Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 05/01/2007
WASHINGTON
The woman who faces charges of running a prostitution ring in Washington that serviced the prominent and powerful said Monday that she intended to force many of those clients to testify in her behalf.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey is offering a simple defense to government charges that the escort service she ran for 13 years by telephone from her home in California was actually a straightforward prostitution business.
Although she promoted her business as a legal "high-end erotic fantasy service," she said it was not intended as an exchange of sex for money. She said Monday that her former clients, reported to include a Bush administration economics official and the head of a conservative research group, among others, should confirm that when they are called to testify.
If any sexual activity occurred, she said, it was not authorized or intended by her but undertaken independently by her female subcontractors and male clients "who disobeyed my directives, their signed contracts and participated in illegal behavior."
In other words, she is stunned at allegations that sexual activity had taken place between the women who worked for her and the men who paid them about $300 for 90 minutes of whatever.
As for now, the names of only two have been revealed. The most prominent was Randall L. Tobias, a veteran businessman and the top foreign aid adviser in the State Department, who resigned Friday after he acknowledged to ABC News that he was on the list of Palfrey's clients.
The other, disclosed on Palfrey's Web site, was Harlan K. Ullman, a Defense Department consultant best known for coining the phrase "shock and awe" to describe the intended effect on Iraq of the war's opening barrage, but the phrase also might well describe his own reaction to being called by reporters on Friday about the disclosure, to which he declined comment.
Palfrey says she did not know the actual names of her clients, just their telephone numbers. She said she gave them to ABC News without compensation so the network could use its resources to match names to the numbers.
ABC has used the information to prepare a story to be broadcast this Friday on its show 20/20. In a tease for the segment, ABC said on its Web site Monday that the list includes, "a Bush administration economist, the head of a conservative think tank, a prominent CEO, several lobbyists and a handful of military officials" in addition to Tobias and Ullman.
Tobias said that he had used the escort service but said he only received massages.
Palfrey said Monday that she felt sorry for Tobias because of the unwanted attention he has received, but was gratified that he supported her story that she did not run a sex-for-money service. She chided him, however, for choosing not to come forward earlier with his "extremely valuable exculpatory evidence."
GOING TO COURT: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, charged with running a prostitution ring, is escorted by her civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, in Washington. Palfrey says she was stunned to discover her employees had sex for money. AP photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
POLITICAL PHONE CALLS UNDER FIRE
"Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 05/01/2007
TALLAHASSEE
Cropping up every year or two, they're universally despised. More than the stream of partisan nastiness that spews from the television screen. More than the campaign junk that fills mailboxes.
They are the hated robo-calls, the recorded voices at the other end of the line at the height of political campaigns. Sometimes containing an endorsement of a favored candidate, often hurling slurs at an opponent, the calls are disliked by seemingly everyone, except, of course, politicians who use them.
"Some people swear at them. There are other people who swear by them," said state Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville.
King, state Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, and state Rep. Stan Jordan, R-Jacksonville, are pushing legislation that would ban political robo-calls from going to anyone who is on the do-not-call list, the registry designed to protect people from telemarketers.
Lots of people dislike unsolicited calls; Florida's do-not-call list contains 8.1 million subscribers.
Telemarketers and others subject to the rules could face a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.
Senate and House committees have approved robo-call legislation, but King said there might not be enough time to pass the final hurdles by Friday's scheduled adjournment. Gov. Charlie Crist's press secretary, Erin Isaac, said she couldn't comment on the specifics of the proposal because it's subject to change as it moves through the Legislature.
Six states prohibit political robo-calls. Florida law exempts politicians from respecting the do-not-call list. The legislation would force politicians to honor it or face the same penalties as telemarketers and other businesses. Rhoda Berman, a voter who lives west of Delray Beach, said the calls were a plague during last year's election season.
"It was insane," she said. "These calls were coming in at the worst times, during dinner and after dinner. It made the whole election so distasteful."
A nationwide survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 64 percent of registered voters reported receiving such calls in the final two months of the 2006 election season. Berman said she sometimes got four a day.
Berman was luckier, in a sense, than Robert Pelletier, of Hollywood. On vacation in Massachusetts for three weeks during the 2006 election season, Pelletier got robo-calls on his cell phone, including two from a Broward County commissioner on behalf of a candidate.
The worst part: Pelletier paid to receive the calls because of the cell-phone roaming charges.
"Boy, was I ticked," he said. "Political calls should be banned from the telephone."
He received more robo-calls this spring. They were no less irritating because they were about the Miramar city election, and Pelletier doesn't live there.
If the legislation doesn't become law this year, King said, he will try again during the 2008 session, in time to spare people from the next election season onslaught.
If not, brace for more calls. Donna Brosemer, of the consulting firm Politically Correct, in Palm Beach Gardens, said many candidates and consultants use robo-calls because they need to reach voters.
"Our options are so few. Television costs a fortune. Fewer and fewer people read newspapers. People are bombarded with direct mail," she said.
Brosemer said she rarely uses robo-calls for her candidates: "I hate [receiving] them, so I assume I'm not the only one out there who does."
Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sun-sentinel.com
DISCUSSING THE CALLS
State Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville, discusses the much-hated political robo-calls in an audio report at Sun-Sentinel.com/florida "
TALLAHASSEE
Cropping up every year or two, they're universally despised. More than the stream of partisan nastiness that spews from the television screen. More than the campaign junk that fills mailboxes.
They are the hated robo-calls, the recorded voices at the other end of the line at the height of political campaigns. Sometimes containing an endorsement of a favored candidate, often hurling slurs at an opponent, the calls are disliked by seemingly everyone, except, of course, politicians who use them.
"Some people swear at them. There are other people who swear by them," said state Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville.
King, state Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, and state Rep. Stan Jordan, R-Jacksonville, are pushing legislation that would ban political robo-calls from going to anyone who is on the do-not-call list, the registry designed to protect people from telemarketers.
Lots of people dislike unsolicited calls; Florida's do-not-call list contains 8.1 million subscribers.
Telemarketers and others subject to the rules could face a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.
Senate and House committees have approved robo-call legislation, but King said there might not be enough time to pass the final hurdles by Friday's scheduled adjournment. Gov. Charlie Crist's press secretary, Erin Isaac, said she couldn't comment on the specifics of the proposal because it's subject to change as it moves through the Legislature.
Six states prohibit political robo-calls. Florida law exempts politicians from respecting the do-not-call list. The legislation would force politicians to honor it or face the same penalties as telemarketers and other businesses. Rhoda Berman, a voter who lives west of Delray Beach, said the calls were a plague during last year's election season.
"It was insane," she said. "These calls were coming in at the worst times, during dinner and after dinner. It made the whole election so distasteful."
A nationwide survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 64 percent of registered voters reported receiving such calls in the final two months of the 2006 election season. Berman said she sometimes got four a day.
Berman was luckier, in a sense, than Robert Pelletier, of Hollywood. On vacation in Massachusetts for three weeks during the 2006 election season, Pelletier got robo-calls on his cell phone, including two from a Broward County commissioner on behalf of a candidate.
The worst part: Pelletier paid to receive the calls because of the cell-phone roaming charges.
"Boy, was I ticked," he said. "Political calls should be banned from the telephone."
He received more robo-calls this spring. They were no less irritating because they were about the Miramar city election, and Pelletier doesn't live there.
If the legislation doesn't become law this year, King said, he will try again during the 2008 session, in time to spare people from the next election season onslaught.
If not, brace for more calls. Donna Brosemer, of the consulting firm Politically Correct, in Palm Beach Gardens, said many candidates and consultants use robo-calls because they need to reach voters.
"Our options are so few. Television costs a fortune. Fewer and fewer people read newspapers. People are bombarded with direct mail," she said.
Brosemer said she rarely uses robo-calls for her candidates: "I hate [receiving] them, so I assume I'm not the only one out there who does."
Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sun-sentinel.com
DISCUSSING THE CALLS
State Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville, discusses the much-hated political robo-calls in an audio report at Sun-Sentinel.com/florida "
Sunday, April 29, 2007
FL College Tuition Increase
Just one barrier placed against poor and working students from affording a higher education. This policy is a damn shame.
