of young Muslims determined to fight the infidel, the American presence in Iraq is prompting a rising tide of Muslim militants to slip into the country to fight the foreign occupier, Iraqi officials and others say.
"Iraq is the nexus where many issues are coming together — Islam versus democracy, the West versus the axis of evil, Arab nationalism versus some different types of political culture," said Barham Saleh, the prime minister of this Kurdish-controlled part of northern Iraq. "If the Americans succeed here, this will be a monumental blow to everything the terrorists stand for."
Recent intelligence suggests the militants are well organized. One returning group of fighters from the militant Ansar al-Islam organization captured in the Kurdish region two weeks ago consisted of five Iraqis, a Palestinian and a Tunisian.
Among their possessions were five forged Italian passports for a different group of militants they were apparently supposed to join, said Dana Ahmed Majid, the director of general security for the region.
Long gone are the bearded men in the short robes believed worn by the Prophet Muhammad that the Arabs who went to Afghanistan favored. Instead, the same practices that allowed the Sept. 11 attackers to blend into American society are evident.
The fighters steal over Iraq's largely unpoliced borders in small groups with instructions to go to a safe house where they can whisper a password to gain admittance and then lie low awaiting further instructions, say Iraqi security officials in northern Iraq and in Baghdad.
"They come across as civilians, they shave their beards and have clean-cut hair," said a senior security official in the Kurdish region.
Iraqi officials say they expect a broad spectrum of Muslim militants to flood Iraq. They believe that Ansar al-Islam, a small fundamentalist group believed to have links with Al Qaeda, forms the backbone of the underground network. The group was forced out of northern Iraq by a huge attack during the war.
Mullah Mustapha Kreikar, the founding spiritual leader of Ansar al-Islam, said in an interview on Sunday with LBC, the Lebanese satellite channel, that the fight in Iraq would be the culmination of all Muslim efforts since the Islamic caliphate collapsed in the early 20th century with the demise of the Ottoman Empire. "There is no difference between this occupation and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1979," he said from Norway, where he has political asylum.
"The resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion, it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate," he said. "All Islamic struggles since then are part of one organized effort to bring back the caliphate."
Such appeals appear to be attracting a wide range of militants. The fight against Al Qaeda and its numerous offshoots worldwide during the last two years has severely disrupted their coordination, but details emerging from either suspects captured in the last few weeks or from recent surveillance indicates that Qaeda training methods in everything from forgery to establishing sleeper cells are being applied here.
Al Qaeda Web sites carry long treatises on the need for jihad, or holy war, and argue that the effort should not be dissipated in meaningless activities like peaceful demonstrations. Chat-room discussions occasionally focus on how to sneak across borders.
Once established in Baghdad or in the Sunni triangle north of the capital, where much of the armed resistance occurs, the Islamic militants often make common cause with members of the former Baathist government who are also determined to fight Americans.
At least one Saudi and one Egyptian formerly linked to Al Qaeda helped establish an initial training camp three weeks ago where new recruits are lectured on the theological underpinnings of jihad, a security official in Baghdad said.
"All previous experiences with the activities of the underground organizations proved that they flourish in countries with a chaotic security situation, unchecked borders and the lack of a central government — Iraq is all that," said Muhammad Salah, an expert on militant groups and the Cairo bureau chief of the newspaper Al Hayat. "It is the perfect environment for fundamentalist groups to operate and grow."
United States troops have arrested two clerics from Islamic Kurdish groups — once all part of one big organization — suspected of providing logistics help to Ansar fighters, Iraqi officials said. More than 150 members of Ansar al-Islam are believed to have slipped into the country in recent weeks, said a security official in the Kurdish region. Smugglers are believed to be bringing them over daily.
In addition, there are an estimated 100,000 former members of the Iraqi security services without gainful employment, all concentrated in the Sunni triangle north of Baghdad. Perhaps 2,000 of them, especially those with no source of income and no hopes of gaining any kind of amnesty, would be likely recruits for the fundamentalists, the official said.
Although attacks like the deadly car bombing outside the Jordanian Embassy that killed 17 people last Thursday are most likely the work of militants, security officials say, some attacks are carried out either for money or by Iraqis who just do not want Americans here. But the officials anticipate that militant organizations will carry out more attacks.
The training around Baghdad so far has been in three stages, a security official said. Some sort of initial contact is made — usually after prayers in a mosque — and then a second meeting is arranged. Some recruits are weeded out then, but the third round of likely candidates are the ones who make it to the training camp, the official said. They are told to move away from their families and not communicate with anyone.
Some candidates are believed to be the men who worked for Muhammad Khtair al-Dulaimi in the Special Operations Directorate, the branch of the Iraqi secret service that specialized in remote control bombings, poisoning and other operations. The former chief is still at large and is suspected of putting his employees to work against the Americans, the source said.
But the main group organizing an underground route of safe houses and coordinating the various efforts is believed to be Ansar al-Islam, or the Islamic Partisans in English, whose suspected ties to Al Qaeda were among the reasons the Bush administration used to justify the war against Iraq. Although initially a strictly Kurdish organization, its ranks swelled with Arab fighters after the United States attacked Afghanistan in October 2001.
Before the Iraqi war the group was believed to have some 850 members, but up to 200 were killed in the attack against them by Kurdish and United States Special Forces troops in March. Several hundred more were either captured or turned themselves in, leaving an estimated 300 to 350 who fled to Iran.
