By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON — As Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. on Monday formally laid out an ambitious plan to overhaul the regulatory apparatus that oversees the country’s financial system, senior lawmakers and lobbyists from industries opposed to the plan predicted that most of it would be dead on arrival.
The plan, produced by a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratic Congress, would significantly expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee financial markets. It would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the securities and commodities futures markets and eliminate a third agency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, which was created during the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980s.
Insurance companies, which have long been regulated by the states, would be allowed to choose to have a national charter and be supervised by a new agency under the Treasury Department.
Mr. Paulson said on Monday that he did not expect the bulk of the plan to be adopted during the current administration — and he recommended that Congress not even consider adopting most of it until after the housing and credit crises ended. That could take many months, perhaps not until Congress all but shuts down for the elections in the fall.
“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said. “That is not how they are intended.”
While the plan promotes a long-term goal of reducing the alphabet soup of agencies that regulate financial institutions, in the shorter run it may achieve the opposite effect.
The blueprint listed as one short-term goal the creation of a mortgage commission led by top regulators to set new minimum licensing standards for mortgage brokers and otherwise unregulated financial institutions. That proposal would require legislation, and some lawmakers predicted it could be adopted this year.
Officials said that, as part of the plan, President Bush was preparing an executive order to expand the membership and the reach of an interagency committee called the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets.
The group was created in 1988 after the stock market plummeted a year earlier. The group is also expected to consider ways to broaden the authority of the Federal Reserve to lend money to nonbanks as needs arise.
But other than those relatively modest proposals, most elements are not likely to be adopted anytime soon, if at all. Senior lawmakers, while praising the administration for raising important issues for discussion, said the odds were long for a major overhaul in the remaining days of the Congressional session.
“Since this is opening day in baseball, I might as well make a baseball metaphor,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate banking committee. “This is a wild pitch. It is not even close to the strike zone.”
Mr. Dodd and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a telephone conference call that overhauling the regulatory structure was not a priority. Instead, they said, they were hoping to quickly move legislation that would help homeowners facing higher mortgage rates and foreclosure.
“In time, we will hold hearings on reorganizing the regulatory structure,” Mr. Dodd said. But he also said that many members of his committee “have serious concern” about expanding the authority of the Federal Reserve by letting investment banks have access to cheaper borrowing at the Fed’s discount window.
He said that at a hearing later this week, he planned to sharply question the decisions by the Fed as it went about forcing the sale of Bear Stearns to JP Morgan Chase in March.
In a speech in the historic cash room at the Treasury Department, Mr. Paulson disputed critics who have complained either that the plan was deregulatory or would impose greater regulation.
“Those who want to quickly label the blueprint as advocating ‘more’ or ‘less’ regulation are oversimplifying this critical and inevitable debate,” he said. “The blueprint is about structure and responsibilities — not the regulations each entity would write. The benefit of the structure we outline is the accountability that stems from having one agency responsible for each regulatory objective. Few, if any, will defend our current balkanized system as optimal.”
But, in fact, the fine print of the 218-page plan features both regulatory and deregulatory elements. The creation of a mortgage origination commission, for instance, was expected to impose new and higher nationwide standards to encourage mortgage brokers not to promote unsuitable or abusive loans. Such a move would require new regulations or laws.
Other elements of the plan are clearly deregulatory. The plan proposes, for instance, to reduce the enforcement authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission in several ways and hand that authority to industry groups. It also recommends that investment advisers no longer be directly regulated by the S.E.C., but instead be supervised by an industry regulatory organization.
Major elements face fierce resistance from powerful industry groups that like their current regulators, and have over past decades defeated similar proposals.
The American Bankers Association attacked a provision to eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Daniel A. Mica, president and chief executive of the Credit Union National Association, said he was “astonished and angered” by the plan, which he said would add up to more choices for Wall Street and less for consumers — and turn credit unions into banks.
Several features were criticized by regulators appointed by the Bush administration.
John M. Reich, the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, said that the savings and loan industry regulated by his agency remains vibrant in large part because of the effectiveness of regulators. In an e-mail message to agency employees, he said proposals similar to the one made by Mr. Paulson are floated all the time — and typically rejected.