TALLAHASSEE
Tens of thousands of students who expect free tuition at three of Florida's largest state universities under the Bright Futures scholarships would have to pay additional tuition -- as much as $1,000 a year -- under an overhaul plan moving through the Legislature.
The hikes would apply at the state's top research schools -- the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of South Florida. The schools argue that Bright Futures and the Florida Prepaid program have hemmed in needed tuition increases, restricting the revenue they need to achieve national standing.
The fix the universities are pitching is an additional charge that would bypass the two programs and hit students' pockets directly.
''It's time that we turn the corner on education,'' said bill sponsor Sen. Steve Oelrich, a Cross Creek Republican, adding that everyone says Florida needs a more competitive university system. ``That talk's fine, but it's time to take some action.''
The hikes have a major opponent: Gov. Charlie Crist. He says he will consider vetoing the plan because he opposes any tuition increase this year. But lawmakers are pushing ahead, setting up a potential showdown with the popular governor.
''I think it would be unfair to increase the burden on students and their families to get a higher education in the state of Florida,'' Crist said.
The governor and other critics see the plan as the beginning of the end for Florida's low-cost higher education system. Schools like UF, which conceived the idea, argue it's necessary to hire more professors and compete nationally in academics.
''We think this will really hit right at the problem,'' said UF President Bernie Machen, who is campaigning to make UF one of the nation's top-rated public schools, which would require a lower faculty-to-student ratio.
More legislators are starting to agree with the chorus that tuition is too low for the state's top universities to achieve excellence.
Rep. Bill Proctor, a St. Augustine Republican who voted for the bill in a House council, compared the state's tuition to ``putting a boxer in the ring with one arm tied behind his back.''
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
The proposals essentially work by allowing certain schools to assess an additional charge on top of the base tuition rate, which the Legislature sets. Students who already have Florida Prepaid contracts would be exempt from the surcharge. But Bright Futures, which awards high-achieving high school graduates by covering all or part of their tuition at any state university, would not cover the increase. The fee would be capped at about 40 percent of base tuition.
The Senate bill would allow three research-heavy schools -- UF, FSU and USF -- to charge the fee and would go into effect this fall. The House version would apply only to UF, begin in 2008 at a lower rate, and expand to $1,000 a year in 2012. The Senate bill will be heard on the floor today.
''It puts us on a road where we should be in terms of higher education,'' said Sen. Evelyn Lynn, who helped draft the Senate bill. ``We're setting policy. We're not just giving out money.''
The plan is meeting criticism on several fronts. Some lawmakers say it's a piecemeal approach to solving the real problem of Bright Futures and Prepaid being tied to tuition. Other lawmakers, echoed by universities that wouldn't get the hike, have protested that it rewards research schools to the exclusion of smaller colleges that focus on teaching. Last year the Legislature created a tier system to distinguish universities based on how much research they do.
University of North Florida President John Delaney spoke against the bill this week, saying he objects to classifying universities into tiers if it means some get to charge more tuition than others. ''All 11 universities are short of funding,'' Delaney said, adding that other university presidents who supported the bill as a pilot program are ''disturbed'' that it could apply only to research schools. ``The case for the revenue at the other eight universities is equally compelling.''
But the person many expect to be the biggest critic has yet to speak out. Senate President Ken Pruitt, who famously campaigned around the state by bus in 2003 to protect Bright Futures from cuts, is keeping quiet so far, following his philosophy that legislative leaders shouldn't squash members' ideas.
''I believe that if we want excellence in our university system that we need to give them the resources to get to that next level,'' Pruitt said. But, he added, ``I will never discount the importance of keeping education affordable and accessible.''
Pruitt also objected to the notion that Bright Futures can't sustain regular increases in tuition, saying that the Lottery, which funds the program, gives $1 billion a year to education and that Bright Futures takes up less than $400 million of it.
``There's still plenty of room for Bright Futures to grow.''
There's no doubt that Bright Futures has ballooned, though. State records show that more than 146,000 students this year received a Bright Futures scholarship -- compared to more than 42,000 students in 1997. When first created, the program cost $69.5 million. In the coming year it will cost more than $398 million.
LOBBYING EFFORTS
The Florida Prepaid Program lobbied hard to change the original bill to exempt its policyholders from paying it. Allowing each university to charge its own tuition rate would interfere with the way Prepaid works, because the program allows parents to make payments on locked-in tuition that would cover the cost of any state school.
Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican, has consistently voted against the plan in committee. He says he doesn't want to pit schools against each other, though he supports separating Bright Futures and Prepaid from tuition. He said the state university system is a case of ``if it's not broke, don't fix it. The product that we produce belies the fact that we are not spending enough.''
Even if the plans fail, supporters say the effort will help the state reconsider its higher education strategy.
Mark Rosenberg, chancellor of the state university system, said that for the first time, ``We're looking beyond Bright Futures.''
Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report.
TALLAHASSEE
Tens of thousands of students who expect free tuition at three of Florida's largest state universities under the Bright Futures scholarships would have to pay additional tuition -- as much as $1,000 a year -- under an overhaul plan moving through the Legislature.
The hikes would apply at the state's top research schools -- the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of South Florida. The schools argue that Bright Futures and the Florida Prepaid program have hemmed in needed tuition increases, restricting the revenue they need to achieve national standing.
The fix the universities are pitching is an additional charge that would bypass the two programs and hit students' pockets directly.
''It's time that we turn the corner on education,'' said bill sponsor Sen. Steve Oelrich, a Cross Creek Republican, adding that everyone says Florida needs a more competitive university system. ``That talk's fine, but it's time to take some action.''
The hikes have a major opponent: Gov. Charlie Crist. He says he will consider vetoing the plan because he opposes any tuition increase this year. But lawmakers are pushing ahead, setting up a potential showdown with the popular governor.
''I think it would be unfair to increase the burden on students and their families to get a higher education in the state of Florida,'' Crist said.
The governor and other critics see the plan as the beginning of the end for Florida's low-cost higher education system. Schools like UF, which conceived the idea, argue it's necessary to hire more professors and compete nationally in academics.
''We think this will really hit right at the problem,'' said UF President Bernie Machen, who is campaigning to make UF one of the nation's top-rated public schools, which would require a lower faculty-to-student ratio.
More legislators are starting to agree with the chorus that tuition is too low for the state's top universities to achieve excellence.
Rep. Bill Proctor, a St. Augustine Republican who voted for the bill in a House council, compared the state's tuition to ``putting a boxer in the ring with one arm tied behind his back.''
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
The proposals essentially work by allowing certain schools to assess an additional charge on top of the base tuition rate, which the Legislature sets. Students who already have Florida Prepaid contracts would be exempt from the surcharge. But Bright Futures, which awards high-achieving high school graduates by covering all or part of their tuition at any state university, would not cover the increase. The fee would be capped at about 40 percent of base tuition.
The Senate bill would allow three research-heavy schools -- UF, FSU and USF -- to charge the fee and would go into effect this fall. The House version would apply only to UF, begin in 2008 at a lower rate, and expand to $1,000 a year in 2012. The Senate bill will be heard on the floor today.
''It puts us on a road where we should be in terms of higher education,'' said Sen. Evelyn Lynn, who helped draft the Senate bill. ``We're setting policy. We're not just giving out money.''
The plan is meeting criticism on several fronts. Some lawmakers say it's a piecemeal approach to solving the real problem of Bright Futures and Prepaid being tied to tuition. Other lawmakers, echoed by universities that wouldn't get the hike, have protested that it rewards research schools to the exclusion of smaller colleges that focus on teaching. Last year the Legislature created a tier system to distinguish universities based on how much research they do.
University of North Florida President John Delaney spoke against the bill this week, saying he objects to classifying universities into tiers if it means some get to charge more tuition than others. ''All 11 universities are short of funding,'' Delaney said, adding that other university presidents who supported the bill as a pilot program are ''disturbed'' that it could apply only to research schools. ``The case for the revenue at the other eight universities is equally compelling.''
But the person many expect to be the biggest critic has yet to speak out. Senate President Ken Pruitt, who famously campaigned around the state by bus in 2003 to protect Bright Futures from cuts, is keeping quiet so far, following his philosophy that legislative leaders shouldn't squash members' ideas.