The extent of their activities remains cloudy. But Web sites believed linked to Al Qaeda are clear enough about the envisaged fight: "The struggle with America has to be carefully managed, the `electric shock method' must be applied, relentless shocks that haunt the Americans all the time everywhere, without giving them a break to regain balance or power."
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
In Italian from the Corriere della Sera, an interesting and unusual ( for Italian political pundits ) perspective on Euro-wide values and rights.
Destra e sinistra, analoga debolezza culturale
IL RIFORMISMO SENZA CITTADINANZA
di PIERO OSTELLINO
Indipendentemente da ogni giudizio su Berlusconi, è un fatto che il mancato decollo del suo programma di riforme è, per il Paese, una nuova occasione perduta sulla strada del cambiamento. In prospettiva, il danno, poi, è accresciuto dall’assenza di una domanda e di un’offerta, alternative al riformismo del centrodestra, da parte rispettivamente della società civile e di quella politica di centrosinistra. Il riformismo non ha cittadinanza, in Italia, né a destra né a sinistra, perché entrambe hanno firmato una sorta di «armistizio» con gli interessi organizzati. La destra ci ha provato a essere riformista, ma ha fallito perché a prevalere è stata la sua vocazione corporativa. La sinistra non ci prova neppure, perché, in cambio della propria legittimazione, si è eletta a rappresentante degli interessi dell’establishment industriale, economico, finanziario e intellettuale che, per la sua stessa natura, è conservatore.
Così, sia la destra sia la sinistra, anche se per ragioni e con culture diverse, hanno una concezione «collettivista» della società. E sono convinte che compito della politica sia realizzare la convergenza fra gli interessi dei gruppi organizzati e non fra singoli individui dotati di razionalità e di libertà e capaci di organizzare da sé i propri rapporti con i loro simili. Individui che, perciò, destra e sinistra tendono a collocare all’interno di una cornice sociale, di interessi categoriali e di «astrazioni collettive», la più emblematica delle quali sta già nel primo articolo della Costituzione, là dove esso recita che «l’Italia è una Repubblica democratica, fondata sul lavoro».
La precondizione della rinascita dell’Italia è, dunque, una riforma della Costituzione che, depurandone il testo delle eredità del tempo in cui è stata approvata, conferisca un ruolo centrale all’individuo. L’umanità non è costituita da categorie più o meno complesse, ma da uomini e donne in carne e ossa che rivendicano l’intangibilità delle proprie scelte morali, politiche, di vita; i tanti, piccoli pontefici «interni» quante sono le coscienze individuali che hanno sostituito il solo, grande pontefice «esterno» (lo Stato non meno che la Chiesa). Né la democrazia (da sola) è in grado di difendere le libertà individuali, nella società di massa, dalla «tirannia della maggioranza».
La libertà tanto più cresce quanto più si allargano gli ambiti, i cosiddetti diritti naturali soggettivi, all’interno dei quali l’individuo è libero di agire come preferisce, e si riducono i divieti. E’ stato, infatti, l’individualismo liberale a produrre il «miracolo occidentale». Ed è stata la libera competizione a infondere fiducia e vigore a società costituite da uomini liberi e intraprendenti.
E’ con questa stessa logica di riformismo liberale che dovrebbe svilupparsi anche il processo di unificazione europea. Il quale pare invece limitarsi a cercare di sostituire con una nuova «sovranità europea» le vecchie «sovranità nazionali», a loro volta sostitutive delle antiche «sovranità regali». Non secondo il pensiero di Montesquieu che «il potere arresta il potere», bensì secondo quello di Rousseau di una neonata Volontà generale, moderna incarnazione del monarca assoluto, che dovrebbe governare la «nazione europea» come se questa non fosse costituita da una moltitudine di individui, ma l’espressione di nuove «astrazioni collettive», le stesse che hanno impedito agli Stati-nazione continentali, figli della Rivoluzione francese, di essere liberali.
postellino@corriere.it
Destra e sinistra, analoga debolezza culturale
IL RIFORMISMO SENZA CITTADINANZA
di PIERO OSTELLINO
Indipendentemente da ogni giudizio su Berlusconi, è un fatto che il mancato decollo del suo programma di riforme è, per il Paese, una nuova occasione perduta sulla strada del cambiamento. In prospettiva, il danno, poi, è accresciuto dall’assenza di una domanda e di un’offerta, alternative al riformismo del centrodestra, da parte rispettivamente della società civile e di quella politica di centrosinistra. Il riformismo non ha cittadinanza, in Italia, né a destra né a sinistra, perché entrambe hanno firmato una sorta di «armistizio» con gli interessi organizzati. La destra ci ha provato a essere riformista, ma ha fallito perché a prevalere è stata la sua vocazione corporativa. La sinistra non ci prova neppure, perché, in cambio della propria legittimazione, si è eletta a rappresentante degli interessi dell’establishment industriale, economico, finanziario e intellettuale che, per la sua stessa natura, è conservatore.
Così, sia la destra sia la sinistra, anche se per ragioni e con culture diverse, hanno una concezione «collettivista» della società. E sono convinte che compito della politica sia realizzare la convergenza fra gli interessi dei gruppi organizzati e non fra singoli individui dotati di razionalità e di libertà e capaci di organizzare da sé i propri rapporti con i loro simili. Individui che, perciò, destra e sinistra tendono a collocare all’interno di una cornice sociale, di interessi categoriali e di «astrazioni collettive», la più emblematica delle quali sta già nel primo articolo della Costituzione, là dove esso recita che «l’Italia è una Repubblica democratica, fondata sul lavoro».
