The Place of Science in Federal Government

I am subscribed to Seed Magazine, and I read the interview with Bush's point man on science, National Science Advisor John Marburger, the other day with little surprise as he tried to boast of his president's accomplishments:

Seed: What do you regard as your greatest accomplishment?

JM: In a job like this, the most important accomplishment is to make sure that this vast machinery of science continues to move forward and produce the kind of results that have made America strong and great and an exciting place to be a scientist. And I believe that history will show that under this administration, science and technology have thrived as well as they could, given the constraints that we work under. Those constraints are very great. Not least of which is having a very unpopular president, very difficult foreign policy, wars, and unpopular policies of various kinds. Those notwithstanding, I'm satisfied that I've done everything that I could to make science work for the nation. I think that future presidents will find it difficult to compile a record as long as this one. In retrospect, it will be seen that this was a tough act to follow.

He went on in this vein, talking about how much of US GDP Bush invested and how that would be a "tough act to follow." The problem is this little thing called fact. From the NRC report in 2007*, quote, "In 2001 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation than on research and development. Federal funding of research in the physical sciences, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, was 45 percent less in FY 2004 than in FY 1976." Tough act to follow?

In part because of Republicans' views on trade and laissez-faire capitalism, science jobs and technology jobs are being exported like never before. From the same report, "The United States is today a net importer of high-technology products. Its trade balance in high-technology manufactured goods shifted from plus $54 billion in 1990 to negative $50 billion in 2001."

Also, the tendency for US students to go into science and technology fields is getting worse and worse, "In South Korea, 38 percent of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47 percent, in China, 50 percent, and in Singapore, 67 percent. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 15 percent."

I think that the Obama administration faces budget challenges (Bush squandered a surplus and left Obama a $1 TRILLION deficit his first year), but sees things exactly the way the NAS report does:

"Without a renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we can expect to lose our privileged position. For the first time in generations, the nation’s children could face poorer prospects than their parents and grandparents did. We owe our current prosperity, security, and good health to the investments of past generations, and we are obliged to renew those commitments in education, research, and innovation policies to ensure that the American people continue to benefit from the remarkable opportunities provided by the rapid development of the global economy and its not inconsiderable underpinning in science and technology."

We'll wait and see. In the meanwhile, picking Holdren to replace Marburger was a very, very good decision.

One of the tough decisions that our president will have to make is shifting the billions and billions of dollars spent on weapons-technology programs and weapons R&D to creating jobs dealing with improving green technology and combatting climate change. People will say he's "soft" until they realize that our greatest threat is not China challenging us on a battlefield but the gaping hole in our economy that has partly resulted from our energy and technology policies, as well as fair versus free trade agreements.

* National Research Council, 2007, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

On contraception and religious right troglodytes

Sometimes I think it's easier just to look forward and try to put behind us the regressive and ridiculous policies of the past decade, and especially social conservatism spearheaded by religious right troglodytes. However, we have to raise awareness of the real harm done by programs run by people like this. For example, in many nations, people are so poor they scavenge garbage dumps but are not given access to birth control (and are threatened with excommunication) because of the shameful and absurd Catholic Church. In Africa, millions are dying from AIDS and hunger but Bush's programs (for all the legacy spin) cause more death because they place all emphasis on "abstinence" and do not provide the sort of comprehensive sex ed and contraception options that are effective.

Bush appointed a birth control opponent to head the agency in charge of family planning: the Dept. of Health and Human Services. The religious right doesn't just want to prevent abortion. They want to control your reproductive rights. Specifically, they want to end all forms of birth control and there's a clear (although perhaps subconscious) reason why: religion is hereditary. The one surefire way to increase the number of parishioners in the church is to breed them. The church could care the less what quality life your children have -- that's between you and Jesus -- but they want to make sure you have children who are in the pews.

If the religious right was actually interested in human welfare, they'd support comprehensive sex ed and realize that countries with no reproductive rights are those with the highest rates of abortion. But they don't live in the reality-based community.