''I believe that if we want excellence in our university system that we need to give them the resources to get to that next level,'' Pruitt said. But, he added, ``I will never discount the importance of keeping education affordable and accessible.''
Pruitt also objected to the notion that Bright Futures can't sustain regular increases in tuition, saying that the Lottery, which funds the program, gives $1 billion a year to education and that Bright Futures takes up less than $400 million of it.
``There's still plenty of room for Bright Futures to grow.''
There's no doubt that Bright Futures has ballooned, though. State records show that more than 146,000 students this year received a Bright Futures scholarship -- compared to more than 42,000 students in 1997. When first created, the program cost $69.5 million. In the coming year it will cost more than $398 million.
LOBBYING EFFORTS
The Florida Prepaid Program lobbied hard to change the original bill to exempt its policyholders from paying it. Allowing each university to charge its own tuition rate would interfere with the way Prepaid works, because the program allows parents to make payments on locked-in tuition that would cover the cost of any state school.
Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican, has consistently voted against the plan in committee. He says he doesn't want to pit schools against each other, though he supports separating Bright Futures and Prepaid from tuition. He said the state university system is a case of ``if it's not broke, don't fix it. The product that we produce belies the fact that we are not spending enough.''
Even if the plans fail, supporters say the effort will help the state reconsider its higher education strategy.
Mark Rosenberg, chancellor of the state university system, said that for the first time, ``We're looking beyond Bright Futures.''
Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report.
Putin threatenes Russian pullout from arms treaty
The United States continues to increase its military presence in Europe and the West. What would you think to be the logical response from world leaders whom are not part of NATO?
Source: Agence France Presse 04/26/2007
MOSCOW, April 26, 2007 (AFP) -
President Vladimir Putin on Thursday threatened Russian withdrawal from a landmark Cold War-era arms treaty limiting military forces in Europe, abruptly raising the stakes in an increasingly tense security dispute with the West.
"It would be appropriate to announce a moratorium on Russian adherence to this treaty until it has been ratified by all NATO countries," Putin told the Russian parliament in his annual state of the nation address, referring to the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.
"I suggest this issue be raised in the Russia-NATO council and, in the event there is no progress in negotiation, that we consider terminating our obligations under the CFE," Putin said.
The CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 in Paris by the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the former Warsaw Pact. It was adapted in 1999 following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the enlargement of NATO, but NATO states have not yet ratified the new pact.
Putin said Russia, which did ratify the new treaty, had been complying with it on a unilateral basis and today had virtually no military forces deployed in the northwest and European areas of the country despite being the only CFE signatory with both northern and southern flanks to protect.
Members of the US-led NATO bloc have tied ratification of the adapted 1999 CFE Treaty to withdrawal of Russian forces from the ex-Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova, efforts which Russia says have been under way and which are bilateral issues unrelated to the CFE pact.
"What about them?" Putin said, referring to the NATO countries which have not ratified the treaty. "Our partners have not even ratified the treaty.
"This gives us every reason to say that our partners are acting in this situation incorrectly at a very minimum," Putin said in comments interrupted at one point by applause from the deputies from the State Duma and the Federation Council gathered at the Kremlin for the speech.
Russia and the West have been disputing application of the adapted CFE Treaty for years with each side accusing the other of acting in bad faith.
But Putin's warning ratcheted the testy rhetoric up to the top level of the state and coincided with a rapid chilling in relations between Russia and the United States over US plans to deploy elements of its new missile defense system in two former Warsaw Pact states near Russia's border.
The Russian president took direct aim at the US missile plans and linked it directly to the CFE treaty, stating: "It is high time for our partners to deliver their contribution to arms reduction, not just in word but in deed."
Putin said the missile defense plan, if carried out, would mark an unprecedented deployment in Europe of US strategic weaponry and said this was an issue that should be of concern not just in US-Russian bilateral relations but on the continent as a whole.
"In one way or another, this affects the interests of all European states including those that are not members of NATO," Putin said.
The Russian leader said the matter should be taken up by the Vienna-based Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), a body that Moscow has for years accused of veering from its original mission to deal with security matters in Europe toward promotion of a US political agenda.
"It is time to give the activities of the OSCE some real content, to turn the face of the organization toward the problems that really concern the people of Europe instead of only looking to build (political) blocs in the post-Soviet space," Putin said.
Source: Agence France Presse 04/26/2007
MOSCOW, April 26, 2007 (AFP) -
President Vladimir Putin on Thursday threatened Russian withdrawal from a landmark Cold War-era arms treaty limiting military forces in Europe, abruptly raising the stakes in an increasingly tense security dispute with the West.
"It would be appropriate to announce a moratorium on Russian adherence to this treaty until it has been ratified by all NATO countries," Putin told the Russian parliament in his annual state of the nation address, referring to the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.
"I suggest this issue be raised in the Russia-NATO council and, in the event there is no progress in negotiation, that we consider terminating our obligations under the CFE," Putin said.
The CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 in Paris by the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the former Warsaw Pact. It was adapted in 1999 following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the enlargement of NATO, but NATO states have not yet ratified the new pact.
Putin said Russia, which did ratify the new treaty, had been complying with it on a unilateral basis and today had virtually no military forces deployed in the northwest and European areas of the country despite being the only CFE signatory with both northern and southern flanks to protect.
Members of the US-led NATO bloc have tied ratification of the adapted 1999 CFE Treaty to withdrawal of Russian forces from the ex-Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova, efforts which Russia says have been under way and which are bilateral issues unrelated to the CFE pact.
"What about them?" Putin said, referring to the NATO countries which have not ratified the treaty. "Our partners have not even ratified the treaty.
"This gives us every reason to say that our partners are acting in this situation incorrectly at a very minimum," Putin said in comments interrupted at one point by applause from the deputies from the State Duma and the Federation Council gathered at the Kremlin for the speech.
Russia and the West have been disputing application of the adapted CFE Treaty for years with each side accusing the other of acting in bad faith.
But Putin's warning ratcheted the testy rhetoric up to the top level of the state and coincided with a rapid chilling in relations between Russia and the United States over US plans to deploy elements of its new missile defense system in two former Warsaw Pact states near Russia's border.
The Russian president took direct aim at the US missile plans and linked it directly to the CFE treaty, stating: "It is high time for our partners to deliver their contribution to arms reduction, not just in word but in deed."
Putin said the missile defense plan, if carried out, would mark an unprecedented deployment in Europe of US strategic weaponry and said this was an issue that should be of concern not just in US-Russian bilateral relations but on the continent as a whole.
"In one way or another, this affects the interests of all European states including those that are not members of NATO," Putin said.
The Russian leader said the matter should be taken up by the Vienna-based Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), a body that Moscow has for years accused of veering from its original mission to deal with security matters in Europe toward promotion of a US political agenda.
"It is time to give the activities of the OSCE some real content, to turn the face of the organization toward the problems that really concern the people of Europe instead of only looking to build (political) blocs in the post-Soviet space," Putin said.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Bush , Rove & Republican Party Briefings
The ties between the White House and the Republican Party are far too close! In theory a political party should have zero interaction in the actual functions of the government. That is structure of United States government. In my opinion all government officials and GOP Party members involved in these unethical questionable 'meetings' should be placed under criminal investigation inaddition to being suspended immediately from their post.
Source: The New York Times 04/27/2007
WASHINGTON, April 26 -- The Bush administration insisted Thursday that a series of meetings between senior White House political aides and officials at government agencies to discuss Congressional elections did not violate a law that prohibits the use of federal departments for political purposes.
White House officials acknowledged that aides to Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, held about 20 briefings in the past two years with officials at 16 departments to discuss Republican political strategies, including which Congressional Democrats were being singled out for defeat and which Republicans were most vulnerable.
Included in the briefings were the Treasury, Labor, Commerce, Interior and Energy Departments.
But administration spokesmen said the discussions did not violate the Hatch Act, the law that makes it illegal for government employees to take action that could influence an election. They said the White House officials did not make any requests for the agencies to take any specific actions but were simply imparting details about political strategy.
''It is perfectly lawful for the political appointees at the White House to provide information briefings to political appointees at the agencies,'' said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. ''No laws were broken.'' Ms. Perino said the White House officials did not intend to tell agency employees to take steps to help Republican candidates or hurt Democratic lawmakers.