La precondizione della rinascita dell’Italia è, dunque, una riforma della Costituzione che, depurandone il testo delle eredità del tempo in cui è stata approvata, conferisca un ruolo centrale all’individuo. L’umanità non è costituita da categorie più o meno complesse, ma da uomini e donne in carne e ossa che rivendicano l’intangibilità delle proprie scelte morali, politiche, di vita; i tanti, piccoli pontefici «interni» quante sono le coscienze individuali che hanno sostituito il solo, grande pontefice «esterno» (lo Stato non meno che la Chiesa). Né la democrazia (da sola) è in grado di difendere le libertà individuali, nella società di massa, dalla «tirannia della maggioranza».
La libertà tanto più cresce quanto più si allargano gli ambiti, i cosiddetti diritti naturali soggettivi, all’interno dei quali l’individuo è libero di agire come preferisce, e si riducono i divieti. E’ stato, infatti, l’individualismo liberale a produrre il «miracolo occidentale». Ed è stata la libera competizione a infondere fiducia e vigore a società costituite da uomini liberi e intraprendenti.
E’ con questa stessa logica di riformismo liberale che dovrebbe svilupparsi anche il processo di unificazione europea. Il quale pare invece limitarsi a cercare di sostituire con una nuova «sovranità europea» le vecchie «sovranità nazionali», a loro volta sostitutive delle antiche «sovranità regali». Non secondo il pensiero di Montesquieu che «il potere arresta il potere», bensì secondo quello di Rousseau di una neonata Volontà generale, moderna incarnazione del monarca assoluto, che dovrebbe governare la «nazione europea» come se questa non fosse costituita da una moltitudine di individui, ma l’espressione di nuove «astrazioni collettive», le stesse che hanno impedito agli Stati-nazione continentali, figli della Rivoluzione francese, di essere liberali.
postellino@corriere.it
ELECTIONS
a d v e r t i s e m e n t
The boundries between the political left and right are getting all mixed up. A western trend for the 21st century:
Coming Soon: 'Rise of the Arnold Democrats'
By Tony Quinn
Tony Quinn is co-editor of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan analysis of California's congressional and legislative elections.
August 10, 2003
SACRAMENTO — Arnold Schwarzenegger lobbed a grenade into the California political establishment last week when he surprisingly announced his candidacy for governor. When the debris clears, the state's Democrats will have a new problem: the "Arnold Democrat."
Another actor — named Ronald Reagan — erupted on the California political scene 37 years ago, and one of his legacies was the "Reagan Democrat." These were blue-collar, New Deal Democrats who suddenly found themselves voting for a conservative Republican. Reagan Democrats transformed California politics, not only catapulting Reagan into the governorship twice but also helping elect him president twice.
Schwarzenegger's largest effect may be to bring to the polls another new class of voters — people who would ordinarily be expected to vote Democratic, if they voted at all. These voters, though also blue-collar, are probably younger than the Reagan Democrats; they are definitely alienated from politics. One reason that polling on Schwarzenegger's candidacy has been difficult is that pollsters don't know whom to ask. Schwarzenegger's supporters may be "below-the-screen" voters, the same people who elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura governor of Minnesota.
Political scientists have noted a steady increase since 1990 in voters who decline to state a party affiliation, rising a point or so in every electoral cycle. But the more dramatic phenomenon is that 30% to 40% of first-time voters register as decline-to-state voters. Even among Latinos, the category has been surprisingly high, although one assumes they tend to vote Democratic. In 2002, many new Latino voters stayed home because they lacked enthusiasm for Gov. Gray Davis.
These are among the voters the Schwarzenegger candidacy might draw to the polls. The 20-year-old who's seen every Schwarzenegger movie three times is more likely to come out just to vote for "Arnold" than the 60-year-old white male for whom he is mildly amusing but hardly credible as a governor.
So, the one thing that becomes reasonably clear as Schwarzenegger begins to transform himself into a candidate is the near-fatal impact he has on Davis' chances for survival. Democratic Party polls over the last two weeks showed a hardening of the anti-Davis vote among likely recall voters. Add to that disaffected and hitherto uninterested new voters who would troop to the polls to vote Davis out and Schwarzenegger in and it is hard to see any scenario in which Davis remains governor.
Schwarzenegger is certainly not the automatic winner on the replacement ballot. A thousand twists and turns are before us between now and the recall election. But the Schwarzenegger phenomenon dooms Davis. The last thing he needed was an army of Arnold Democrats.
Between 1966 — the year Reagan was elected governor — and 1994, the California Democratic Party lost six races for governor because Reagan Democrats crossed over in the voting booth. Not until the Reagan Democrat passed into history in the late 1990s did the Democrats again reassert themselves in California politics.
The newly emerging Arnold Democrat is as socially liberal to libertarian as the Reagan Democrat was socially conservative. He or she may well be an immigrant or the child of an immigrant. But one thing seems certain: The Arnold Democrat poses every bit as much of a threat to the California Democratic Party as the Reagan Democrat did decades ago.
a d v e r t i s e m e n t
The boundries between the political left and right are getting all mixed up. A western trend for the 21st century:
Coming Soon: 'Rise of the Arnold Democrats'
By Tony Quinn
Tony Quinn is co-editor of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan analysis of California's congressional and legislative elections.
August 10, 2003
SACRAMENTO — Arnold Schwarzenegger lobbed a grenade into the California political establishment last week when he surprisingly announced his candidacy for governor. When the debris clears, the state's Democrats will have a new problem: the "Arnold Democrat."