*UPDATE: Add another study to document the failure of "abstinence pledges" to do anything but increase STDs and teen pregnancies*

Conservatism at any cost

Shortly after the economy's tailspin began, I wrote two items on the misplacing of blame on the poor and/or Democrats and/or Fannie & Freddie for the credit crisis. One of the things I addressed in the last item I wrote was the market share of subprime lending was 84% privately-held. Today, Krugman links to an article with a neat graph showing the market share of mortgages through 2003, and the NYT published a great article on Phil Gramm, whose actions seriously undermined regulation of the financial markets and helped precipitate this crisis. Excerpts below the fold:

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Gramm became the most effective proponent of deregulation in a generation, by dint of his expertise (a Ph.D in economics), free-market ideology, perch on the Senate banking committee and force of personality (a writer in Texas once called him “a snapping turtle”). And in one remarkable stretch from 1999 to 2001, he pushed laws and promoted policies that he says unshackled businesses from needless restraints but his critics charge significantly contributed to the financial crisis that has rattled the nation.

He led the effort to block measures curtailing deceptive or predatory lending, which was just beginning to result in a jump in home foreclosures that would undermine the financial markets. He advanced legislation that fractured oversight of Wall Street while knocking down Depression-era barriers that restricted the rise and reach of financial conglomerates.

And he pushed through a provision that ensured virtually no regulation of the complex financial instruments known as derivatives, including credit swaps, contracts that would encourage risky investment practices at Wall Street’s most venerable institutions and spread the risks, like a virus, around the world.
...
“Phil Gramm was the great spokesman and leader of the view that market forces should drive the economy without regulation,” said James D. Cox, a corporate law scholar at Duke University. “The movement he helped to lead contributed mightily to our problems.”

In two recent interviews, Mr. Gramm described the current turmoil as “an incredible trauma,” but said he was proud of his record.

He blamed others for the crisis: Democrats who dropped barriers to borrowing in order to promote homeownership; what he once termed “predatory borrowers” who took out mortgages they could not afford; banks that took on too much risk; and large financial institutions that did not set aside enough capital to cover their bad bets.

But looser regulation played virtually no role, he argued, saying that is simply an emerging myth.

“There is this idea afloat that if you had more regulation you would have fewer mistakes,” he said. “I don’t see any evidence in our history or anybody else’s to substantiate it.” He added, “The markets have worked better than you might have thought.”
...
From 1999 to 2001, Congress first considered steps to curb predatory loans — those that typically had high fees, significant prepayment penalties and ballooning monthly payments and were often issued to low-income borrowers. Foreclosures on such loans were on the rise, setting off a wave of personal bankruptcies.

But Mr. Gramm did everything he could to block the measures. In 2000, he refused to have his banking committee consider the proposals, an intervention hailed by the National Association of Mortgage Brokers as a “huge, huge step for us.”
...
In late 1999, Mr. Gramm played a central role in what would be the most significant financial services legislation since the Depression. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as the measure was called, removed barriers between commercial and investment banks that had been instituted to reduce the risk of economic catastrophes. Long sought by the industry, the law would let commercial banks, securities firms and insurers become financial supermarkets offering an array of services.
...
In November 1999, senior Clinton administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, joined by the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, and Arthur Levitt Jr., the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, issued a report that instead recommended legislation exempting many kinds of derivatives from federal oversight.

Mr. Gramm helped lead the charge in Congress. Demanding even more freedom from regulators than the financial industry had sought, he persuaded colleagues and negotiated with senior administration officials, pushing so hard that he nearly scuttled the deal. “When I get in the red zone, I like to score,” Mr. Gramm told reporters at the time.

Finally, he had extracted enough. In December 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed as part of a larger bill by unanimous consent after Mr. Gramm dominated the Senate debate.

“This legislation is important to every American investor,” he said at the time. “It will keep our markets modern, efficient and innovative, and it guarantees that the United States will maintain its global dominance of financial markets.”

But some critics worried that the lack of oversight would allow abuses that could threaten the economy.
...
“He was the architect, advocate and the most knowledgeable person in Congress on these topics,” Mr. Donovan said. “To me, Phil Gramm is the single most important reason for the current financial crisis.”

Mr. Gramm, ever the economics professor, disputes his critics’ analysis of the causes of the upheaval. He asserts that swaps, by enabling companies to insure themselves against defaults, have diminished, not increased, the effects of the declining housing markets.

“This is part of this myth of deregulation,” he said in the interview. “By and large, credit-default swaps have distributed the risks. They didn’t create it. The only reason people have focused on them is that some politicians don’t know a credit-default swap from a turnip.”