The briefings were cleared by lawyers from the White House counsel's office, said a second spokesman, Scott Stanzel. He said the lawyers provided guidance to the White House political aides, J. Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor, about how to conduct the briefings and comply with the Hatch Act. Mr. Stanzel said that Mr. Rove had also spoken occasionally to agency officials ''about the political landscape'' and said that his briefings were also within the law.
The denials left Democratic lawmakers unconvinced. They said Thursday that they would press for details about the meetings, which were first reported by The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
The meetings are also under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an obscure federal agency whose head, Scott J. Bloch, is himself under investigation over accusations of politicizing his agency.
Mr. Stanzel said the briefings by the White House officials included presentations about Democrats that the White House was hoping to unseat and Republicans who faced difficult re-elections.
The meetings have come under scrutiny after details became known about a session this year that Democrats contend may have violated the law.
On Jan. 26, Mr. Jennings briefed employees at the General Services Administration about which Democratic members of Congress the Republican Party hoped to unseat in 2008 and which Republican lawmakers were vulnerable. Officials who attended that briefing have told Congressional investigators that at the conclusion of the meeting, the agency's administrator, Lurita Alexis Doan, asked how the agency could be used ''to help our candidates. '' Ms. Doan has said she does not recall making the remark.
This week, 25 Democratic senators sent a letter to the White House asking for details on the G.S.A. briefing, and two Democrats, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, called for Ms. Doan's resignation. They said she had committed a series of ethical lapses. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved the issuance of a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for information about the political briefings.
On Thursday, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House committee, wrote to the agencies seeking information about the briefings.
''The information we received about the G.S.A. was pretty shocking, and I think if I could ever imagine what a Hatch Act violation would be, that would be about as close as it gets,'' Mr. Waxman said in an interview. But he said he did not know whether the other meetings violated the law.
''The briefings in and of themselves may not be a violation, and that is why they are now under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel,'' he said.
Legal experts said that the Hatch Act permits White House officials to talk about upcoming elections and political strategy generally, but it would prohibit any official from taking steps to influence an election.
''Merely holding a briefing on government property that discusses election results or upcoming elections would not, in and of itself, be considered 'political activity' and so would not violate the Hatch Act,'' said Elaine Kaplan, a former head of the Office of Special Counsel in the Clinton and Bush administrations. ''If, however, the meetings digressed into discussions about future campaigns or actions that could be taken to help candidates win elections, it could become 'political activity.' ''
Comments welcome
Source: The New York Times 04/27/2007
WASHINGTON, April 26 -- The Bush administration insisted Thursday that a series of meetings between senior White House political aides and officials at government agencies to discuss Congressional elections did not violate a law that prohibits the use of federal departments for political purposes.
White House officials acknowledged that aides to Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, held about 20 briefings in the past two years with officials at 16 departments to discuss Republican political strategies, including which Congressional Democrats were being singled out for defeat and which Republicans were most vulnerable.
Included in the briefings were the Treasury, Labor, Commerce, Interior and Energy Departments.
But administration spokesmen said the discussions did not violate the Hatch Act, the law that makes it illegal for government employees to take action that could influence an election. They said the White House officials did not make any requests for the agencies to take any specific actions but were simply imparting details about political strategy.
''It is perfectly lawful for the political appointees at the White House to provide information briefings to political appointees at the agencies,'' said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. ''No laws were broken.'' Ms. Perino said the White House officials did not intend to tell agency employees to take steps to help Republican candidates or hurt Democratic lawmakers.
The briefings were cleared by lawyers from the White House counsel's office, said a second spokesman, Scott Stanzel. He said the lawyers provided guidance to the White House political aides, J. Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor, about how to conduct the briefings and comply with the Hatch Act. Mr. Stanzel said that Mr. Rove had also spoken occasionally to agency officials ''about the political landscape'' and said that his briefings were also within the law.
The denials left Democratic lawmakers unconvinced. They said Thursday that they would press for details about the meetings, which were first reported by The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
The meetings are also under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an obscure federal agency whose head, Scott J. Bloch, is himself under investigation over accusations of politicizing his agency.
Mr. Stanzel said the briefings by the White House officials included presentations about Democrats that the White House was hoping to unseat and Republicans who faced difficult re-elections.
The meetings have come under scrutiny after details became known about a session this year that Democrats contend may have violated the law.
On Jan. 26, Mr. Jennings briefed employees at the General Services Administration about which Democratic members of Congress the Republican Party hoped to unseat in 2008 and which Republican lawmakers were vulnerable. Officials who attended that briefing have told Congressional investigators that at the conclusion of the meeting, the agency's administrator, Lurita Alexis Doan, asked how the agency could be used ''to help our candidates. '' Ms. Doan has said she does not recall making the remark.
This week, 25 Democratic senators sent a letter to the White House asking for details on the G.S.A. briefing, and two Democrats, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, called for Ms. Doan's resignation. They said she had committed a series of ethical lapses. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved the issuance of a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for information about the political briefings.
On Thursday, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House committee, wrote to the agencies seeking information about the briefings.
''The information we received about the G.S.A. was pretty shocking, and I think if I could ever imagine what a Hatch Act violation would be, that would be about as close as it gets,'' Mr. Waxman said in an interview. But he said he did not know whether the other meetings violated the law.
''The briefings in and of themselves may not be a violation, and that is why they are now under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel,'' he said.
Legal experts said that the Hatch Act permits White House officials to talk about upcoming elections and political strategy generally, but it would prohibit any official from taking steps to influence an election.
''Merely holding a briefing on government property that discusses election results or upcoming elections would not, in and of itself, be considered 'political activity' and so would not violate the Hatch Act,'' said Elaine Kaplan, a former head of the Office of Special Counsel in the Clinton and Bush administrations. ''If, however, the meetings digressed into discussions about future campaigns or actions that could be taken to help candidates win elections, it could become 'political activity.' ''
Comments welcome
RICHARDSON'S "THINGS" VS MCCAIN'S "I KNOW"
Presidential candidates Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. John McCain are utilizing a strategy from G.W. Bush's playbook. They are using phrases like " things" and "I know what I want". I despised hearing G.W. Bush use such terms without giving specifics, maybe I'm on a limb but I'd guess that most other Americans will also never again vote for a president who leaves such blanks in their agenda. I could care less for a candidate who runs on “I know what I want”. What I care about is a candidate’s clear articulation of their plans towards advancing the nation.
"Source: Associated Press Newswires 04/26/2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -
For presidential hopefuls, it's called the Expectations Game.
Here's how it's played: Before a debate, rival campaigns build up the skills of their opponents while downgrading their own candidate's verbal abilities. That way, any bright moments make a performance seem like a home run.
For the Democratic hopefuls, the first major round of the Expectations Game came ahead of Thursday night's debate at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, S.C. The 90-minute event offers eight candidates their initial chance to distinguish themselves on the long road to the nomination next year.
"I've just got to make sure I don't trip walking on the stage," joked Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who complained that the candidates get no opening or closing statements and that responses to questions are limited to 60 seconds.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama cracked, "It takes me 60 seconds to clear my throat."
Such self-deprecating comments before a debate are common in the Expectations Game. So is anonymous praise.
One of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's rivals tried to set high stakes for her performance by sharing with a reporter a 1990 editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Clinton, as first lady of Arkansas, once turned a news conference staged by her husband's Republican challenger into an impromptu debate. "The tougher Clinton" went on to "mop the marble floor with her husband's opponent," the newspaper contended.
In a similar bit of gamesmanship, an Obama opponent tried to raise the bar for the Illinois senator by pointing out to a reporter that he had been editor of the Harvard Law Review and rose to prominence on the strength of his rhetorical skills. The campaign cited a letter to the editor in The Seattle Times last February that claimed Abraham Lincoln would have lost his election if he had to debate Obama instead of Stephen Douglas.
And a rival camp to former Sen. John Edwards recalled in an e-mail to a reporter his accomplishments as a trial lawyer. Extolling his intense preparations and his ability to win over the jury, the rival provided several news clips hailing his previous debate performances.
Such praise usually ends as soon as the talk begins.
Because of her front-runner status, Clinton could be a target for those trying to get attention. Obama, too, could be a popular mark because of his rise to prominence after just three years in the Senate.