“Although none of these proposals became reality, many of you might be wondering whether financial services restructuring is an idea whose time has finally come,” Mr. Reich wrote. “I don’t think so, at least as it pertains to the four federal banking agencies, and I am writing to tell you why.”
Some business groups hailed the plan.
John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, which represents chief executives at many large companies, said the plan “represents a timely response to the current state of our country’s aging regulatory system.”
“We believe the plan as outlined will increase the competitiveness of our financial markets, provide greater efficiencies for our companies, and therefore increase shareholder value,” Mr. Castellani said.
T. Timothy Ryan Jr., president of Wall Street’s biggest trade group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said the plan was “thoughtful” and “very wise.”
“Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events and is not well suited for today’s environment where billions of dollars race across the globe with the click of a mouse,” said Mr. Ryan, who earlier in his career was a director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, an agency the Paulson plan proposes to eliminate.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/business/31cnd-regulate.html?_r=1&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Dilbert Strategy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Anyone who has worked in a large organization — or, for that matter, reads the comic strip “Dilbert” — is familiar with the “org chart” strategy. To hide their lack of any actual ideas about what to do, managers sometimes make a big show of rearranging the boxes and lines that say who reports to whom.
You now understand the principle behind the Bush administration’s new proposal for financial reform, which will be formally announced today: it’s all about creating the appearance of responding to the current crisis, without actually doing anything substantive.
The financial events of the last seven months, and especially the past few weeks, have convinced all but a few diehards that the U.S. financial system needs major reform. Otherwise, we’ll lurch from crisis to crisis — and the crises will get bigger and bigger.
The rescue of Bear Stearns, in particular, was a paradigm-changing event.
Traditional, deposit-taking banks have been regulated since the 1930s, because the experience of the Great Depression showed how bank failures can threaten the whole economy. Supposedly, however, “non-depository” institutions like Bear didn’t have to be regulated, because “market discipline” would ensure that they were run responsibly.
When push came to shove, however, the Federal Reserve didn’t dare let market discipline run its course. Instead, it rushed to Bear’s rescue, risking billions of taxpayer dollars, because it feared that the collapse of a major financial institution would endanger the financial system as a whole.
And if financial players like Bear are going to receive the kind of rescue previously limited to deposit-taking banks, the implication seems obvious: they should be regulated like banks, too.
The Bush administration, however, has spent the last seven years trying to do away with government oversight of the financial industry. In fact, the new plan was originally conceived of as “promoting a competitive financial services sector leading the world and supporting continued economic innovation.” That’s banker-speak for getting rid of regulations that annoy big financial operators.
To reverse course now, and seek expanded regulation, the administration would have to back down on its free-market ideology — and it would also have to face up to the fact that it was wrong. And this administration never, ever, admits that it made a mistake.
Thus, in a draft of a speech to be delivered on Monday, Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, declares, “I do not believe it is fair or accurate to blame our regulatory structure for the current turmoil.”
And sure enough, according to the executive summary of the new administration plan, regulation will be limited to institutions that receive explicit federal guarantees — that is, institutions that are already regulated, and have not been the source of today’s problems. As for the rest, it blithely declares that “market discipline is the most effective tool to limit systemic risk.”
The administration, then, has learned nothing from the current crisis. Yet it needs, as a political matter, to pretend to be doing something.
So the Treasury has, with great fanfare, announced — you know what’s coming — its support for a rearrangement of the boxes on the org chart. OCC, OTS, and CFTC are out; PFRA and CBRA are in. Whatever.
Will rearranging these boxes make any difference? I’ve been disappointed to see some news outlets report as fact the administration’s cover story — the claim that lack of coordination among regulatory agencies was an important factor in our current problems.
The truth is that that’s not at all what happened. The various regulators actually did quite well at acting in a coordinated fashion. Unfortunately, they coordinated in the wrong direction.
For example, there was a 2003 photo-op in which officials from multiple agencies used pruning shears and chainsaws to chop up stacks of banking regulations. The occasion symbolized the shared determination of Bush appointees to suspend adult supervision just as the financial industry was starting to run wild.
Oh, and the Bush administration actively blocked state governments when they tried to protect families against predatory lending.
So, will the administration’s plan succeed? I’m not asking whether it will succeed in preventing future financial crises — that’s not its purpose. The question, instead, is whether it will succeed in confusing the issue sufficiently to stand in the way of real reform.