But many experts disagree, including some of Mr. Gramm’s former allies in Congress. They say the lack of oversight left the system vulnerable.

“The virtually unregulated over-the-counter market in credit-default swaps has played a significant role in the credit crisis, including the now $167 billion taxpayer rescue of A.I.G.,” Christopher Cox, the chairman of the S.E.C. and a former congressman, said Friday.

Mr. Gramm says that, given what has happened, there are modest regulatory changes he would favor, including requiring issuers of credit-default swaps to demonstrate that they have enough capital to back up their pledges. But his belief that government should intervene only minimally in markets is unshaken.

“They are saying there was 15 years of massive deregulation and that’s what caused the problem,” Mr. Gramm said of his critics. “I just don’t see any evidence of it.”

So far as I am able to tell, Gramm was not joking in any of his quotations.

The waning Southern strategy

The NYT had a great front-page item today following up on what I wrote a few days ago about the (sad) role of Applachia in the election.

Along the Atlantic Coast, parts of the “suburban South,” notably Virginia and North Carolina, made history last week in breaking from their Confederate past and supporting Mr. Obama. Those states have experienced an influx of better educated and more prosperous voters in recent years, pointing them in a different political direction than states farther west, like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and Appalachian sections of Kentucky and Tennessee.

Southern counties that voted more heavily Republican this year than in 2004 tended to be poorer, less educated and whiter, a statistical analysis by The New York Times shows. Mr. Obama won in only 44 counties in the Appalachian belt, a stretch of 410 counties that runs from New York to Mississippi. Many of those counties, rural and isolated, have been less exposed to the diversity, educational achievement and economic progress experienced by more prosperous areas.

They accompanied the analysis with a great graphic too:

Basically I would just say that I hope the party continues its slide into irrelevance and ignorance. Let the GOP be the party of the uneducated religious zealot, the bigoted redneck and the gun-crazed nutjob. According to Beliefnet, 52% of the anti-intellectual elements of the party (namely Evangelicals) apparently believed that Obama was a Muslim. Yet they still believe the media is ridiculously liberal, despite the media's inability to inform them of the basic fact of the President-elect's religion. Sad.

Anti-intellectualism and conservatism

Analyzing the fall of the GOP in the past two elections has induced a cottage industry, so I may as well join in. After reading a neat piece on the anti-intellectual base of the GOP, I see dark days ahead for the party, and I'm not alone. David Brooks thinks that the GOP is heading for major reforms:

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

The WSJ published a really insightful piece along the same lines:

It's a sad tale that began in the '80s, when leading conservatives frustrated with the left-leaning press and university establishment began to speak of an "adversary culture of intellectuals." ... The die was cast. Over the next 25 years there grew up a new generation of conservative writers who cultivated none of their elders' intellectual virtues -- indeed, who saw themselves as counter-intellectuals. Most are well-educated and many have attended Ivy League universities; in fact, one of the masterminds of the Palin nomination was once a Harvard professor. But their function within the conservative movement is no longer to educate and ennoble a populist political tendency, it is to defend that tendency against the supposedly monolithic and uniformly hostile educated classes. They mock the advice of Nobel Prize-winning economists and praise the financial acumen of plumbers and builders. They ridicule ambassadors and diplomats while promoting jingoistic journalists who have never lived abroad and speak no foreign languages. And with the rise of shock radio and television, they have found a large, popular audience that eagerly absorbs their contempt for intellectual elites. They hoped to shape that audience, but the truth is that their audience has now shaped them. [...]

Writing recently in the New York Times, David Brooks noted correctly (if belatedly) that conservatives' "disdain for liberal intellectuals" had slipped into "disdain for the educated class as a whole," and worried that the Republican Party was alienating educated voters. I couldn't care less about the future of the Republican Party, but I do care about the quality of political thinking and judgment in the country as a whole. There was a time when conservative intellectuals raised the level of American public debate and helped to keep it sober. Those days are gone. As for political judgment, the promotion of Sarah Palin as a possible world leader speaks for itself. The Republican Party and the political right will survive, but the conservative intellectual tradition is already dead.