Another actor — named Ronald Reagan — erupted on the California political scene 37 years ago, and one of his legacies was the "Reagan Democrat." These were blue-collar, New Deal Democrats who suddenly found themselves voting for a conservative Republican. Reagan Democrats transformed California politics, not only catapulting Reagan into the governorship twice but also helping elect him president twice.
Schwarzenegger's largest effect may be to bring to the polls another new class of voters — people who would ordinarily be expected to vote Democratic, if they voted at all. These voters, though also blue-collar, are probably younger than the Reagan Democrats; they are definitely alienated from politics. One reason that polling on Schwarzenegger's candidacy has been difficult is that pollsters don't know whom to ask. Schwarzenegger's supporters may be "below-the-screen" voters, the same people who elected professional wrestler Jesse Ventura governor of Minnesota.
Political scientists have noted a steady increase since 1990 in voters who decline to state a party affiliation, rising a point or so in every electoral cycle. But the more dramatic phenomenon is that 30% to 40% of first-time voters register as decline-to-state voters. Even among Latinos, the category has been surprisingly high, although one assumes they tend to vote Democratic. In 2002, many new Latino voters stayed home because they lacked enthusiasm for Gov. Gray Davis.
These are among the voters the Schwarzenegger candidacy might draw to the polls. The 20-year-old who's seen every Schwarzenegger movie three times is more likely to come out just to vote for "Arnold" than the 60-year-old white male for whom he is mildly amusing but hardly credible as a governor.
So, the one thing that becomes reasonably clear as Schwarzenegger begins to transform himself into a candidate is the near-fatal impact he has on Davis' chances for survival. Democratic Party polls over the last two weeks showed a hardening of the anti-Davis vote among likely recall voters. Add to that disaffected and hitherto uninterested new voters who would troop to the polls to vote Davis out and Schwarzenegger in and it is hard to see any scenario in which Davis remains governor.
Schwarzenegger is certainly not the automatic winner on the replacement ballot. A thousand twists and turns are before us between now and the recall election. But the Schwarzenegger phenomenon dooms Davis. The last thing he needed was an army of Arnold Democrats.
Between 1966 — the year Reagan was elected governor — and 1994, the California Democratic Party lost six races for governor because Reagan Democrats crossed over in the voting booth. Not until the Reagan Democrat passed into history in the late 1990s did the Democrats again reassert themselves in California politics.
The newly emerging Arnold Democrat is as socially liberal to libertarian as the Reagan Democrat was socially conservative. He or she may well be an immigrant or the child of an immigrant. But one thing seems certain: The Arnold Democrat poses every bit as much of a threat to the California Democratic Party as the Reagan Democrat did decades ago.
Privatization of the Military: has this gone too far?
Thanks for the M.R.E.'s
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A few days ago I talked to a soldier just back from Iraq. He'd been in a relatively calm area; his main complaint was about food. Four months after the fall of Baghdad, his unit was still eating the dreaded M.R.E.'s: meals ready to eat. When Italian troops moved into the area, their food was "way more realistic" — and American troops were soon trading whatever they could for some of that Italian food.
Other stories are far worse. Letters published in Stars and Stripes and e-mail published on the Web site of Col. David Hackworth (a decorated veteran and Pentagon critic) describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." An American soldier died of heat stroke on Saturday; are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
The U.S. military has always had superb logistics. What happened? The answer is a mix of penny-pinching and privatization — which makes our soldiers' discomfort a symptom of something more general.
Colonel Hackworth blames "dilettantes in the Pentagon" who "thought they could run a war and an occupation on the cheap." But the cheapness isn't restricted to Iraq. In general, the "support our troops" crowd draws the line when that support might actually cost something.
The usually conservative Army Times has run blistering editorials on this subject. Its June 30 blast, titled "Nothing but Lip Service," begins: "In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately." The article goes on to detail a series of promises broken and benefits cut.
Military corner-cutting is part of a broader picture of penny-wise-pound-foolish government. When it comes to tax cuts or subsidies to powerful interest groups, money is no object. But elsewhere, including homeland security, small-government ideology reigns. The Bush administration has been unwilling to spend enough on any aspect of homeland security, whether it's providing firefighters and police officers with radios or protecting the nation's ports. The decision to pull air marshals off some flights to save on hotel bills — reversed when the public heard about it — was simply a sound-bite-worthy example. (Air marshals have told MSNBC.com that a "witch hunt" is now under way at the Transportation Security Administration, and that those who reveal cost-cutting measures to the media are being threatened with the Patriot Act.)
There's also another element in the Iraq logistical snafu: privatization. The U.S. military has shifted many tasks traditionally performed by soldiers into the hands of such private contractors as Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary. The Iraq war and its aftermath gave this privatized system its first major test in combat — and the system failed.
According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up." Not surprisingly, civilian contractors — and their insurance companies — get spooked by war zones. The Financial Times reports that the dismal performance of contractors in Iraq has raised strong concerns about what would happen in a war against a serious opponent, like North Korea.
Military privatization, like military penny-pinching, is part of a pattern. Both for ideological reasons and, one suspects, because of the patronage involved, the people now running the country seem determined to have public services provided by private corporations, no matter what the circumstances. For example, you may recall that in the weeks after 9/11 the Bush administration and its Congressional allies fought tooth and nail to leave airport screening in the hands of private security companies, giving in only in the face of overwhelming public pressure. In Iraq, reports The Baltimore Sun, "the Bush administration continues to use American corporations to perform work that United Nations agencies and nonprofit aid groups can do more cheaply."