Let’s hope not. As I said, America’s financial crises have been getting bigger. A decade ago, the market disruption that followed the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management was considered a major, scary event; but compared with the current earthquake, the L.T.C.M. crisis was a minor tremor.
If we don’t reform the system this time, the next crisis could well be even bigger. And I, for one, really don’t want to live through a replay of the 1930s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31krugman.html?ei=5087&em=&en=af90d83dd12f39b9&ex=1207108800&pagewanted=print
Anyone who has worked in a large organization — or, for that matter, reads the comic strip “Dilbert” — is familiar with the “org chart” strategy. To hide their lack of any actual ideas about what to do, managers sometimes make a big show of rearranging the boxes and lines that say who reports to whom.
You now understand the principle behind the Bush administration’s new proposal for financial reform, which will be formally announced today: it’s all about creating the appearance of responding to the current crisis, without actually doing anything substantive.
The financial events of the last seven months, and especially the past few weeks, have convinced all but a few diehards that the U.S. financial system needs major reform. Otherwise, we’ll lurch from crisis to crisis — and the crises will get bigger and bigger.
The rescue of Bear Stearns, in particular, was a paradigm-changing event.
Traditional, deposit-taking banks have been regulated since the 1930s, because the experience of the Great Depression showed how bank failures can threaten the whole economy. Supposedly, however, “non-depository” institutions like Bear didn’t have to be regulated, because “market discipline” would ensure that they were run responsibly.
When push came to shove, however, the Federal Reserve didn’t dare let market discipline run its course. Instead, it rushed to Bear’s rescue, risking billions of taxpayer dollars, because it feared that the collapse of a major financial institution would endanger the financial system as a whole.
And if financial players like Bear are going to receive the kind of rescue previously limited to deposit-taking banks, the implication seems obvious: they should be regulated like banks, too.
The Bush administration, however, has spent the last seven years trying to do away with government oversight of the financial industry. In fact, the new plan was originally conceived of as “promoting a competitive financial services sector leading the world and supporting continued economic innovation.” That’s banker-speak for getting rid of regulations that annoy big financial operators.
To reverse course now, and seek expanded regulation, the administration would have to back down on its free-market ideology — and it would also have to face up to the fact that it was wrong. And this administration never, ever, admits that it made a mistake.
Thus, in a draft of a speech to be delivered on Monday, Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, declares, “I do not believe it is fair or accurate to blame our regulatory structure for the current turmoil.”
And sure enough, according to the executive summary of the new administration plan, regulation will be limited to institutions that receive explicit federal guarantees — that is, institutions that are already regulated, and have not been the source of today’s problems. As for the rest, it blithely declares that “market discipline is the most effective tool to limit systemic risk.”
The administration, then, has learned nothing from the current crisis. Yet it needs, as a political matter, to pretend to be doing something.
So the Treasury has, with great fanfare, announced — you know what’s coming — its support for a rearrangement of the boxes on the org chart. OCC, OTS, and CFTC are out; PFRA and CBRA are in. Whatever.
Will rearranging these boxes make any difference? I’ve been disappointed to see some news outlets report as fact the administration’s cover story — the claim that lack of coordination among regulatory agencies was an important factor in our current problems.
The truth is that that’s not at all what happened. The various regulators actually did quite well at acting in a coordinated fashion. Unfortunately, they coordinated in the wrong direction.
For example, there was a 2003 photo-op in which officials from multiple agencies used pruning shears and chainsaws to chop up stacks of banking regulations. The occasion symbolized the shared determination of Bush appointees to suspend adult supervision just as the financial industry was starting to run wild.
Oh, and the Bush administration actively blocked state governments when they tried to protect families against predatory lending.
So, will the administration’s plan succeed? I’m not asking whether it will succeed in preventing future financial crises — that’s not its purpose. The question, instead, is whether it will succeed in confusing the issue sufficiently to stand in the way of real reform.
Let’s hope not. As I said, America’s financial crises have been getting bigger. A decade ago, the market disruption that followed the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management was considered a major, scary event; but compared with the current earthquake, the L.T.C.M. crisis was a minor tremor.
