I watched most of President Bush’s speech today. A shorter version:
–Nothing bad which has happened in the economy during the past three years is my fault.
–If we continue to do what I’ve wanted the past three years, companies will suddenly start hiring American workers, as opposed to half-price foreign workers or all the Mexicans I want to bring into the country.
Lou Dobbs had some cutting commentary on the economy last night:

No. 1, we’re not creating jobs in the private sector in this country. That has never before happened in our history. Our economists and our politicians, our leaders, need to come up with answers, not dogma.
No. 2, we haven’t had a trade surplus in this country in more than two decades. And our trade deficit continues to soar to new record levels.
No. 3, we have lost three million jobs in this country over the past three years and millions more American jobs are at risk of being outsourced to cheap overseas labor markets. That seems to me, at the least, to be more than sufficient evidence for all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, to question critically the policies of both parties that have led to us this critical juncture in our economy and our history.
Frankly, I would love to be proved wrong in my views. And I would gladly change my position if only the critics would answer a few questions factually, empirically and straightforwardly. First, how many more jobs must we lose before they become concerned about our middle class and our strength as a consumer market.
Two, when will the United States have to quit borrowing foreign capital to buy more foreign goods that support European and Asian economies while driving this nation deeper into debt.
Three, what jobs will our currently 15 million unemployed workers fill? Where and when? My critics and proponents of so-called free trade and my views on outsourcing suggest I’m a protectionist because I want to curtail the export of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets just to reduce wage levels and to eliminate our trade deficit and to pursue balanced trade policy.
Our principal trading partners include Canada, China, Japan and the European Union. All typically maintain annual trade surpluses and pursue balanced trade. Why don’t my critics call them protectionists? Why not call them economic isolationists.
My critics and proponents of the status quo are offering false choices. They say we must decide between protectionism or economic isolationism as the president said today and so-called free trade. I’m sure they believe those choices are the only ones available. I don’t question their sincerity. But perhaps they are also afraid our policymakers may soon discover a middle ground for a desperately needed new U.S. trade policy. A balanced trade policy in the national interest.

I think this criticism is on target. I’ve been fairly open to the idea of “free trade,” but it seems our current policy is leading us further and further from “fair” and “balanced” trade. At some point our deficits are going to become unsustainable. We really do need to step back and reassess the ideological dogma which has dominated the debate.
The world is changing; our policy should reflect this reality.

A task force sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations has issued a report examining the situation in Iraq one year after the United States invaded. The report warns against allowing election-year politics to jeopardize the process of rebuilding Iraq:

While noting “significant progress” in the post-conflict reconstruction and political transition effort, the Task Force reports that the planned transfer of sovereignty on June 30, combined with U.S. troop reductions from Iraqi cities and uncertainty about long-term U.S. funding, has created doubts about U.S. staying power. To avoid destabilizing the effort and demoralizing Iraqis, the Task Force urges the Bush administration, the Democratic nominee, and Congressional leaders to:
* Declare that coalition forces will continue to provide essential security in Iraq until the Iraqi security forces can do so on their own;
* Emphasize that the transfer of sovereignty does not signal a diminished U.S. commitment to supporting stability, reconstruction and a peaceful political transition;
* Affirm that the United States is prepared to sustain a multi-billion dollar commitment to Iraq for at least the next several years; and
* Ensure broad involvement of Iraqis, and promote a leading role for the United Nations in the political transition process.

Other than providing the Bush campaign with a “milestone,” does this June 30 so-called power transfer really have any meaning? It’s not like Iraq will an autonomous government. We’ll still have to provide the security, pay the bills, and likely call the shots behind the scenes. . . .

This is a weird excuse:

Outdated computers are partly to blame for the delayed release of the U.S. producer price index and only “God knows when” the data will be ready, a top analyst at the Bureau of Labor Statistics said on Monday.
The U.S. Labor Department statistical agency has indefinitely delayed the release of the January and February PPI reports due to problems converting the data to a new industry classification system.
The January PPI, which measures prices paid to farms, factories and refineries, was originally scheduled for release on Feb. 19. The February report was due to be released this coming Friday.
The nearly three-week delay for the January report is unheard of in the government’s statistics system. Some economists said they miss the wholesale price data, in part because it can offer early clues on profits and, by extension, hiring.

Computers? Hmmm. The PPI isn’t the most significant of economic numbers to hide; still, a delay like this seems a bit suspicious.

Better stick with the $20 or $100 bills:

A Georgia woman who tried to use a fake $1 million bill to buy $1,675 worth of merchandise at Wal-Mart was arrested, and police later found two more of the bills in her purse.
. . .
A store clerk immediately noticed the bill was fake when 35-year-old Alice Regina Pike handed it to her on Friday, Cotton said.
Pike then tried to use two gift cards worth only $2.32 to buy the merchandise, but when that did not work she again asked to cash the $1 million bill, Cotton said. The store then called police.

Can I get my $998,325 in change?
Oh my. Whenever I start to think there may be hope for society, I always hear stories about idiots like this to bring me back to earth.

Hey, didn’t we try out proportional people during the slavery era?

Four Democratic California lawmakers on Monday proposed giving teenagers as young as 14 the right to vote in a move that would make the often trailblazing state the first in the nation to do so.
Under the proposal, youths under the current legal voting age of 18 would be able to cast ballots in state and local elections only, although their vote would not have full weight that an adult vote would.
For example, a vote cast by a 14 or 15-year-old would be counted as a quarter of a vote, and a vote by a 16 or 17-year-old would be counted as half a vote.

Seems like an administrative mess to me, trying to verify ages, tally fractional votes (some state already have problems adding whole numbers), and partition the state and federal ballot. Is it worth the trouble? I think there are easier ways to get kids involved in the political process. Like making it interesting in school.