March 2007

While the Bush Administration continues to claim that their tax cuts have benefited average Americans, the real result of the Bush economic policy has been to exacerbate the shameful gap between the super-wealthy and the rest of Americans,a new study demonstrates. The New York Times reports:

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

As a general rule, phrases about economic policy like "since before the Depression" are frightening indicators. How much longer can Republicans convince voters to vote not only against their own economic interests, but the general interest of the nation? 

Keep Reading

It looks like we finally have an explanation for the way Montana's Republicans in the Legislature have been acting: they're doing a lot of drinking. I guess that wouldn't be so bad, if they didn't get behind the wheel afterwards:

A state lawmaker pleaded guilty Monday to drunken driving after being arrested over the weekend. Red Lodge Rep. Scott Boggio's passenger was a fellow legislator who is a member of the Yellowstone County DUI Task Force.

Yeah…it gets better:

Boggio's passenger, Rep. Elsie Arntzen, R-Billings, is a member of the Yellowstone County DUI Task Force. She said Tuesday that she did not think Boggio was intoxicated when she got in the car with him after they had dinner. "I would have never done that," Arntzen said.

At least Boggio was responsible, contrite, and embarassed after the arrest. Oh no, that would be what a responsible, adult role model would do. Boggio responded like a petulant child:

"Well, I guess that, you know, anyone who goes out to dinner and has a few drinks along with their meal can get a DUI," Boggio said Tuesday.

 

Keep Reading

Remember step three of the Dennis Rehberg action plan for Iraq, to vote against the interests of the American military? well, he's back at it again.  On  a party line vote, Rehberg voted to support stripping a portion of the Iraq Supplemental  bill that would ensure that all the troops sent to Iraq were properly equipped and trained. That's right, Representative Rehberg thinks that ensuring that our troops have been trained and given adequate equipment is an unnecessary restriction on the President. From the Speaker's blog:

Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-CA) offered an amendment during the committee markup which would have stripped language from the Iraq supplemental restricting the use of troops who are not properly equipped or trained, with the only exception being when President Bush is willing to publicly certify it is necessary…

 Given the recent report at Salon about the military forcing wounded troops to go back to Iraq and Representative Rehberg's promises to support our soliders, this is an unexcusable vote. If he had the capacity, he should be ashamed of himself.

Keep Reading

The Justice Department is one class act.  Once the U.S. attorneys and others began to suggest that the firings were not appropriate, the Bush DoJ began threatening the former attorneys with reprisal. One of the documents released by the Justice Department included an e-mail from H.E. 'Bud' Cummins to the group of US Attorneys removed by the White House.

Mike Elston from the DAG's office called me today.  The call was amiable enough, but clearly spurred by the Sunday Post article.  The essence of his message was that they feel like they are taking unnecessary flak to avoid trashing each of'us specifically or further, but if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press, or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully.  I can't offer any specific quotes,but that was clearly the message.  I was tempted to challenged him and say something movie-like such as "are you threatening ME???", but instead I kind of shrugged it off and said I didn't sense that anyone was intending to perpetuate this.

I also made it a point to tell him that all of us have turned down multiple invitations to testify.He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying and it seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation.

Bush's remarks today are telling. His reference about feeling sorry for the US Attorneys involved suggests that the gloves are really going to come off. Of course, when the DoJ refused to remove a U.S. Attorney after the sitting District Judge said he wasn't doing his job , going after these prosecutors will prove to be an interesting challenge.

 

Keep Reading

Note: This is part of a series on why no rational person should get their news from Fox. 

First, FoxNews does deserve limited credit for reporting, in this piece, that the abhorrent conditions at Walter Reed were at least partially due to disputes around privatization.  But that's where the credit ends, and the massive bias begins. 

Fox has no choice but to follow their 2-part formula for placing blame: Bureaucracy and Clinton.  First, bureaucracy: Fox states this at the beginning of their story:

"An Army contract to privatize maintenance at Walter Reed Medical Center was delayed more than three years amid bureaucratic bickering and legal squabbles that led to staff shortages and a hospital in disarray just as the number of severely wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan was rising rapidly."

 Next, they throw Clinton into the mix:

"The trail goes back to the end of the Clinton administration. The Army began studying the cost benefits of privatization in 2000." 

Brilliant.  'The Trail goes back to"?  The trail goes back to privatization.  Even if Clinton had personally ordered to army to 'study the cost benefits of privatization', the trail does not go back to there unless you are willing to blame the problems on privatization, not 'bureaucratic bickering".   The trail actually goes back, however, to

"

When President Bush took office, he mandated the competitive outsourcing of 425,000 federal jobs. At the time, the Pentagon was aggressively pushing for increased outsourcing, and in June 2003, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate committee he was considering outsourcing up to 320,000 nonmilitary support jobs."

Simply because you mention both presidents names, doesn't mean they are both in any way involved.  Whereas Clinton was simply the president when the analysis took place, Bush mandated the privatization. 