And the WaPo says:

Tuesday's Republican debacle was, as the social scientists say, "over-determined." It had many causes. Was it brought on by congressional corruption, Bush administration incompetence, intellectual exhaustion or John McCain's failings as a candidate? All of the above -- and then some.

They go on to dissect three of those four causes, but not intellectual exhaustion.

I mentioned the other day a study that contradicted one of the favorite myths of the GOP and the Religious Right: that going to college will lead you to either Socialism or hell. My question is -- do you go to college to get told what to think, or shown how to think by asking questions and looking at all the angles? It's church where you're told what you must believe and are started from a very early age with songs and verse-memorization to try to mold you in the direction of religion. The Red Scare converges well with the Religious Right, in my humble opinion, because they are reminded of what the Soviets and Chinese did to churches: they shut them down.

The fact is, conservatives have been dissing intellectuals for decades, and I don't know if it's because academia is thoroughly leftist or because the true power base of conservatism is the Religious Right. I'm convinced that there is a link between religiosity and conservatism that extends beyond the trite, "if you love Jesus, vote Republican." I think it is part of the nature of religiosity to tend towards anti-intellectualism: why study philosophy if the Bible has all the answers?

Religious conservatives are, in my humble opinion, to blame for the death of the conservative intellectual force. These people are devoted to a farcical worldview that does not reconcile easily with assault weapons or laissez-faire capitalism to begin with, so they twist and contort social issues in order to ascend within the GOP and use demagoguery in place of reason. Some people may think that this period will result in a "purging" of these godbots from the Republican Party, but I am willing to put down money that they will only make the GOP even further right, at least in the near term. And then, hopefully, a true multi-party system may emerge in the US, which I think will bring more health to our political system.

It seems that it's an intrinsic part of conservatism (by definition) to preserve the social order and resist progress. It seems that it's an intrinsic part of liberalism (by definition) to question and challenge the status quo and the institutions of power and push for social reforms. If your philosophy is innately resistant to change, then as the world slowly changes around you, your philosophy becomes irrelevant. This is what's happened with religion to a large degree: the thriving churches are thoroughly modern and provide huge social outlets and social supports for members. The danger of liberalism is change for change's sake, if the net result does not better prosper or secure our nation. Liberals can believe too much in government spending to solve all ills and not enough in the power of free markets.

I would love to see a smart, lean and mean progressive coalition that enacted real reforms, cut the budget in all the right places, and increased it where it counts. And I think the only way to get there is to depend upon evidence and study in knowing what to do and how to do it, rather than relying upon party dogma.

Kristof talks about intellectualism in his column Sunday:

An intellectual is a person interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity. Intellectuals read the classics, even when no one is looking, because they appreciate the lessons of Sophocles and Shakespeare that the world abounds in uncertainties and contradictions, and — President Bush, lend me your ears — that leaders self-destruct when they become too rigid and too intoxicated with the fumes of moral clarity.

I really think that Americans were so sick of our Idiot-in-Chief that listening to Barack refuse to oversimplify answers and pontificate was actually refreshing. We understood that it was time for a leader who was goddamned razor-sharp and willing to consider arguments from all perspectives. Republicans had some ideas for this election, but their ideas lacked the force of power that Democrats' did, precisely because Republicans have a sort of dogma that resists challenge.

The gods are smiling on me

They must be:

My healthy little boy is getting cuter and chubbier every day.

My candidate won the election. Change is coming.


My Gators won the SEC East. They should be ranked #3 today, and will likely be in the BCS Championship Game when they beat Alabama in the SEC Conference Championship. (Certainly so if Texas Tech loses to Oklahoma in two weeks.)

Appalachia

This morning I saw Krugman's cut on Zell Miller and wanted to find the source of his map (funny how some blogs are horrible about linking to important source material). I found it shortly thereafter at the NYT. (And this interactive one.)

What the map shows is what I feared months ago after the primaries: that the Appalachian region would solidly vote against Obama. Amazingly, only 22% of the counties of the entire USA voted more Republican this election than the last one. Guess where they are heavily concentrated?

Tazewell County is my home! The poorest, least educated, most religious parts of the country, of course! And it went 2:1 for McCain.

Charles Blow has more depth on the same topic.

Celebrate good times, come on!

The reason for celebration, of course, is that voters got to decide on whether or not to allow beer and wine sales from retailers on Sunday here in the unincorporated areas of Richland County.