So far, the candidates have been relying mostly on indirect criticisms of one another.
"Hope alone is not going to restore America's leadership," Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said in a speech Tuesday. "Like never before I believe we need national leadership that's ready to lead from Day One."
Dodd denied afterward that he was trying to compare himself to Obama. But he left it to others to fill in the blanks.
Dodd played down the importance of the debate but said his preparations involved "about 32 years" -- the time he's served in Congress.
With his short time on Capitol Hill, Obama was doing much more. His campaign was mum about specifics, but it confirmed that he had spent quite a bit of time preparing.
"I don't do any preparations at all. I'm just going to wing it," Obama said with a smile when asked about it. Then he allowed, "Of course I'm doing a little preparation."
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she was reviewing notes and going through mock question-and-answer sessions. The campaign sent an e-mail to supporters Tuesday to encourage them to hold debate-watching parties.
"She is going down there prepared to make her case that she has the strength and experience to lead from Day One," Wolfson said.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson planned a full day of debate prep in South Carolina on Thursday. "I'm going to show I'm the candidate who not only has experience, but I've actually done things," he said.
Edwards campaign officials revealed one proposal he was ready to discuss: Calling on President Bush to fire adviser Karl Rove for his alleged role in the federal prosecutor firing scandal.
"NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams was set to moderate the MSNBC debate, which was being hosted by the university and the South Carolina Democratic Party. Special software designed by the network will keep track of how long each candidate gets on the air to ensure equal time.
That's just about 11 minutes per candidate. Long shots like former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich would get just as much time to explain their views as their better-known rivals. "
"Source: Associated Press Newswires 04/26/2007
WASHINGTON (AP) -
For presidential hopefuls, it's called the Expectations Game.
Here's how it's played: Before a debate, rival campaigns build up the skills of their opponents while downgrading their own candidate's verbal abilities. That way, any bright moments make a performance seem like a home run.
For the Democratic hopefuls, the first major round of the Expectations Game came ahead of Thursday night's debate at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, S.C. The 90-minute event offers eight candidates their initial chance to distinguish themselves on the long road to the nomination next year.
"I've just got to make sure I don't trip walking on the stage," joked Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, who complained that the candidates get no opening or closing statements and that responses to questions are limited to 60 seconds.
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama cracked, "It takes me 60 seconds to clear my throat."
Such self-deprecating comments before a debate are common in the Expectations Game. So is anonymous praise.
One of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's rivals tried to set high stakes for her performance by sharing with a reporter a 1990 editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Clinton, as first lady of Arkansas, once turned a news conference staged by her husband's Republican challenger into an impromptu debate. "The tougher Clinton" went on to "mop the marble floor with her husband's opponent," the newspaper contended.
In a similar bit of gamesmanship, an Obama opponent tried to raise the bar for the Illinois senator by pointing out to a reporter that he had been editor of the Harvard Law Review and rose to prominence on the strength of his rhetorical skills. The campaign cited a letter to the editor in The Seattle Times last February that claimed Abraham Lincoln would have lost his election if he had to debate Obama instead of Stephen Douglas.
And a rival camp to former Sen. John Edwards recalled in an e-mail to a reporter his accomplishments as a trial lawyer. Extolling his intense preparations and his ability to win over the jury, the rival provided several news clips hailing his previous debate performances.
Such praise usually ends as soon as the talk begins.
Because of her front-runner status, Clinton could be a target for those trying to get attention. Obama, too, could be a popular mark because of his rise to prominence after just three years in the Senate.
So far, the candidates have been relying mostly on indirect criticisms of one another.
"Hope alone is not going to restore America's leadership," Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd said in a speech Tuesday. "Like never before I believe we need national leadership that's ready to lead from Day One."
Dodd denied afterward that he was trying to compare himself to Obama. But he left it to others to fill in the blanks.
Dodd played down the importance of the debate but said his preparations involved "about 32 years" -- the time he's served in Congress.
With his short time on Capitol Hill, Obama was doing much more. His campaign was mum about specifics, but it confirmed that he had spent quite a bit of time preparing.
"I don't do any preparations at all. I'm just going to wing it," Obama said with a smile when asked about it. Then he allowed, "Of course I'm doing a little preparation."
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she was reviewing notes and going through mock question-and-answer sessions. The campaign sent an e-mail to supporters Tuesday to encourage them to hold debate-watching parties.
"She is going down there prepared to make her case that she has the strength and experience to lead from Day One," Wolfson said.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson planned a full day of debate prep in South Carolina on Thursday. "I'm going to show I'm the candidate who not only has experience, but I've actually done things," he said.
Edwards campaign officials revealed one proposal he was ready to discuss: Calling on President Bush to fire adviser Karl Rove for his alleged role in the federal prosecutor firing scandal.
"NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams was set to moderate the MSNBC debate, which was being hosted by the university and the South Carolina Democratic Party. Special software designed by the network will keep track of how long each candidate gets on the air to ensure equal time.
That's just about 11 minutes per candidate. Long shots like former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich would get just as much time to explain their views as their better-known rivals. "
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Impeachment Movement Sweeping the Country
“The winds of impeachment are sweeping the country.” - Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General
The Impeachment movement is catching its second wind. It is not too late.
The Honorable Rep. Dennis Kucinich has proposed legislation to remove Vice President Dick Cheney from office. Lets rally around these efforts and offer Kucinich our full support. Residents of Sarasota County I encourage you to put pressure on Rep. Vern Buchanan to join as a sponsor of Kucinich’s legislation.
Checks & Balances Blog fully endorses these impeachment efforts.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has acted. Here are his Articles of Impeachment and supporting materials. It's time now for us to follow through by asking the rest of Congress to get on board with the American public, and by letting the media know where we stand.
http://www.impeachcheney.org
Ask your Congress Member to support impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney:
http://tinyurl.com/yttnxq
Ask members of the House Judiciary Committee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead, follow, or get out of the way:
http://tinyurl.com/2ar8ch
Tell the media that you support Congressman Dennis Kucinich's proposal to begin impeachment proceedings:
http://tinyurl.com/2cag7t
The Impeachment movement is catching its second wind. It is not too late.
The Honorable Rep. Dennis Kucinich has proposed legislation to remove Vice President Dick Cheney from office. Lets rally around these efforts and offer Kucinich our full support. Residents of Sarasota County I encourage you to put pressure on Rep. Vern Buchanan to join as a sponsor of Kucinich’s legislation.
Checks & Balances Blog fully endorses these impeachment efforts.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich has acted. Here are his Articles of Impeachment and supporting materials. It's time now for us to follow through by asking the rest of Congress to get on board with the American public, and by letting the media know where we stand.
http://www.impeachcheney.org
Ask your Congress Member to support impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney:
http://tinyurl.com/yttnxq
Ask members of the House Judiciary Committee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead, follow, or get out of the way:
http://tinyurl.com/2ar8ch
Tell the media that you support Congressman Dennis Kucinich's proposal to begin impeachment proceedings:
http://tinyurl.com/2cag7t
Crist rejects regressive sales tax hike
"Crist: Don't increase the sales tax
With the House and Senate stalled on property tax cuts, the governor weighed in.
BY MARY ELLEN KLAS AND MARC CAPUTO
meklas@MiamiHerald.com
PHIL COALE/AP
Gov. Charlie Crist talks to a group of builders, contractors and home building professionals at the Florida Capitol for a rally on property tax reform on Tuesday in Tallahassee.
TALLAHASSEE -- As legislative negotiations over cutting property taxes stalled for a second day, Gov. Charlie Crist entered the arena Tuesday, signaling he rejects a House idea to hike sales taxes to make up for deep property tax cuts, but also wants bigger cuts than the Senate is offering.
Crist called the House plan to eliminate property taxes on primary homes and replace them with a 2.5-cent hike in the sales tax ''an intriguing idea,'' but added: ``We have to do the doable, though.''
The governor's comments came as Senate leaders rejected the House proposal as ''unpassable.'' House leaders then rebuffed a Senate offer to deepen its proposed tax cut to $15 billion over five years -- $3 billion more than the Senate's previous position.
Crist called the House plan to eliminate property taxes on primary homes and replace them with a 2.5-cent hike in the sales tax ''an intriguing idea,'' but added: ``We have to do the doable, though.''