In short, the logistical mess in Iraq isn't an isolated case of poor planning and mismanagement: it's telling us what's wrong with our current philosophy of government.
Thanks for the M.R.E.'s
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A few days ago I talked to a soldier just back from Iraq. He'd been in a relatively calm area; his main complaint was about food. Four months after the fall of Baghdad, his unit was still eating the dreaded M.R.E.'s: meals ready to eat. When Italian troops moved into the area, their food was "way more realistic" — and American troops were soon trading whatever they could for some of that Italian food.
Other stories are far worse. Letters published in Stars and Stripes and e-mail published on the Web site of Col. David Hackworth (a decorated veteran and Pentagon critic) describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." An American soldier died of heat stroke on Saturday; are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?
The U.S. military has always had superb logistics. What happened? The answer is a mix of penny-pinching and privatization — which makes our soldiers' discomfort a symptom of something more general.
Colonel Hackworth blames "dilettantes in the Pentagon" who "thought they could run a war and an occupation on the cheap." But the cheapness isn't restricted to Iraq. In general, the "support our troops" crowd draws the line when that support might actually cost something.
The usually conservative Army Times has run blistering editorials on this subject. Its June 30 blast, titled "Nothing but Lip Service," begins: "In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately." The article goes on to detail a series of promises broken and benefits cut.
Military corner-cutting is part of a broader picture of penny-wise-pound-foolish government. When it comes to tax cuts or subsidies to powerful interest groups, money is no object. But elsewhere, including homeland security, small-government ideology reigns. The Bush administration has been unwilling to spend enough on any aspect of homeland security, whether it's providing firefighters and police officers with radios or protecting the nation's ports. The decision to pull air marshals off some flights to save on hotel bills — reversed when the public heard about it — was simply a sound-bite-worthy example. (Air marshals have told MSNBC.com that a "witch hunt" is now under way at the Transportation Security Administration, and that those who reveal cost-cutting measures to the media are being threatened with the Patriot Act.)
There's also another element in the Iraq logistical snafu: privatization. The U.S. military has shifted many tasks traditionally performed by soldiers into the hands of such private contractors as Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary. The Iraq war and its aftermath gave this privatized system its first major test in combat — and the system failed.
According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up." Not surprisingly, civilian contractors — and their insurance companies — get spooked by war zones. The Financial Times reports that the dismal performance of contractors in Iraq has raised strong concerns about what would happen in a war against a serious opponent, like North Korea.
Military privatization, like military penny-pinching, is part of a pattern. Both for ideological reasons and, one suspects, because of the patronage involved, the people now running the country seem determined to have public services provided by private corporations, no matter what the circumstances. For example, you may recall that in the weeks after 9/11 the Bush administration and its Congressional allies fought tooth and nail to leave airport screening in the hands of private security companies, giving in only in the face of overwhelming public pressure. In Iraq, reports The Baltimore Sun, "the Bush administration continues to use American corporations to perform work that United Nations agencies and nonprofit aid groups can do more cheaply."
In short, the logistical mess in Iraq isn't an isolated case of poor planning and mismanagement: it's telling us what's wrong with our current philosophy of government.
Monday, August 11, 2003
A good piece on the NYT today on why Policy ( Tony Blair calls it " values " ) matters to Politics:
How the 'Radicals' Can Save the Democrats
By SAM TANENHAUS
TARRYTOWN, N.Y. — A battle for the soul of the Democratic Party has broken out, pitting a predominantly liberal field of presidential hopefuls against moderate party leaders and political strategists. While Howard Dean and John Kerry have been stirring up crowds plainly eager to have at President Bush, Democratic officials have been trying to tamp the fervor down, warning that "extremists" will take the party back to the dark ages of 1972 and 1984.
True, with Mr. Bush looking formidable and the Republicans in control of Congress, the urge toward moderation may seem sensible. But it ignores a glaring fact: Republicans have repeatedly won elections in recent decades largely by taking the opposite approach: giving free rein to their raucous base and choosing candidates who excite the party's rank and file. And isn't that, after all, what political parties are supposed to do?
Certainly, none of the top Democratic contenders are truly radical. Mr. Kerry, who happens to be the wealthiest member of the Senate, perhaps went overboard when he read aloud the pay packages of several business executives at an A.F.L.-C.I.O. event the other day. But if he's an extremist, so was Franlin D. Roosevelt, who railed against "unscrupulous money changers" in 1933. And to exaggerate the threat of an imminent "far left" takeover of the party — as Senator Evan Bayh, head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, recently did — really implies a repudiation of much of the party's traditional beliefs.
Besides, it is not at all clear that far-left ideology was the cause of past Democratic defeats — or that ideology plays a truly decisive role in presidential elections. While political strategists and pundits tend think in terms of sharply delineated issues, most voters do not. "The American Voter," the landmark study by University of Michigan researchers published in 1960 and still a very useful guide to its subject, found that only one-fourth of the electorate held a clear opinion on most issues and identified those positions with one party or the other. A mere 2 percent could be classified as holding a consistently "ideological" position on overall policy.
And to judge from recent elections, little has changed. In the 1980's the public supported the anti-Soviet, anti-government views of Ronald Reagan. In the 1990's the same public favored the globalist, pro-government politics of Bill Clinton. And neither president was held to the bar of consistency, whether it was the conservative Mr. Reagan creating huge deficits or the liberal Mr. Clinton dismantling welfare.
So, too, with President Bush, who now seems a small-government conservative (tax cuts for the rich), now a big-government liberal (prescription drug benefits), now a social liberal (favoring some types of affirmative action), now a social conservative (opposed to gay marriage).