What really happened? Well, Fox is kind enough to actually tell us, though we have to cut through their bias to get to it:  the army eliminated 360 federal jobs at Walter Reed and turned the work over to IAP, the company which had won the management bid.  Because of all that bureaucracy, those workers were not actually fired until this year; so Walter Reed was fully staffed until then.  However, IAP decided to replace those workers with 87 'temporary skilled workers' .  Despite the miracle that is the private sector, they could only find 10, and that is the understaffed condition the Washington Post found Walter Reed in when they investigated: a hospital abandon by privatization, desperately understaffed. 

 But had the bureaucracy been any faster, would the situation have been any different?  Doubtful, as IAP still wouldn't have found the workers any faster.  The problem is that a hospital for providing the most essential care for those sacrificing for their country was put into the hands of a for-profit company.  And its not just that this is  one bad company out of many other good ones at other facilities: as Fox even admits,

"(IAP is) the only private bidder to handle maintenance, security, public works and management of military personnel." 

Privatization, of those sectors, at least: 0-1

 


Keep Reading

I hate to put a damper on the otherwise good news of North Korea reaching an agreement with the United States, but it seems rather like deja vu. Back in 1994 , we reached a similar agreement with North Korea, to provide them with two light-wateer nuclear reactors (that is, reactors that cannot be used to build a bomb) and 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil. 

That agreement went reasonably well until January of 2002, when George Bush put North Korea on the 'Axis of Evil'.  The entire agreement fell apart, with sins on both sides:  The US accused North Korea of developing a secret weapons program in October, which is entirely possible.  North Korea complained that the US had made very slow progress on the two nuclear reactors, which was also very true.  In November, the US cut fuel oil shipments to North Korea, and North Korea responded by restarting its nuclear program and kicking out inspectors.  However, the North Koreans have a point: back in January, the US violated at very least the spirit of the '94 agreement by putting North Korea on the Axis of Evil, which hardly conforms to the clause which read "The United States and North Korea committed to move toward normalizing economic and political relations, including by reducing barriers to investment, opening liaison offices, and ultimately exchanging ambassadors. "

Never one to change course when realizing his tough talk had gotten us in trouble, the Bush administration said in January of 2003 (a handy BBC timeline of the crisis from Oct. 2002 to the present can be found here), saying they would not "provide quid pro quos to North Korea to live up to its existing obligations".  Four years later we have this agreement, which essentially just trades two reactors for another 500,000 tonnes of fuel oil.  In the meantime, while we were being the 'bad cop', North Korea successfully tested a nuclear weapon, leading one to believe that they have built several in the absense of inspectors. 

There are some who would say that no matter what concessions our tough stance had gotten us, if it had given North Korea time to build and test a bomb, it wasn't worth it.   But I think we can all agree that the minimal changes between the two agreements were definately not worth that development.   And though hindsight is supposed to be 20/20, the foresight of those who grimaced to hear the president refer to nations as the "Axis of Evil" is looking pretty good, too. 

Keep Reading

Dennis Rehberg’s Three Step Action Plan for Veterans

17 March 2007

Dennis Rehberg certainly knows what is in the best interest of veterans who need medical care in light of the Walter Reed scandal. To that end, he's developed a three step plan to address the problem. Step One: Announce to the world that he intends to visit the medical facility at Fort Harrison, even though [...]

Read the full article →

The Continuing Hypocrisy of the U.S. Government

16 March 2007

Recently, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to an array of terrorist attacks over the past 15 years, including the September 11th attacks.  Interestingly enough, the only major U.S. news story I could find questioning this confession merely went over whether or not he masterminded all of the crimes he confessed to.  Nowhere does the media question [...]

Read the full article →

House Republicans? Unbelievable!

15 March 2007

Wow.  This is rich. I'll admit I am a little tired of the media simply repeating the Republican talking points about "well…well…  it is the Democrats refusing to discuss the budget" when reporting about the Republican decision to wait until well into the session to change the rules completely. Today's threat deals with the muli-billion [...]

Read the full article →

A pattern, perhaps?

13 March 2007

I have been watching the news around the fired US attorneys with great interest, if for no other reason than it helps build a clearer picture of the power-hungry White House.  Today, one of the news sites I read dug up this article from the Boston Globe nearly two years ago.  Sound familiar?  A US [...]

Read the full article →

General Calls Homosexuality Immoral, No Opinion on Unprovoked War

13 March 2007

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff knows immorality when he sees it : Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site."I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be [...]

Read the full article →

The Danger of Free Press

10 March 2007

I guess there's a reason they didn't call it "Operation Enduring Freedom of the Press".  Because those three last three words would have been awkward in the face of US troops erasing footage of US troops shooting Afghan civilians.  But don't worry, its justified, or so the millitary claimed in a letter to the Associated [...]

Read the full article →