If we don’t reform the system this time, the next crisis could well be even bigger. And I, for one, really don’t want to live through a replay of the 1930s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31krugman.html?ei=5087&em=&en=af90d83dd12f39b9&ex=1207108800&pagewanted=print
Monday, March 24, 2008
"Healthcare Not Warfare" PDA Campaign
By Norman Solomon, Progressive Democrats of America Advisory Board member
For several years now, the news media have identified healthcare and the war in Iraq as key issues in American politics. But very little of the reporting or the punditry goes beneath the buzz-word surfaces to the human realities that span from local hospitals to a faraway war.
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift,” Martin Luther King Jr. said 40 years ago, “is approaching spiritual death.” Today, nearly one in six Americans has no health insurance, and tens of millions of others are woefully under-insured--while the war in Iraq continues to further skew the U.S. government's budget priorities.
By launching the national “Healthcare Not Warfare” campaign, Progressive Democrats of America is moving ahead with a grassroots opportunity to turn from warfare to healthcare for all. While growing ever since it came into existence four years ago, PDA has been working with--and, more often, pushing--Democrats in Congress to end the occupation of Iraq. And, integral to its progressive program, PDA has been mobilizing support behind H.R. 676, the bill to create a universal single payer system to guarantee healthcare for all.
While the news media and all too many politicians simply treat “war” and “healthcare” as isolated issues, PDA is organizing for a fundamental shift in policies and priorities. Four decades after Dr. King decried “the madness of militarism,” we see how that madness continues to have wide-ranging and devastating effects, whether in our own communities or in Iraq.
Recognizing and spotlighting the profound differences between “the leadership” and forthright leadership for peace and social justice, PDA has become a dogged presence on Capitol Hill and--most importantly--in congressional districts around the country. The impacts of PDA activism continue to grow with the organization.
Of course we're up against massive concentrations of economic power. Total U.S. military spending is now in the vicinity of $2 billion per day. And, likewise, the medical business in the United States is a rapacious corporate force.
Rose Ann DeMoro, the executive director of the California Nurses Association / National Nurses Organizing Committee, recently pointed out: “As premiums have ballooned by 87 percent in the past decade, insurance-industry profits have climbed from $20.8 billion in 2002 to $57.5 billion in 2006. During that same period, health-care interests spent $2.2 billion on federal lobbying, more than did any other sector...”
In the midst of a political system with economic powerhouses largely dictating public policy, our only hope involves persistent organizing for humanistic priorities. PDA's launch of the “Healthcare Not Warfare” campaign goes to the heart of our current predicament and our goals for the future--a society and a world that nurture human life and social justice.
Healthcare NOT Warfare, Sign the Petition
As Martin Luther King Jr. observed forty years ago, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." While the insurance and pharmaceutical industries post huge profits, the U.S. health care crisis grows steadily worse.
Today, nearly one in six Americans has no health insurance. Fifty million of others are woefully under-insured. Meanwhile the war in Iraq drains our resources and overburdens our budget. Our government's duty is to protect us--security begins with our health and well-being at home. In 2008, we have an historic opportunity to turn from warfare to health care for all.
We call on the Democratic Party at all levels--in party platforms and resolutions--to commit to redirecting wasteful and unnecessary military spending to meet human needs. This commitment must start with comprehensive, guaranteed health care--driven by the needs of patients and the judgment of doctors. We call on Democrats to support a plan that eliminates any financial barriers between the patient and healthcare providers, resulting in a patient not receiving medically necessary care.
We call on members of Congress to bring the troops home from Iraq and to pass H.R. 676, Rep. John Conyers' bill which guarantees comprehensive publicly-funded, privately-delivered health care for everyone in the U.S.
Prior to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, this petition will be delivered to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, DNC Chair Howard Dean and your member of Congress.
https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/personal2.asp?formid=healthpet
Site Design by Virgo Graphics
Web Development by Turtle Island Web Design
Contact the PDA webmaster at webmaster@pdamerica.org.
Copyright © 2004-2007 Progressive Democrats of America •
For several years now, the news media have identified healthcare and the war in Iraq as key issues in American politics. But very little of the reporting or the punditry goes beneath the buzz-word surfaces to the human realities that span from local hospitals to a faraway war.
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift,” Martin Luther King Jr. said 40 years ago, “is approaching spiritual death.” Today, nearly one in six Americans has no health insurance, and tens of millions of others are woefully under-insured--while the war in Iraq continues to further skew the U.S. government's budget priorities.