But if abstract ideology plays a limited role in presidential races, the importance of ideologues and extremists — that is, of people who cling to strong beliefs — can't be overstated. It is they who bring passion and energy to politics, as Dr. Dean's Web-linked legions are now doing. Without these "radicals," parties can lose their way.
The Republican establishment learned this lesson almost despite itself in the 1964 election. Democrats would do well to study that campaign, too, since its circumstances were remarkably similar to those unfolding today.
Back then, of course, the positions were reversed. A strong Democratic incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, was buoyed by a national crisis that rallied the public behind him: the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Republican Party chieftains, facing almost certain defeat, wanted to anoint a moderate candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or William Scranton, who could at least make a respectable showing.
But the party rank and file, tired of me-too politics and demanding "a choice, not an echo," ardently backed the conservative Barry Goldwater. Party moderates, sounding just like today's worried Democrats, warned that Goldwater was an extremist whose nomination might marginalize the party for decades to come. They mounted a last-minute offensive to stop him, but Goldwater squeaked through, shocking his adversaries (and thrilling his followers) when he declared in his acceptance speech: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. . . . Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." After that, most agreed, he was finished. And indeed he was trounced by Johnson.
But for Republicans this was not the devastating setback it appeared. On the contrary, it was the crucial first step toward a historic victory. Goldwater's "extremism" turned out, on closer inspection, to be a form of idealism that revitalized the conservative movement in the years ahead. Youthful veterans of the Goldwater movement — including Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation and Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus — help set a new policy agenda. Richard Viguerie, a member of the pro-Goldwater group Young Americans for Freedom, became an innovative fund-raiser. Patrick Buchanan, another Goldwaterite, helped formulate the more conservative components of Richard Nixon's agenda as a White House speechwriter.
Over time the party shed its "me too" approach and developed a more sophisticated ideological style, which culminated in Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory. Today it is Lyndon Johnson's big-government heirs whom centrist Democrats say are on the fringes, while the Goldwater-influenced conservatives plausibly claim to occupy the mainstream.
The Republican Party would never again underestimate the uses of zeal and continues to exploit it. In fact, even as the Democratic Leadership Council sounded its alarm in Philadelphia, some 1,000 young right-wing firebrands assembled at the Republican college convention in Washington. They excitedly discussed Ann Coulter's new book "Treason," which depicts liberals as the enemy within, and heard from a prominent lobbyist who described Democrats as "the ascension of evil, the bad guys, the Bolsheviks." Other highlights were speeches by Tom DeLay, the vociferous House majority leader, and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's political maestro, who looked delighted by the enthusiasm of these extremists.
Our two major parties seem to have swapped identities. The Republican establishment, presumably allied with the rich and privileged, embraces its populist core of hard-edged activists, while the Democratic elite, supposed champions of "the people," evidently fears them. Only one party has learned the lesson of 1964 — that extremists should not be lectured to but listened to, because they may have something important to say.
Sam Tanenhaus, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is writing a biography of William F. Buckley Jr.
How the 'Radicals' Can Save the Democrats
By SAM TANENHAUS
TARRYTOWN, N.Y. — A battle for the soul of the Democratic Party has broken out, pitting a predominantly liberal field of presidential hopefuls against moderate party leaders and political strategists. While Howard Dean and John Kerry have been stirring up crowds plainly eager to have at President Bush, Democratic officials have been trying to tamp the fervor down, warning that "extremists" will take the party back to the dark ages of 1972 and 1984.
True, with Mr. Bush looking formidable and the Republicans in control of Congress, the urge toward moderation may seem sensible. But it ignores a glaring fact: Republicans have repeatedly won elections in recent decades largely by taking the opposite approach: giving free rein to their raucous base and choosing candidates who excite the party's rank and file. And isn't that, after all, what political parties are supposed to do?
Certainly, none of the top Democratic contenders are truly radical. Mr. Kerry, who happens to be the wealthiest member of the Senate, perhaps went overboard when he read aloud the pay packages of several business executives at an A.F.L.-C.I.O. event the other day. But if he's an extremist, so was Franlin D. Roosevelt, who railed against "unscrupulous money changers" in 1933. And to exaggerate the threat of an imminent "far left" takeover of the party — as Senator Evan Bayh, head of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, recently did — really implies a repudiation of much of the party's traditional beliefs.
Besides, it is not at all clear that far-left ideology was the cause of past Democratic defeats — or that ideology plays a truly decisive role in presidential elections. While political strategists and pundits tend think in terms of sharply delineated issues, most voters do not. "The American Voter," the landmark study by University of Michigan researchers published in 1960 and still a very useful guide to its subject, found that only one-fourth of the electorate held a clear opinion on most issues and identified those positions with one party or the other. A mere 2 percent could be classified as holding a consistently "ideological" position on overall policy.
And to judge from recent elections, little has changed. In the 1980's the public supported the anti-Soviet, anti-government views of Ronald Reagan. In the 1990's the same public favored the globalist, pro-government politics of Bill Clinton. And neither president was held to the bar of consistency, whether it was the conservative Mr. Reagan creating huge deficits or the liberal Mr. Clinton dismantling welfare.
So, too, with President Bush, who now seems a small-government conservative (tax cuts for the rich), now a big-government liberal (prescription drug benefits), now a social liberal (favoring some types of affirmative action), now a social conservative (opposed to gay marriage).