The governor's comments came as Senate leaders rejected the House proposal as ''unpassable.'' House leaders then rebuffed a Senate offer to deepen its proposed tax cut to $15 billion over five years -- $3 billion more than the Senate's previous position.
The House lead negotiator, Republican Rep. Dean Cannon of Winter Park, said the tax savings offered by the Senate are ''statistically insignificant,'' compared to the House's promise to save $44 billion over the same time.
Though Crist appears to oppose a sales-tax increase, he is closer to the House when it comes to forcing local governments to scale back their tax bases to the 2004 or 2005 budget year. That position alone may help bickering legislators refocus their discontent on a common foe: local governments, which have seen their revenues rise $50 billion statewide in the past eight years.
WASTE CITED
In a 13-page document prepared by the governor's policy and budget staff, the governor listed 13 examples of waste in government and presented a chart that labels responsible growth at 42 percent across all government services, rather than the higher levels counties and cities have experienced.
The House also has made governments the foe in the tax wars, suggesting that legislators are concerned only about how taxpayers -- not governments -- fare under the cuts.
Crist appears to be leaning toward the Senate position on other issues, however. He supports allowing homeowners to take savings from the state's property tax cap with them when they move, a practice known as portability.
He didn't indicate, though, whether he supports the Senate approach of imposing a higher tax cap for homeowners who take advantage of the savings. And he supports the Senate proposal to give first-time home buyers a tax break.
The governor also appears to be holding firm to the idea of doubling the homestead exemption, now at $25,000, for all homeowners. The idea has not been included in either the House or Senate tax-cut plans.
The governor's office estimated the total savings under his proposal at $23 billion over five years and $2 billion to $3 billion next year, depending on which year the tax rollback occurs. The average savings for homeowners would be either 6.5 percent or 9.3 percent.
`IDEAS ONLY'
The document offers no specifics but was titled: ``Governor's Recommendation to Legislature, Property Tax Reform.''
In a 13-page document prepared by the governor's policy and budget staff, the governor listed 13 examples of waste in government and presented a chart that labels responsible growth at 42 percent across all government services, rather than the higher levels counties and cities have experienced.
The House also has made governments the foe in the tax wars, suggesting that legislators are concerned only about how taxpayers -- not governments -- fare under the cuts.
Crist appears to be leaning toward the Senate position on other issues, however. He supports allowing homeowners to take savings from the state's property tax cap with them when they move, a practice known as portability.
He didn't indicate, though, whether he supports the Senate approach of imposing a higher tax cap for homeowners who take advantage of the savings. And he supports the Senate proposal to give first-time home buyers a tax break.
The governor also appears to be holding firm to the idea of doubling the homestead exemption, now at $25,000, for all homeowners. The idea has not been included in either the House or Senate tax-cut plans.
The governor's office estimated the total savings under his proposal at $23 billion over five years and $2 billion to $3 billion next year, depending on which year the tax rollback occurs. The average savings for homeowners would be either 6.5 percent or 9.3 percent.
`IDEAS ONLY'
The document offers no specifics but was titled: ``Governor's Recommendation to Legislature, Property Tax Reform.''
Crist, who until now has made only upbeat but vague comments about the Legislature's property tax proposals, crossed out those words and wrote ''Ideas only'' before it was distributed to the press.
As Crist conducted the first in a series of hastily called town hall meetings on property taxes in West Palm Beach Tuesday night, the talks between the House and Senate soured.
Senate Republican Leader Dan Webster of Winter Garden used his most forceful language yet when he said the chamber considers the House plan unpassable, because it relies on a constitutional amendment to swap property taxes for sales taxes.
He said he is ''100 percent sure'' the House plan will never win the approval of two-thirds of voters it needs to pass. Though eliminating all property taxes on homesteaded homes would make homeowners happy, he said, the idea would antagonize other voters, such as renters and the owners of businesses or second homes.
So legislators should focus on rolling back property tax collections to provide immediate tax savings, Webster said.
STILL WAITING
After the Senate made its offer, Cannon, the House's lead negotiator, said his chamber is ''still looking forward'' to the Senate plan, as if one hadn't been offered.
As Cannon spoke, Sen. Mike Haridopolos, the Melbourne Republican who leads Senate negotiations, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with him. Both faced forward, barely looking at each other and speaking to reporters instead.
As Crist conducted the first in a series of hastily called town hall meetings on property taxes in West Palm Beach Tuesday night, the talks between the House and Senate soured.
Senate Republican Leader Dan Webster of Winter Garden used his most forceful language yet when he said the chamber considers the House plan unpassable, because it relies on a constitutional amendment to swap property taxes for sales taxes.
He said he is ''100 percent sure'' the House plan will never win the approval of two-thirds of voters it needs to pass. Though eliminating all property taxes on homesteaded homes would make homeowners happy, he said, the idea would antagonize other voters, such as renters and the owners of businesses or second homes.
So legislators should focus on rolling back property tax collections to provide immediate tax savings, Webster said.
STILL WAITING
After the Senate made its offer, Cannon, the House's lead negotiator, said his chamber is ''still looking forward'' to the Senate plan, as if one hadn't been offered.
As Cannon spoke, Sen. Mike Haridopolos, the Melbourne Republican who leads Senate negotiations, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with him. Both faced forward, barely looking at each other and speaking to reporters instead.
''The numbers don't lie,'' Haridpolos said firmly. ''The numbers are clear: $15.33 billion. That's movement,'' he said.
He noted that the original Senate plan called for $12.3 billion in savings over five years. Counties would roll back their tax base by $8.8 billion and cities by $3.7 billion. Special taxing districts, such as water management districts and children's services councils, would see their tax base cut $422 million.
''We have made a positive step forward today,'' Haridopolos said. ``We expect that positive steps will be made forward in the counter offer.''
Said Cannon: ``At this rate, it may take us a couple years to get to our numbers, but that's OK. We'll wait till we get there.''"
Said Cannon: ``At this rate, it may take us a couple years to get to our numbers, but that's OK. We'll wait till we get there.''"
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Democrats unite on Iraq
"The World; Democrats unite on Iraq pullout plan; The bill sets no firm deadline and Bush will veto it. But it marks a historic challenge to a wartime president.
Source: Los Angeles Times 04/24/2007
WASHINGTON
Setting in motion a promised showdown with the White House, Democratic congressional leaders united Monday behind an emergency war spending measure that requires the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq no later than this fall.
The $124-billion compromise, which does not include a firm deadline for President Bush to complete a troop withdrawal, is headed for a certain veto.
But as Congress and the White House face off over the course of U.S. policy in Iraq, the agreement marked the prologue for a week that could produce the most serious legislative challenge to a wartime president since the Vietnam era.
The House and Senate, with the support of most Democrats, are expected to approve the measure by Thursday.
Bush, who has used his veto just once, to block an expansion of federal support for embryonic stem cell research, is expected to invoke that power again.
Democrats can't muster enough votes to override a veto. But they said they would keep up the pressure on Bush to end the U.S. combat role in the 4-year-old war, and hinted that they would send the president a funding bill without timelines for pulling out troops.
"We may not be able to prevent President Bush from vetoing our supplemental bill, but we can and will keep trying to change his mind," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
Reid contrasted the Democratic proposal with what he called Bush's "mistakes and mismanagement."
"No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty," said Reid, who in recent months has become one of Congress' sharpest critics of the war.
Bush argues that setting dates for bringing troops home would allow America's enemies to wait out U.S. forces.
"Politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," Bush said after meeting at the White House with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, a highly respected combat veteran who has become the president's best salesman for the troop buildup, will brief lawmakers this week about the progress of Bush's plan.
"I will strongly reject an artificial timetable," Bush said, reiterating a promise he has made with increasing frequency as the confrontation between the two branches of government has intensified.
But Democrats, emboldened by public opposition to the war and disenchantment with Bush, show no signs of relenting in their campaign to compel the White House to start bringing U.S. troops home.
Nor does there appear to be much discord over the war in the famously fractious party. Even many of the war's staunchest congressional opponents, who had pressed to require a withdrawal by year's end, have signaled they will back the compromise worked out by Democratic leaders.
"What is important is not the specific language.... What is important is the unity we express," said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who heads the House Appropriations Committee and is one of the architects of the compromise.