By launching the national “Healthcare Not Warfare” campaign, Progressive Democrats of America is moving ahead with a grassroots opportunity to turn from warfare to healthcare for all. While growing ever since it came into existence four years ago, PDA has been working with--and, more often, pushing--Democrats in Congress to end the occupation of Iraq. And, integral to its progressive program, PDA has been mobilizing support behind H.R. 676, the bill to create a universal single payer system to guarantee healthcare for all.
While the news media and all too many politicians simply treat “war” and “healthcare” as isolated issues, PDA is organizing for a fundamental shift in policies and priorities. Four decades after Dr. King decried “the madness of militarism,” we see how that madness continues to have wide-ranging and devastating effects, whether in our own communities or in Iraq.
Recognizing and spotlighting the profound differences between “the leadership” and forthright leadership for peace and social justice, PDA has become a dogged presence on Capitol Hill and--most importantly--in congressional districts around the country. The impacts of PDA activism continue to grow with the organization.
Of course we're up against massive concentrations of economic power. Total U.S. military spending is now in the vicinity of $2 billion per day. And, likewise, the medical business in the United States is a rapacious corporate force.
Rose Ann DeMoro, the executive director of the California Nurses Association / National Nurses Organizing Committee, recently pointed out: “As premiums have ballooned by 87 percent in the past decade, insurance-industry profits have climbed from $20.8 billion in 2002 to $57.5 billion in 2006. During that same period, health-care interests spent $2.2 billion on federal lobbying, more than did any other sector...”
In the midst of a political system with economic powerhouses largely dictating public policy, our only hope involves persistent organizing for humanistic priorities. PDA's launch of the “Healthcare Not Warfare” campaign goes to the heart of our current predicament and our goals for the future--a society and a world that nurture human life and social justice.
Healthcare NOT Warfare, Sign the Petition
As Martin Luther King Jr. observed forty years ago, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." While the insurance and pharmaceutical industries post huge profits, the U.S. health care crisis grows steadily worse.
Today, nearly one in six Americans has no health insurance. Fifty million of others are woefully under-insured. Meanwhile the war in Iraq drains our resources and overburdens our budget. Our government's duty is to protect us--security begins with our health and well-being at home. In 2008, we have an historic opportunity to turn from warfare to health care for all.
We call on the Democratic Party at all levels--in party platforms and resolutions--to commit to redirecting wasteful and unnecessary military spending to meet human needs. This commitment must start with comprehensive, guaranteed health care--driven by the needs of patients and the judgment of doctors. We call on Democrats to support a plan that eliminates any financial barriers between the patient and healthcare providers, resulting in a patient not receiving medically necessary care.
We call on members of Congress to bring the troops home from Iraq and to pass H.R. 676, Rep. John Conyers' bill which guarantees comprehensive publicly-funded, privately-delivered health care for everyone in the U.S.
Prior to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, this petition will be delivered to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, DNC Chair Howard Dean and your member of Congress.
https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/309/personal2.asp?formid=healthpet
Site Design by Virgo Graphics
Web Development by Turtle Island Web Design
Contact the PDA webmaster at webmaster@pdamerica.org.
Copyright © 2004-2007 Progressive Democrats of America •
Death Toll for Iraq War Reaches 4,000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:38 a.m. ET
BAGHDAD (AP) -- The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year.
The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.
An Iraqi military spokesman said Monday that troops had found rocket launching pads in different areas in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad that had been used by extremists to fire on the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and the Iraqi government headquarters.
''We hope to deal with this issue professionally to avoid civilian casualties,'' said spokesman Qassim al-Moussawi.
The four soldiers with Multi-National Division -- Baghdad were on a patrol when their vehicle was struck at about 10 p.m. Sunday in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military said. Another soldier was wounded in the attack -- less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the conflict.
Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, expressed condolences to all the families of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying each death is ''equally tragic.''
''There have been some significant gains. However, this enemy is resilient and will not give up, nor will we,'' he said. ''There's still a lot of work to be done.''
Last year, U.S. military deaths spiked as U.S. troops sought to regain control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.
The Associated Press count of 4,000 deaths is based on U.S. military reports and includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion on March 20, 2003, although estimates of a specific figure vary widely due to the difficulty in collecting accurate information.
One widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count, which collects figures based mostly on media reports, estimates that 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the conflict.
Overall attacks also have decreased against Iraqi civilians but recent weeks have seen several high-profile bombings, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups.
Mosul, Iraq's third largest city about 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, has been described as the last major urban area where the Sunni extremist al-Qaida group maintains a significant presence.
The persistent violence has led to strong public opposition to the war in the United States, with both Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promising a quick pullout if they are elected.
President Bush has insisted the decline in violence shows his strategy is working and needs more time, a position taken by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
Iraq's National Security Adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said he sympathized with the American losses but warned against pulling out U.S. troops before Iraqi forces are ready to take over their own security and the situation is sufficiently stable.
''Honestly, this war is well worth fighting. This war, we are talking about war against global terror,'' he said Sunday in an interview with CNN.
No group claimed responsibility for the Green Zone attacks, but suspicion fell on Shiite extremists based on the eastern areas from which the weapons appeared to have been fired.
At least 10 civilians were killed and 20 more were wounded in rocket or mortar blasts in scattered areas of eastern Baghdad, some probably due to rounds aimed at the Green Zone that fell short.
The U.S. Embassy said at least five people were injured but no Americans were reported killed in the Green Zone attacks, which sent dark plumes of smoke rising over the district in the heart of the capital.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to release the information, said those injured included an American and four third-country nationals, meaning they were not American, British or Iraqi.
The heavily fortified area has frequently come under fire by Shiite and Sunni extremists, but the attacks have tapered off as violence declined over the past year.
The attacks followed a series of clashes last week between U.S. and Iraqi forces and factions of the Mahdi Army, the biggest Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr has declared a cease-fire through mid-August to purge the militia of criminal and dissident elements but it has come under severe strains in recent weeks.
Al-Sadr's followers have accused the Shiite-dominated government of exploiting the cease-fire to target the cleric's supporters in advance of provincial elections expected this fall and demanded the release of supporters rounded up in recent weeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?_r=1&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Associated Press writer Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.
Filed at 9:38 a.m. ET
BAGHDAD (AP) -- The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year.
The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.
An Iraqi military spokesman said Monday that troops had found rocket launching pads in different areas in predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad that had been used by extremists to fire on the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and the Iraqi government headquarters.
''We hope to deal with this issue professionally to avoid civilian casualties,'' said spokesman Qassim al-Moussawi.
The four soldiers with Multi-National Division -- Baghdad were on a patrol when their vehicle was struck at about 10 p.m. Sunday in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military said. Another soldier was wounded in the attack -- less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the conflict.
Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman, expressed condolences to all the families of soldiers killed in Iraq, saying each death is ''equally tragic.''
''There have been some significant gains. However, this enemy is resilient and will not give up, nor will we,'' he said. ''There's still a lot of work to be done.''
Last year, U.S. military deaths spiked as U.S. troops sought to regain control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.
The Associated Press count of 4,000 deaths is based on U.S. military reports and includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.
Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion on March 20, 2003, although estimates of a specific figure vary widely due to the difficulty in collecting accurate information.
One widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count, which collects figures based mostly on media reports, estimates that 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the conflict.
Overall attacks also have decreased against Iraqi civilians but recent weeks have seen several high-profile bombings, underscoring the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups.
Mosul, Iraq's third largest city about 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, has been described as the last major urban area where the Sunni extremist al-Qaida group maintains a significant presence.
The persistent violence has led to strong public opposition to the war in the United States, with both Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promising a quick pullout if they are elected.
President Bush has insisted the decline in violence shows his strategy is working and needs more time, a position taken by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
Iraq's National Security Adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said he sympathized with the American losses but warned against pulling out U.S. troops before Iraqi forces are ready to take over their own security and the situation is sufficiently stable.
''Honestly, this war is well worth fighting. This war, we are talking about war against global terror,'' he said Sunday in an interview with CNN.
No group claimed responsibility for the Green Zone attacks, but suspicion fell on Shiite extremists based on the eastern areas from which the weapons appeared to have been fired.
At least 10 civilians were killed and 20 more were wounded in rocket or mortar blasts in scattered areas of eastern Baghdad, some probably due to rounds aimed at the Green Zone that fell short.