But if abstract ideology plays a limited role in presidential races, the importance of ideologues and extremists — that is, of people who cling to strong beliefs — can't be overstated. It is they who bring passion and energy to politics, as Dr. Dean's Web-linked legions are now doing. Without these "radicals," parties can lose their way.
The Republican establishment learned this lesson almost despite itself in the 1964 election. Democrats would do well to study that campaign, too, since its circumstances were remarkably similar to those unfolding today.
Back then, of course, the positions were reversed. A strong Democratic incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, was buoyed by a national crisis that rallied the public behind him: the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Republican Party chieftains, facing almost certain defeat, wanted to anoint a moderate candidate like Nelson Rockefeller or William Scranton, who could at least make a respectable showing.
But the party rank and file, tired of me-too politics and demanding "a choice, not an echo," ardently backed the conservative Barry Goldwater. Party moderates, sounding just like today's worried Democrats, warned that Goldwater was an extremist whose nomination might marginalize the party for decades to come. They mounted a last-minute offensive to stop him, but Goldwater squeaked through, shocking his adversaries (and thrilling his followers) when he declared in his acceptance speech: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. . . . Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." After that, most agreed, he was finished. And indeed he was trounced by Johnson.
But for Republicans this was not the devastating setback it appeared. On the contrary, it was the crucial first step toward a historic victory. Goldwater's "extremism" turned out, on closer inspection, to be a form of idealism that revitalized the conservative movement in the years ahead. Youthful veterans of the Goldwater movement — including Lee Edwards of the Heritage Foundation and Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus — help set a new policy agenda. Richard Viguerie, a member of the pro-Goldwater group Young Americans for Freedom, became an innovative fund-raiser. Patrick Buchanan, another Goldwaterite, helped formulate the more conservative components of Richard Nixon's agenda as a White House speechwriter.
Over time the party shed its "me too" approach and developed a more sophisticated ideological style, which culminated in Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory. Today it is Lyndon Johnson's big-government heirs whom centrist Democrats say are on the fringes, while the Goldwater-influenced conservatives plausibly claim to occupy the mainstream.
The Republican Party would never again underestimate the uses of zeal and continues to exploit it. In fact, even as the Democratic Leadership Council sounded its alarm in Philadelphia, some 1,000 young right-wing firebrands assembled at the Republican college convention in Washington. They excitedly discussed Ann Coulter's new book "Treason," which depicts liberals as the enemy within, and heard from a prominent lobbyist who described Democrats as "the ascension of evil, the bad guys, the Bolsheviks." Other highlights were speeches by Tom DeLay, the vociferous House majority leader, and Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's political maestro, who looked delighted by the enthusiasm of these extremists.
Our two major parties seem to have swapped identities. The Republican establishment, presumably allied with the rich and privileged, embraces its populist core of hard-edged activists, while the Democratic elite, supposed champions of "the people," evidently fears them. Only one party has learned the lesson of 1964 — that extremists should not be lectured to but listened to, because they may have something important to say.
Sam Tanenhaus, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is writing a biography of William F. Buckley Jr.
California Dreamin':
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
Postcards From the Edge
What message is California sending to companies? Get lost!
FORTUNE
Monday, July 21, 2003
By Shawn Tully
California has a long tradition of bombarding businesses with regulations, from rules that give Native Americans wide latitude to veto construction projects to environmental laws that favor exotic plants over power plants. But the Golden State's sumptuous assets—its climate, its appeal to immigrants, and its splendid universities—always trumped the business bashing. At least until now. The state government under embattled Democratic Governor Gray Davis is turning so stridently antibusiness that it threatens to inflict permanent structural damage. Since 2002 the left-leaning legislature has enacted or expanded half-a-dozen laws dealing with burdensome regulations like family leave and overtime pay. Some corporate leaders think California is becoming Sweden-on-the-Pacific. "I've never seen anything like this is 35 years," says Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, the big mortgage company based near Los Angeles. "The state is punishing business, yet it's somehow convinced that business will not leave."
Wrong: Companies—and jobs—are departing in droves. The state has lost 289,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001. "The jobs that have to stay here are ones that involve direct contact with customers," says Liam McGee, head of Bank of America in California. "The mobile jobs—in systems development, manufacturing, call centers—are moving to other states." Fidelity National, the nation's biggest title-insurance company, is shifting its headquarters from Santa Barbara to Jacksonville. Scores of the small businesses that form the backbone of California's economy are moving either jobs or headquarters out of state. Buck Knives is going to Idaho, and Coast Converters, a bagmaking company, to Las Vegas. Taylor-Dunn, a manufacturer of cartlike vehicles for airports, is expanding in Ohio and Missouri. Though Countrywide is growing rapidly, Mozilo is shrinking operations in California and shifting all expansion to low-cost states like Texas. By his estimate, the flood of new legislation will increase Countrywide's cost per worker by $4,000 to $5,000 a year.
Three of the new laws are particularly harsh. First, California recently approved the nation's only paid family-leave act. Starting in July 2004, employees can request six weeks' leave every year (which can be taken days at a time) to care for a new baby, a sick relative, or a host of other medical tasks a state agency deems legitimate—even migraines qualify. Companies themselves have no say in the decision. Workers earning as much as $69,000 will collect 55% of their pay tax-free (highly compensated workers would collect a much smaller percentage). All employees—even those with no intention of taking time off—will pay a small payroll tax into a state fund that will foot the bill for workers on leave. "We'll spend a lot more training replacement workers, and our productivity will decline because of all the absenteeism," says Tim McCallion, Verizon's chief in California. Other companies worry that so many people will take advantage of the generous leave policy that the state fund will be quickly depleted—and that businesses will be forced to assume most of the costs.