*
Reaching a deal
A few weeks ago, it was unclear whether House and Senate Democrats would be able to agree to any timeline to withdraw U.S. forces.
Senate Democrats narrowly passed a spending bill with a timeline that demanded troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days of enactment.
But they avoided a deadline to complete the pullout, in deference to moderates who feared imposing too many limitations on the military.
The plan set a nonbinding goal of completing the withdrawal by March 31.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and her lieutenants were forced to toughen the timelines to accommodate lawmakers on the other end of the ideological spectrum.
The House plan, which was considerably more complicated, set out a mandatory timeline linked to the Iraqi government's progress in disarming militias. It also amended the Iraqi constitution and took steps to reduce sectarian strife.
The House required Bush to complete the withdrawal by August 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government failed to show progress.
In a nod to moderate Senate Democrats, the compromise approved Monday sets a nonbinding goal for completing a withdrawal.
But it maintains the link between the withdrawal timeline and the performance of the Iraqi government.
The compromise calls for a withdrawal to begin July 1 if Bush does not certify that the Iraqi government is making progress on a series of "reconciliation initiatives," with a goal of completing the withdrawal within 180 days, which would end Dec. 27.
If Bush demonstrates that the Iraqi government is making progress, the Democratic plan mandates that the withdrawal begin Oct. 1, and sets a goal to complete the pullout by March 28.
Like the earlier House and Senate proposals, the compromise allows some U.S. troops to remain to train Iraqi forces, protect American interests and conduct limited counter-terrorism operations.
It also requires Bush to explain why he is deploying military units abroad if the forces have not met readiness standards, including adequate training and rest at their home bases.
*
Non-military spending
Democrats responded to one of Bush's key criticisms of the legislation. They stripped out money for spinach farmers and peanut storage, which the president had ridiculed as pork-barrel spending.
But they retained billions of dollars for non-military spending, including money to rebuild the Gulf Coast, to combat the threat of bird flu and to help the agriculture industry, including dairy farmers.
The plan was quickly approved by a conference committee of senior House and Senate lawmakers.
There were few signs of dissent among Democrats.
"This will work for now," said Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a moderate who cast a crucial vote for the Senate bill last month. "When you know the next three chess moves, you go ahead and play."
Republican lawmakers disparaged the Democratic proposal, complaining that it micromanages the war and emboldens terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
But with the legislation headed for a veto, Republican lawmakers have shown little inclination to try to derail it.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) said he hoped Democrats would swiftly pass the measure so Bush could veto it and lawmakers could put together a funding bill without timelines to withdraw troops.
"We all know this bill is going nowhere fast," Lewis said. "
Source: Los Angeles Times 04/24/2007
WASHINGTON
Setting in motion a promised showdown with the White House, Democratic congressional leaders united Monday behind an emergency war spending measure that requires the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq no later than this fall.
The $124-billion compromise, which does not include a firm deadline for President Bush to complete a troop withdrawal, is headed for a certain veto.
But as Congress and the White House face off over the course of U.S. policy in Iraq, the agreement marked the prologue for a week that could produce the most serious legislative challenge to a wartime president since the Vietnam era.
The House and Senate, with the support of most Democrats, are expected to approve the measure by Thursday.
Bush, who has used his veto just once, to block an expansion of federal support for embryonic stem cell research, is expected to invoke that power again.
Democrats can't muster enough votes to override a veto. But they said they would keep up the pressure on Bush to end the U.S. combat role in the 4-year-old war, and hinted that they would send the president a funding bill without timelines for pulling out troops.
"We may not be able to prevent President Bush from vetoing our supplemental bill, but we can and will keep trying to change his mind," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
Reid contrasted the Democratic proposal with what he called Bush's "mistakes and mismanagement."
"No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty," said Reid, who in recent months has become one of Congress' sharpest critics of the war.
Bush argues that setting dates for bringing troops home would allow America's enemies to wait out U.S. forces.
"Politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling generals how to do their job," Bush said after meeting at the White House with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.
Petraeus, a highly respected combat veteran who has become the president's best salesman for the troop buildup, will brief lawmakers this week about the progress of Bush's plan.
"I will strongly reject an artificial timetable," Bush said, reiterating a promise he has made with increasing frequency as the confrontation between the two branches of government has intensified.
But Democrats, emboldened by public opposition to the war and disenchantment with Bush, show no signs of relenting in their campaign to compel the White House to start bringing U.S. troops home.
Nor does there appear to be much discord over the war in the famously fractious party. Even many of the war's staunchest congressional opponents, who had pressed to require a withdrawal by year's end, have signaled they will back the compromise worked out by Democratic leaders.
"What is important is not the specific language.... What is important is the unity we express," said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who heads the House Appropriations Committee and is one of the architects of the compromise.
*
Reaching a deal
A few weeks ago, it was unclear whether House and Senate Democrats would be able to agree to any timeline to withdraw U.S. forces.
Senate Democrats narrowly passed a spending bill with a timeline that demanded troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days of enactment.
But they avoided a deadline to complete the pullout, in deference to moderates who feared imposing too many limitations on the military.
The plan set a nonbinding goal of completing the withdrawal by March 31.
In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and her lieutenants were forced to toughen the timelines to accommodate lawmakers on the other end of the ideological spectrum.
The House plan, which was considerably more complicated, set out a mandatory timeline linked to the Iraqi government's progress in disarming militias. It also amended the Iraqi constitution and took steps to reduce sectarian strife.
The House required Bush to complete the withdrawal by August 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government failed to show progress.
In a nod to moderate Senate Democrats, the compromise approved Monday sets a nonbinding goal for completing a withdrawal.
But it maintains the link between the withdrawal timeline and the performance of the Iraqi government.
The compromise calls for a withdrawal to begin July 1 if Bush does not certify that the Iraqi government is making progress on a series of "reconciliation initiatives," with a goal of completing the withdrawal within 180 days, which would end Dec. 27.
If Bush demonstrates that the Iraqi government is making progress, the Democratic plan mandates that the withdrawal begin Oct. 1, and sets a goal to complete the pullout by March 28.
Like the earlier House and Senate proposals, the compromise allows some U.S. troops to remain to train Iraqi forces, protect American interests and conduct limited counter-terrorism operations.
It also requires Bush to explain why he is deploying military units abroad if the forces have not met readiness standards, including adequate training and rest at their home bases.
*
Non-military spending
Democrats responded to one of Bush's key criticisms of the legislation. They stripped out money for spinach farmers and peanut storage, which the president had ridiculed as pork-barrel spending.
But they retained billions of dollars for non-military spending, including money to rebuild the Gulf Coast, to combat the threat of bird flu and to help the agriculture industry, including dairy farmers.
The plan was quickly approved by a conference committee of senior House and Senate lawmakers.
There were few signs of dissent among Democrats.
"This will work for now," said Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a moderate who cast a crucial vote for the Senate bill last month. "When you know the next three chess moves, you go ahead and play."
Republican lawmakers disparaged the Democratic proposal, complaining that it micromanages the war and emboldens terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
But with the legislation headed for a veto, Republican lawmakers have shown little inclination to try to derail it.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) said he hoped Democrats would swiftly pass the measure so Bush could veto it and lawmakers could put together a funding bill without timelines to withdraw troops.
"We all know this bill is going nowhere fast," Lewis said. "
Medicare's financial health
The responsible action of U.S. politicians in regards to the funding of programs like Medicare and Social Security should ideally be to fully fund. For example, under the leadership of President Bill Clinton we did not experience such partisan propaganda reports intended to shed a negative light on such programs. America did then experience sincere efforts to make these programs solvent. I am confident in my view in regards to entitlements and ask conservatives to pause for a moment for rethinking your policy; what is the value of American citizenship if being a U.S. citizen does not entitle you to benefits greater than other industrialized nations? Conservative policy, which I oppose as it relates to programs of social uplift, seeks to create a government that’s sole function is to protect. Such moves would take American society back to the dark ages. Security in Healthcare and retirement for all U.S. citizens should not be viewed as handouts or degraded by comparing them with programs such as welfare. This is the work of government. The founding fathers of the United States did not form this government solely to fund an army but far more paramount as stated first in the Constitution, to provide services promoting "the pursuit of happiness" for all American citizens. The current political approach in Washington D.C. is tantamount to a vision of government that holds power but lacks in accountability. An unacceptable approach however in my opinion.