They decided YES! By almost two to one margins! In the heart of Jesusland! Die blue laws, Die!

Oh yeah, and we will be seeing President Obama on Jan 20 too, and that was nice ;-)

Jan 25, 2007 was a long long time ago, and I often wondered if he could win, but my support for him has been pretty unwavering. McCain's concession was as classy as his campaign wasn't. What will I do now with all the time I used to spend following the election?

Oh yeah...


Can you fuc*ing believe that Alaskans re-elected a convicted felon? Jesus Christ.

A myth destroyed

The idea that liberal professors indoctrinate students is a favorite canard of the anti-intellectual right that I've commented on before. It's mainly the fear of the Religious Right that college = atheism, despite contradictory evidence. New research pulls the rug out from under this claim.

Democrats v. Republicans on the economy

Title sounds familiar for a reason (9/19).

I just wanted to catalog a few useful links that I have found to be integral to arguing with conservatives about economics.

update: 12/18

Although federal income taxes are progressive (get larger as income gets higher), all taxes do not, and as a share of one's income, the overall amount of taxes paid is fairly flat across all incomes. It literally comes down to a few points difference in total tax burden for people in the 2nd-5th quintiles of income.

Ezra Klein on the changes over time in overall tax burden (graph 1 source, graph 2 source)
Chart showing overall tax burden (CSM)
State and local tax burdens (NSN)
Washington Monthly on overall tax burden
NYT graph on overall tax burden (NYT article)
NYT graph on tax code changes and beneficiaries (NYT article)

11/1

Income inequality under Dems v. GOP (Bartels)
Income inequality under Dems v. GOP (chart, Krugman)
Income inequality under Dems v. GOP (Rolling Stone, Krugman)
Explanation of the causes of the financial crisis (Stiglitz)
The $3T War (Stiglitz)
Overall economic comparison of Dems v. GOP (Slate)
Overall economic comparison of Dems v. GOP (NYT, Alan Blinder)
How the GOP went from a $5.6T surplus to a $3.8T deficit (CBO)

Godless money

Dole is losing to Kay Hagan in NC, and thus is using fear of us mean evil atheists to scare people away from her opponent. I just didn't know that there was such a thing as "godless money" lol.

Seed Magazine endorsed Obama. No surprise there.

A new article in Newsweek discusses belief in the paranormal and supernatural as a coping mechanism.

Hitchens debated the guy who wrote, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist".

McCain further discredited

As we've watched McCain sacrifice his dignity to win by pulling out all the stops, it is helpful to remember that this mudslinger has his own shady associations to deal with.

Today a new story surfaces showing the same influence peddling as the NYT reported about Vicki Iseman...only about a Keating associate in a land swap deal.

NYT Magazine article on the McCain campaign

This is the piece I mentioned a few days ago in discussing the erosion of McCain's honor. Read it, or you could read this summary.

Religiosity redux

Without fail, I bring you another social analysis on the demographics of religion domestically and globally...well, okay, I'm linking to someone else's work, but still!

We are an outlier:

(from Pew Report's "Global Attitudes Project", published 9/17/08)

In the above graph, national religiosity is plotted against wealth. The inverse correlation between religiosity and prosperity among various countries is interesting and does exist. The US is a notable outlier, though. You could argue that economic freedom and religious freedom usually both produce more prosperity and more religiosity, but besides here in the US, that doesn't seem to hold true.

A GLOBAL survey recently conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to be religious.

The survey, done as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, covers a wide swath of economic matters, including global trade and immigration (pewglobal.org).

Pew found that there is “a strong relationship between a country’s religiosity and its economic status.” The poorer a country, the more “religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.”

The United States is the “most notable” exception. Other exceptions are oil-rich, mostly Muslim nations like Kuwait.

There is no simple interpretation of the findings. Perhaps as “people get less religious, they get wealthier,” wrote Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog (washingtonmonthly.com). “Or perhaps the other way around. Or perhaps there’s something else behind both trends.”

Mr. Drum concludes that it’s “probably a bit of all three.”

There seems to be a balance between religion as a positive force in increasing productivity by fostering attitudes like responsibility and self-reliance, versus religion as a negative force because it sucks up so much money from the private sector.