Second, the legislature made workers' compensation more expensive by mandating a large increase in benefits. California businesses now contribute the highest premiums by far per $100 of employee wages: $5.85, vs. a national average of about $2.50. Yet instead of cutting costs, as other states have done, the legislature recently raised maximum benefits by 71%, from $490 per week in 2002 to $840 in 2005. Countrywide and Verizon both pay four to five times more in workers' comp per employee in California than in Texas.
Third, California is imposing onerous rules on overtime. Federal law requires that companies pay overtime when employees work more than 40 hours a week. But California companies must pay it to anyone who works more than eight hours a day, a particular hardship for businesses whose employees choose to log, say, four ten-hour days, or for call centers, where flexible schedules often entail 12-hour days. "Companies will simply move their call centers from Los Angeles to Las Vegas," says McCallion. Though this regulation has been around for two years, legislators are constantly making it tougher and extending it to previously exempt workers (a fairly recent addition: the lumber industry).
Why is all this happening now? Largely because the Republican recall effort against Governor Davis has pushed him to the left. Davis needs union money and support to fight his opponents, so he has embraced the unions' agenda. So has the legislature, where Democrats control both houses. But the recall effort has gone further than most Californians thought it would, and hopeful Republicans are talking about a conservative—Bill Simon (who lost the 2002 race to Davis) or even Arnold Schwarzenegger—becoming the next governor. We can see the movie already—T-4: Return of the Capitalists.
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
Postcards From the Edge
What message is California sending to companies? Get lost!
FORTUNE
Monday, July 21, 2003
By Shawn Tully
California has a long tradition of bombarding businesses with regulations, from rules that give Native Americans wide latitude to veto construction projects to environmental laws that favor exotic plants over power plants. But the Golden State's sumptuous assets—its climate, its appeal to immigrants, and its splendid universities—always trumped the business bashing. At least until now. The state government under embattled Democratic Governor Gray Davis is turning so stridently antibusiness that it threatens to inflict permanent structural damage. Since 2002 the left-leaning legislature has enacted or expanded half-a-dozen laws dealing with burdensome regulations like family leave and overtime pay. Some corporate leaders think California is becoming Sweden-on-the-Pacific. "I've never seen anything like this is 35 years," says Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial, the big mortgage company based near Los Angeles. "The state is punishing business, yet it's somehow convinced that business will not leave."
Wrong: Companies—and jobs—are departing in droves. The state has lost 289,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001. "The jobs that have to stay here are ones that involve direct contact with customers," says Liam McGee, head of Bank of America in California. "The mobile jobs—in systems development, manufacturing, call centers—are moving to other states." Fidelity National, the nation's biggest title-insurance company, is shifting its headquarters from Santa Barbara to Jacksonville. Scores of the small businesses that form the backbone of California's economy are moving either jobs or headquarters out of state. Buck Knives is going to Idaho, and Coast Converters, a bagmaking company, to Las Vegas. Taylor-Dunn, a manufacturer of cartlike vehicles for airports, is expanding in Ohio and Missouri. Though Countrywide is growing rapidly, Mozilo is shrinking operations in California and shifting all expansion to low-cost states like Texas. By his estimate, the flood of new legislation will increase Countrywide's cost per worker by $4,000 to $5,000 a year.
Three of the new laws are particularly harsh. First, California recently approved the nation's only paid family-leave act. Starting in July 2004, employees can request six weeks' leave every year (which can be taken days at a time) to care for a new baby, a sick relative, or a host of other medical tasks a state agency deems legitimate—even migraines qualify. Companies themselves have no say in the decision. Workers earning as much as $69,000 will collect 55% of their pay tax-free (highly compensated workers would collect a much smaller percentage). All employees—even those with no intention of taking time off—will pay a small payroll tax into a state fund that will foot the bill for workers on leave. "We'll spend a lot more training replacement workers, and our productivity will decline because of all the absenteeism," says Tim McCallion, Verizon's chief in California. Other companies worry that so many people will take advantage of the generous leave policy that the state fund will be quickly depleted—and that businesses will be forced to assume most of the costs.
Second, the legislature made workers' compensation more expensive by mandating a large increase in benefits. California businesses now contribute the highest premiums by far per $100 of employee wages: $5.85, vs. a national average of about $2.50. Yet instead of cutting costs, as other states have done, the legislature recently raised maximum benefits by 71%, from $490 per week in 2002 to $840 in 2005. Countrywide and Verizon both pay four to five times more in workers' comp per employee in California than in Texas.
Third, California is imposing onerous rules on overtime. Federal law requires that companies pay overtime when employees work more than 40 hours a week. But California companies must pay it to anyone who works more than eight hours a day, a particular hardship for businesses whose employees choose to log, say, four ten-hour days, or for call centers, where flexible schedules often entail 12-hour days. "Companies will simply move their call centers from Los Angeles to Las Vegas," says McCallion. Though this regulation has been around for two years, legislators are constantly making it tougher and extending it to previously exempt workers (a fairly recent addition: the lumber industry).
Why is all this happening now? Largely because the Republican recall effort against Governor Davis has pushed him to the left. Davis needs union money and support to fight his opponents, so he has embraced the unions' agenda. So has the legislature, where Democrats control both houses. But the recall effort has gone further than most Californians thought it would, and hopeful Republicans are talking about a conservative—Bill Simon (who lost the 2002 race to Davis) or even Arnold Schwarzenegger—becoming the next governor. We can see the movie already—T-4: Return of the Capitalists.