-A.T. Brooks
The Nation; Alarm sounded on Medicare's financial health; Trustees warn that the program's mammoth hospitalization trust fund is projected to run a deficit in 2019.
Source: Los Angeles Times 04/24/2007
WASHINGTON
Medicare's trustees warned Monday that the program was in critical financial condition, setting in motion a process that could ignite a fierce debate during the 2008 presidential campaign over benefit cuts and tax increases.
The trustees projected that Medicare's hospitalization trust fund would probably slip into the red in 2019. Social Security is not expected to exhaust its reserves until 2041.
The trustees' statements amount to an annual status report on the government's two biggest benefit programs and the most important retirement safeguards for the middle class. In recent years, the trustees repeatedly raised the prospect of a financial crisis as the nation's 78 million baby boomers moved closer to retirement.
This year's formal warning triggers a legal requirement that the president and Congress work toward a solution. And that could ignite a political dust-up.
Social Security and Medicare are financed mainly by taxes evenly divided between workers and employers that amount to 15.3% of wages.
Medicare also relies heavily on the government's general fund -- part of a complex arrangement that led to Monday's warning.
Under a 2003 law, the trustees were required to issue a warning if two consecutive reports projected that Medicare would draw 45% or more of its financing from the general fund within seven years. The first such estimate came last year.
Now, as part of his next budget, President Bush must propose a way to deal with the funding imbalance. Lawmakers must immediately consider the proposal, but neither the president nor Congress is bound to pass a new law.
Bush does not have to make a proposal until next year, when he submits his 2009 budget. But he already called for automatic spending cuts if the warning was triggered, and for higher premiums for wealthy seniors in Medicare's prescription program.
Neither the House nor the Senate version of the 2008 budget contains any savings from Medicare or Social Security. Bringing the programs into balance will require political compromises most likely to involve spending cuts and tax increases.
"The next president is going to have to deal with these issues," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates reducing the federal deficit. "It's important that presidential campaigns on both sides pay attention to these numbers and not take any options off the table."
That the first baby boomers, defined as people born between 1946 and 1964, will turn 65 in four years underscores the concerns about the programs.
"If we do not take action soon, the coming demographic bulge will compromise the programs' ability to support people who depend on them," said Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., one of four high-ranking government officials who serve as trustees.
Two independent experts, appointed to represent the public, round out the six trustees.
"While the [Medicare] warning is new, it simply reflects the same dire fiscal reality we've been reporting for years, and that has been exacerbated by the addition of the new prescription benefit," said John L. Palmer, an economics professor at Syracuse University and a public trustee. "If anything ... the challenge here has been understated."
Many Democrats and advocates for seniors see the Medicare warning as little more than a gimmick.
They say the same GOP-led Congress that instituted the warning requirement also created the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which increased spending and the likelihood that a warning would be triggered.
"It's kind of a crazy warning because it doesn't focus attention on what's important," said John Rother, director of policy and strategy for AARP, the seniors lobby.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), chairman of a health subcommittee, called the warning "an arbitrary threshold designed to scare people."
Rother said the trustees' report also showed that the rate of increase in Medicare costs had eased slightly. "That's very good news," he said. "The movement is in the right direction."
In the past, other warnings have prompted bipartisan action to tackle thorny issues on program cuts and tax increases. It's unclear whether that will happen this time.
"We shouldn't be waiting for alarms to go off, but they may help spur much-needed and long-overdue action," said David M. Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office. "The real key is ... will policymakers act, or will they push the snooze button?"
Walker has been traveling around the country to call attention to the government's long-range fiscal problems.
The trustees' report included calculations to show the breadth of the financial gap in the programs.
The Social Security shortfall would require a 16% payroll tax increase or a 13% cut in benefits, or some combination.
Medicare is trickier, mostly because healthcare costs are rising faster than other economic indicators.
To bring the program's giant hospitalization trust fund into balance would require more than doubling the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax or program cuts of 51%, or some combination of the two.
Congress and Bush probably won't do either this year. More likely, they will increase Medicare spending by staving off a planned cut in doctors' fees.
-A.T. Brooks
The Nation; Alarm sounded on Medicare's financial health; Trustees warn that the program's mammoth hospitalization trust fund is projected to run a deficit in 2019.
Source: Los Angeles Times 04/24/2007
WASHINGTON
Medicare's trustees warned Monday that the program was in critical financial condition, setting in motion a process that could ignite a fierce debate during the 2008 presidential campaign over benefit cuts and tax increases.
The trustees projected that Medicare's hospitalization trust fund would probably slip into the red in 2019. Social Security is not expected to exhaust its reserves until 2041.
The trustees' statements amount to an annual status report on the government's two biggest benefit programs and the most important retirement safeguards for the middle class. In recent years, the trustees repeatedly raised the prospect of a financial crisis as the nation's 78 million baby boomers moved closer to retirement.
This year's formal warning triggers a legal requirement that the president and Congress work toward a solution. And that could ignite a political dust-up.
Social Security and Medicare are financed mainly by taxes evenly divided between workers and employers that amount to 15.3% of wages.
Medicare also relies heavily on the government's general fund -- part of a complex arrangement that led to Monday's warning.
Under a 2003 law, the trustees were required to issue a warning if two consecutive reports projected that Medicare would draw 45% or more of its financing from the general fund within seven years. The first such estimate came last year.
Now, as part of his next budget, President Bush must propose a way to deal with the funding imbalance. Lawmakers must immediately consider the proposal, but neither the president nor Congress is bound to pass a new law.
Bush does not have to make a proposal until next year, when he submits his 2009 budget. But he already called for automatic spending cuts if the warning was triggered, and for higher premiums for wealthy seniors in Medicare's prescription program.
Neither the House nor the Senate version of the 2008 budget contains any savings from Medicare or Social Security. Bringing the programs into balance will require political compromises most likely to involve spending cuts and tax increases.
"The next president is going to have to deal with these issues," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates reducing the federal deficit. "It's important that presidential campaigns on both sides pay attention to these numbers and not take any options off the table."
That the first baby boomers, defined as people born between 1946 and 1964, will turn 65 in four years underscores the concerns about the programs.
"If we do not take action soon, the coming demographic bulge will compromise the programs' ability to support people who depend on them," said Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., one of four high-ranking government officials who serve as trustees.
Two independent experts, appointed to represent the public, round out the six trustees.
"While the [Medicare] warning is new, it simply reflects the same dire fiscal reality we've been reporting for years, and that has been exacerbated by the addition of the new prescription benefit," said John L. Palmer, an economics professor at Syracuse University and a public trustee. "If anything ... the challenge here has been understated."
Many Democrats and advocates for seniors see the Medicare warning as little more than a gimmick.
They say the same GOP-led Congress that instituted the warning requirement also created the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which increased spending and the likelihood that a warning would be triggered.
"It's kind of a crazy warning because it doesn't focus attention on what's important," said John Rother, director of policy and strategy for AARP, the seniors lobby.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), chairman of a health subcommittee, called the warning "an arbitrary threshold designed to scare people."
Rother said the trustees' report also showed that the rate of increase in Medicare costs had eased slightly. "That's very good news," he said. "The movement is in the right direction."
In the past, other warnings have prompted bipartisan action to tackle thorny issues on program cuts and tax increases. It's unclear whether that will happen this time.
"We shouldn't be waiting for alarms to go off, but they may help spur much-needed and long-overdue action," said David M. Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office. "The real key is ... will policymakers act, or will they push the snooze button?"
Walker has been traveling around the country to call attention to the government's long-range fiscal problems.
The trustees' report included calculations to show the breadth of the financial gap in the programs.
The Social Security shortfall would require a 16% payroll tax increase or a 13% cut in benefits, or some combination.
Medicare is trickier, mostly because healthcare costs are rising faster than other economic indicators.
To bring the program's giant hospitalization trust fund into balance would require more than doubling the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax or program cuts of 51%, or some combination of the two.
Congress and Bush probably won't do either this year. More likely, they will increase Medicare spending by staving off a planned cut in doctors' fees.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
