Hey, this era of super-independent boards is really great isn't it? ...rather than this clubby atmosphere of trust, we have the independent board chair [Dunn] – a development devoutly pushed by all of the great corporate governance experts – ordering spying on a board member, then outing the spied-on board member at an open director's meeting, bypassing the board committee charged with the matter. The committee chair, Tom Perkins, then loudly resigned from the board, leaving the board in chaos and without one of its most experienced and knowledgeable members.

Anybody got any new great corporate governance ideas we can try out?

Tonight on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, in the space of five minutes, Paul Krugman told three lies in an attempt to explain how President Bush lied us into Iraq.

Lie #1- Krugman stated that Bush said Saddam constituted an "imminent threat". Of course, we all know what Bush really said in the State of the Union address, and other times, was that we couldnt afford to wait until Saddam became an imminent threat. It was the Democrats who changed that to fit their agenda that "Bush Lied."

Lie#2- Krugman stated that Bush said that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Stephen Colbert challenged him on this, saying that Bush has said specifically that nobody in his administration linked 9/11 to Saddam. Krugman replied with some incomplete sentences about how the Bush admin created the impression even though they did not actually say it. Actually, we all know it is the Left that has created the impression that Bush linked Saddam to 9/11, and has perpetuated that lie as if its is accepted fact, just like Lie #1 and most other lies.

Lie #3- Krugman stated, in response to Colbert citing the meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and Saddams initelligence agents, that all the major intelligence agencies have debunked the Atta/Iraqi Intelligence meeting, and mumbled another incomplete sentence that actually we know Atta was somewhere else at the time. In reality, as we all know, Czech intelligence to this day stands behind their report of Atta in Prague meeting Iraqi agents, and that the rental car records showing Atta in the US were a diversion using his drivers license to create that impression.

Republicans would likely filibuster Democratic bills in the Senate. And Luskin notes President Bush would still hold his veto pen.

What is there to worry about?

"Things that are likely to happen that would create mischief have a chance of getting some bipartisan support," Luskin said.

He sees some risk of protectionism. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., already are pushing a bipartisan bill that would slap a 27.5% tariff on imports from China.

"An event that triggered a firestorm that crossed party lines" could lead to a protectionist backlash, Luskin said.

He also sees some risk of "a global warming panic" that leads to bipartisan support for a carbon tax.

But even with Democratic control of Congress, these things "probably won't happen," Luskin said.

In an interview, Sen. Grassley, whose committee opens hearings on options and executive compensation today , said doing away with the deduction for performance-based pay entirely is a "possibility," as is "at least tightening it up." Though he said he couldn't give a precise head count of support in Congress, he said "a lot of members are interested" in possibly scaling back executive-pay deductions.

Thanks to reader Robert Paci for the link.

Update... my DC lawyer/lobbyist friend weighs in:

In Washington, the key to the lock is to understand all the factors which affect outcomes, just as in business. So, in the business of Washington, those factors are: policy, people, process, and power. Part of the “people” factor is personality. Bill Thomas has a brilliant and strategic mind, but he has few friends. Grassley, is almost the complete opposite. He is a classic prairie populist. He rarely has ulterior motives. He says what he feels because he doesn’t have the inclination to connive. He can be obtuse, but he isn’t dumb. When Thomas and Grassley clash (which is frequent) it’s an ugly mess, usually.

So, I would conclude differently than you about what is behind Grassley’s silly and wrong-headed quote on CEO pay. I guess he’s feeling anxious about the political situation and wants to drop a populist bomb on the big rich CEOs. Not much thought has gone into it; it’s a reflex, as if he’s saying, “I am not helping you.” He ain’t doing it to show off for the folks back in Iowa; he really is one of them.

Ignore it, by the way. Won’t happen. Unless the Democrats win control, it won’t even come up.

Military tribunals... the Supreme Court invited Congress to rewrite the rules for military tribunals for terrorists, and Republicans can help President Bush and the war effort by doing so...

Spending restraint...Republicans can lighten that blot on their record by passing reforms that stem the worst abuses -- namely, more transparency for special-interest "earmarks," and a line-item veto to allow a President to delete specific spending pork...

Health insurance... The House has already passed a popular bill to let small businesses and associations offer lower-cost insurance the way that Fortune 500 companies can. Liberals in the Senate are blocking it precisely because it might reduce the ranks of the uninsured and thus reduce the demand for government health care. Why not force Democrats to vote up or down?

Gas prices. Gasoline prices are falling nationwide, but with oil prices still near $70 a barrel now is the time to open new sources of domestic energy supply...

Property rights and judges... The House long ago passed a measure to block federal dollars from financing local projects invoking eminent domain. But the Senate has sat on its hands, thanks mainly to Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter.

And speaking of Judiciary, whatever happened to pushing more judicial nominees for a floor vote? ...

Taxes. Democrats who oppose making the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent are arguing for one of the largest tax increases in American history. The average family with children would see its tax payment rise by $2,084 a year. A vote in both houses on making these permanent is good policy and politics. Ditto for another vote on repealing the death tax, to remind voters in red states about where their tax burdens will head if Democrats take control.

Tests of a deep-water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, three companies said Tuesday, in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves as much as 50%...

Chevron said the well set a variety of records, including the deepest well successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron said it was drilled to a total depth of 28,175 feet in waters that are 7,000 feet deep.

Sebastian Mallaby sums up conventional thinking in today's Labor Day column:

...Economic growth no longer seems to help the majority of workers; the proceeds flow to the top fifth or so of the workforce, and the top within the top has done especially handsomely...

...I want to look at...the word "seems." Why did Mallaby insert that word? Why didn't he confidently write, "Economic growth no longer helps the majority of workers?"

Perhaps he is uneasy about making the absurd assertion that there is something new about the extraordinary growth in recent years in America without an explanation of how this has come about. For it is absurd, to presume that somehow, without our noticing, the economic system has for the first time in American history become a system that grows like topsy without benefiting the average worker. But it's more than absurd—it's dangerous. You're in uncharted terroritory. How can you possibly posit a solution to the problem without understanding it?

But there is another way to interpret the word "seems." It doesn't just express uncertainty. It has an alternative meaning. It is an admission of the possibility that the claim of a stagnant standard of living for the average American is simply an illusion.

What if the average worker is actually benefiting from economic growth? What if the measures of inflation we use are not capturing quality changes (which they surely do not). What if because those measures overstate actual inflation, living standards are actually rising and the average worker is sharing in economic growth, despite statistical claims to the contrary.

What if in fact, all the other data, the data on life expectancy, on the size of our houses, on our purchases of unparalleled luxuries—our iPods and big-screen TVs—and enrollment in college at or near an all-time high—what if these data are more reliable than the official data on wages?

What if things are actually getting better for the average worker, but it merely seems otherwise?