The U.S. Embassy said at least five people were injured but no Americans were reported killed in the Green Zone attacks, which sent dark plumes of smoke rising over the district in the heart of the capital.
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to release the information, said those injured included an American and four third-country nationals, meaning they were not American, British or Iraqi.
The heavily fortified area has frequently come under fire by Shiite and Sunni extremists, but the attacks have tapered off as violence declined over the past year.
The attacks followed a series of clashes last week between U.S. and Iraqi forces and factions of the Mahdi Army, the biggest Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr has declared a cease-fire through mid-August to purge the militia of criminal and dissident elements but it has come under severe strains in recent weeks.
Al-Sadr's followers have accused the Shiite-dominated government of exploiting the cease-fire to target the cleric's supporters in advance of provincial elections expected this fall and demanded the release of supporters rounded up in recent weeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iraq.html?_r=1&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Associated Press writer Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
It has been five years in Iraq
Last week marked five years since the United States invaded Iraq. We all lament the suffering and violence that continue after these five heartbreaking years.
To commemorate this anniversary, many Sojourners board members are joining with me to issue a statement calling on the U.S. church to repent for the war and to commit ourselves to a new path toward peace.
Would you join us in signing it?
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/iraqstatement1?rk=y7aSZ8dqELJOE
We all share in responsibility for a war that has been waged in our names and with our tax dollars. The fact that fewer U.S. soldiers have died in recent months doesn't change the fact that this war should never have been waged. Our country should end this war, not try to "win" it, and we must help the Iraqi people build a safer and more peaceful country.
And so, in this season of Lent, I believe the time has come for us to repent for the Iraq war. But repentance means more than just being sorry. It means admitting that the course we have been on is wrong and committing to begin walking in a new direction - starting with an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Support for U.S. wars and foreign policy is still the area where Christians are most "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2). We must commit to put our love for Christ ahead of obedience to a misguided government and ask our brothers and sisters to join us in working for peace.
That's why we've put together a statement that issues a call to the U.S. church to lament and repent of the sin of this war. We're planning to promote that call widely to Christian audiences of all theological and political stripes.
So far it's been signed by friends like Brian McLaren, Mary Nelson, Richard Rohr, Barbara Williams Skinner, and Ron Sider. But we don't just want prominent leaders to sign on - we want you.
If everyone receiving this e-mail signed the statement and recruited friends, family, and congregation members to do the same, we could show that millions of ordinary Christians are seeking a world in which our Lord "guides our feet into the path of peace" (Luke 1:79).
Click here to read and sign the statement lamenting and repenting of the Iraq war.
I hope you'll join us in committing to pray and work for peace.
Blessings,
Jim Wallis and the rest of the team at Sojourners
P.S. We're planning to publicize this statement widely, including placing advertisements in Christian media - can you make a donation to help get the word out?
"Jim Wallis"
To commemorate this anniversary, many Sojourners board members are joining with me to issue a statement calling on the U.S. church to repent for the war and to commit ourselves to a new path toward peace.
Would you join us in signing it?
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/iraqstatement1?rk=y7aSZ8dqELJOE
We all share in responsibility for a war that has been waged in our names and with our tax dollars. The fact that fewer U.S. soldiers have died in recent months doesn't change the fact that this war should never have been waged. Our country should end this war, not try to "win" it, and we must help the Iraqi people build a safer and more peaceful country.
And so, in this season of Lent, I believe the time has come for us to repent for the Iraq war. But repentance means more than just being sorry. It means admitting that the course we have been on is wrong and committing to begin walking in a new direction - starting with an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Support for U.S. wars and foreign policy is still the area where Christians are most "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2). We must commit to put our love for Christ ahead of obedience to a misguided government and ask our brothers and sisters to join us in working for peace.
That's why we've put together a statement that issues a call to the U.S. church to lament and repent of the sin of this war. We're planning to promote that call widely to Christian audiences of all theological and political stripes.
So far it's been signed by friends like Brian McLaren, Mary Nelson, Richard Rohr, Barbara Williams Skinner, and Ron Sider. But we don't just want prominent leaders to sign on - we want you.
If everyone receiving this e-mail signed the statement and recruited friends, family, and congregation members to do the same, we could show that millions of ordinary Christians are seeking a world in which our Lord "guides our feet into the path of peace" (Luke 1:79).