The authors turn next to the assessment of how differences in religiosity affect economic growth. For given religious beliefs, increases in church attendance tend to reduce economic growth. In contrast, for given church attendance, increases in some religious beliefs -- notably heaven, hell, and an afterlife -- tend to increase economic growth. In other words, economic growth depends mainly on the extent of believing relative to belonging. The authors also find some indication that the fear of hell is more potent for economic growth than the prospect of heaven. Their statistical analysis allows them to argue that these estimates reflect causal influences from religion to economic growth and not the reverse.

Barro and McCleary suggest that higher rates of religious beliefs stimulate growth because they help to sustain aspects of individual behavior that enhance productivity. They believe that higher church attendance depresses growth because it signifies a greater use of resources by the religion sector. However, that suppression of growth is tempered by the extent to which church attendance leads to greater religious beliefs, which in turn encourages economic growth.

The inverse relationship even holds within states of the US (also here, bottom graph). The South is notorious for its teen pregnancy rates, poverty, obesity, murder rates, etc., all being the highest in any region of the country. Its religiosity is also higher than any region in the country.

As Charles points out, the same inverse correlation exists between education level and religiosity as wealth and religiosity, since higher education is causative of higher wealth. It's important not to confuse correlation with causation, but it's also important not to dismiss correlation because in studying it you will usually discover underlying causes.

As far back as June 2006 I commented on Gregory Paul's study in Nov 2005 that purported to show that increased religiosity is correlated with many negative sociological variables. A discussion over on the GC message board got started on this very paper just this past week and I jumped into the fray with the following observations (most of which I've reiterated here on this site before). I like to read about sociological studies and religion. The good news is that globally, godlessness is on the rise:

The evangelical authors of the WCE lament that no Christian "in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism…. and in the Americas due to materialism…. The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000…. Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism…. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians" (italics added). (The WCE probably understates today's nonreligious. They have Christians constituting 68-94% of nations where surveys indicate that a quarter to half or more are not religious, and they may overestimate Chinese Christians by a factor of two. In that case the nonreligious probably soared past the billion mark already, and the three great faiths total 64% at most.)

Far from providing unambiguous evidence of the rise of faith, the devout compliers of the WCE document what they characterize as the spectacular ballooning of secularism by a few hundred-fold! It has no historical match. It dwarfs the widely heralded Mormon climb to 12 million during the same time, even the growth within Protestantism of Pentecostals from nearly nothing to half a billion does not equal it.

Ditto here at home in the US:

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

From Barna:

The proportion of atheists and agnostics increases from 6% of Elders (ages 61+) and 9% of Boomers (ages 42-60), to 14% of Busters (23-41) and 19% of adult Mosaics (18-22).

From CUNY's ARIS survey:

the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001

If this trend continues, younger Americans are going to grow more secular with time and as older Americans die off, the US will no longer be so religious because younger Americans are so much less religious than their forebears. The trends are already pointing that way.

Some people would argue that religion really is the opiate of the poor masses, and that economic standing best explains all the other negatives. That sounds more plausible to me. Poverty = less education = more religion. It is just hilarious, because the very moral failures that the "values voters" here in the South decry the loudest they exemplify the most (divorce, teen pregnancy, gun violence...) and they propose religion as a panacea, when the existence of their own abundant religiosity proves it to be otherwise.

But, until secular Americans start to learn how to organize and become a political force as the religious learned long ago, we'll continue to be underrepresented in Congress and undervalued as a slice of the electorate.

The erosion of honor

Nine months ago today, I wrote about whether I could live with a President McCain and said, largely, "I think so." But no more.

The NYT Magazine will apparently be printing a story on the failures in McCain's campaign, but I'm more interested in the failures in his character. The smear campaign that he is now running, which Barack hasn't turned back against him as effectively as he could have, has really hit bottom.

McCain used to be an honorable kind of guy. That is, if you ignore the ugly affair and divorce and a few personal failings, including a Senate Ethics investigation. However, in politics, he seemed the type not to capitulate principles for political gain. What we've seen over the past few months is the erosion of this honor and an evolution into a "win at any cost" liar of epic proportions.

McCain capitulated piecemeal: by hiring on the Bush crew to run his campaign, then this summer moving up wedge/smear-artist and Karl Rove's 2004 assistant Steve Schmidt to run the campaign and finally giving up his last remaining vestige of honor last month in hiring Eskew and the crew who smeared him in SC during the 2000 GOP primary, giving himself over to their Rove-Atwater tactics. And we see the fruits of it in Palin's recent "palling around with terrorists" and other BS. The coup de grâce, and this is truly amazing, is that McCain went beyond the typical dirty politics of using third-party groups to do robocalls by doing them himself (after complaining years ago about this)...and even hired the same crew who smeared him in 2000.

Whatever McCain once was, he is no more.

Fannie & Freddie lobbied the GOP to shut down regulation in 2005

With all these pesky facts piling up, it continues to get harder to put the Fannie/Freddie-related aspects of the financial crisis solely on the shoulders of Democrats:

Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.

Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.

In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.

McCain, R-Ariz., was not a target of the DCI campaign. He signed Hagel's letter and three weeks later signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.

By the time McCain did so, however, DCI's effort had gone on for nine months and was on its way toward killing the bill.

In recent days, McCain has said Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were "one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire" of the global credit crisis. McCain has accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of taking advice from former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and failing to see that the companies were heading for a meltdown.

McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, or his lobbying firm has taken more than $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dating to 2000. In December, Freddie Mac contributed $250,000 to last month’s GOP convention.

Spin that.

Continuing to misplace blame

Although conservatives are desperate to keep the blame off moves like Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the general culture of laissez-faire economics involving the GOP's "privatize profits and socialize losses" system, their arguments about the poor and Fannie/Freddie being to blame just keep getting holes poked in them by reality.

Today provides another refutation of these conservative talking points:

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
By David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story line...Faux News.

While I agree 100% that people weren't realistic about what they could afford and don't deserve a cent in bailout money, the fact of the matter is that lenders chose to extend mortgages to these people without abiding by standards that have existed for decades. It didn't used to be an issue because if you couldn't afford a mortgage, the bank knew it and wouldn't give it to you. This article makes it a little harder to argue with a straight face that it's all the fault of Fannie and Freddie, who just bought up bundled mortgages from lenders.

Survey of the damage

And here's The Onion with a hilarious hurricane-like report on the damage done to the nation by the Bush presidency:

* * * * *

It's getting difficult to guard the optimism

As I said on Tue, the polls for Obama look great and if this holds, he should win in 23 days. As of this morning, fivethirtyeight.com shows him with a 91% win probability, a 5-point popular vote spread (51.9:46.6)and 348 EV (270 needed), Pollster gives him 320 EV and an 8-point popular vote spread (49.8:41.9), while Intrade has him with 80% probability to win.

One of the neat things you can do is go to 270towin and play with the states to see various outcomes for the election. Taking for granted a win in all the 2004 Kerry states, it appears that Obama has also solidly locked in Iowa and New Mexico, bringing him to 264 EV. Amazingly, all Obama has to do is win one of the remaining tossup states: FL, OH, VA, NC, IN, CO, NV, or MO. McCain has to sweep every one of these swing states to win...and that's why sites that run probabilities like fivethirtyeight have Obama winning with 9:1 odds given current polling data.

Basically, my predicted map is shown below, in which Obama wins OH but loses FL, wins VA but loses NC, wins CO but loses NV, wins 1 of the 5 NE districts (Omaha) but loses both MO and IN. This would give Obama 307 EV to McCain's 231. I also predict Obama to win around 51% of the popular vote and I think McCain will get around 48.5%, with third-party candidates drawing less than expected due to the financial crisis:

Aren't prognostications fun?

And here's a countdown clock for the election:

Golden line

From Gail Collins' column in today's NYT (links added by me):

Palin has been pressing the line that people don’t really know “the real Barack Obama,” and who could make the argument better than a woman who we’ve already known for almost six weeks? Really, she’s like one of the family.

We’ve gotten so close we’ve already learned that she didn’t actually sell the plane on eBay, didn’t actually visit the troops in Iraq and didn’t really have a talk with the British ambassador. As soon as we get the Trooper thing and Alaska Independence Party thing and the tax thing figured out, she’ll be an open book.

*drum sting*

PS: Economists who once backed McCain's economic plans are now balking at his proposal to buy mortgages directly from banks.

PSS: Someone should lose a hand (or at least a finger) over this.