Click here to read and sign the statement lamenting and repenting of the Iraq war.
I hope you'll join us in committing to pray and work for peace.
Blessings,
Jim Wallis and the rest of the team at Sojourners
P.S. We're planning to publicize this statement widely, including placing advertisements in Christian media - can you make a donation to help get the word out?
"Jim Wallis"
Thursday, March 20, 2008
On The Issues: Kenny Marchant
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Kenny_Marchant.htm
The Incumbent U.S. House District 24 for the 2008 election.
Kenny Marchant on Abortion
Click here for 5 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
• Parental notification for underage to receive abortion. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
• Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
• Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190 members). (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Budget & Economy
Click here for the full quote on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
• Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Kenny Marchant on Civil Rights
Click here for 5 full quotes on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.
• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
• Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
• Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Corporations
Click here for the full quote on Corporations OR background on Corporations.
• Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Kenny Marchant on Crime
Click here for 2 full quotes on Crime OR background on Crime.
• Voted NO on expanding services for offendors' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)
• Rated 88% by the NCJA, indicating a "tough-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Drugs
Click here for the full quote on Drugs OR background on Drugs.
• Rated -10 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Education
Click here for 3 full quotes on Education OR background on Education.
• Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Energy & Oil
Click here for 7 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
• Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
• Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
• Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Environment
Click here for 3 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
• Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Families & Children
Click here for background on Families & Children.
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
Kenny Marchant on Foreign Policy
Click here for 2 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.
• Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
• Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Free Trade
Click here for 3 full quotes on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.
• Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Government Reform
Click here for 7 full quotes on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform.
• Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
• Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
• Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Gun Control
Click here for the full quote on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
• Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Health Care
Click here for 3 full quotes on Health Care OR background on Health Care.
• Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
• Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
• Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Homeland Security
Click here for 6 full quotes on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.
• Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
• Voted NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
• Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Immigration
Click here for 3 full quotes on Immigration OR background on Immigration.
• Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
• Rated 100% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Jobs
Click here for 2 full quotes on Jobs OR background on Jobs.
• Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Kenny Marchant on Principles & Values
Click here for the full quote on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values.
• Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Social Security
Click here for background on Social Security.
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
Kenny Marchant on Tax Reform
Click here for 4 full quotes on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform.
• Make Bush's tax cuts permanent. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
• Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Technology
Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR background on Technology.
• Voted NO on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Kenny Marchant on War & Peace
Click here for 2 full quotes on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
• Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for the full quote on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.
• Voted NO on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
VoteMatch Responses
(Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background) Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Strongly Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(-5 points on Social scale) Parental notification for underage to receive abortion: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190 members): Strongly Opposes topic 1
YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions: Strongly Opposes topic 1
NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research: Opposes topic 1
NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Opposes topic 1
Strongly Opposes topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(+5 points on Economic scale) Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Opposes topic 2
NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance: Strongly Opposes topic 3
YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman: Strongly Opposes topic 3
NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation: Strongly Favors topic 4
NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance: Favors topic 4
Neutral on topic 8:
Death Penalty
(0 points on Social scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 88% by the NCJA, indicating a "tough-on-crime" stance: Strongly Favors topic 9
NO on expanding services for offendors' re-entry into society: Favors topic 9
Strongly Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+5 points on Economic scale) YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers: Strongly Favors topic 10
Strongly Opposes topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(+5 points on Economic scale) YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay: Strongly Opposes topic 5
NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Opposes topic 5
NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility: Opposes topic 5
Neutral on topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Neutral on topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(+5 points on Economic scale) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence: Opposes topic 18
YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries: Strongly Opposes topic 18
YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on investing in homegrown biofuel: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC: Opposes topic 18
Strongly Favors topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated -10 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance: Strongly Favors topic 19
Neutral on topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services
(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Strongly Opposes topic 11:
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy
(+5 points on Economic scale) Make Bush's tax cuts permanent: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Strongly Opposes topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 100% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Strongly Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+5 points on Economic scale) YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade: Strongly Favors topic 13
NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization: Favors topic 13
YES on promoting free trade with Peru: Favors topic 13
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the armed forces
(-5 points on Social scale) YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses: Favors topic 15
NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts: Strongly Favors topic 15
Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-3 points on Economic scale) YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees: Opposes topic 16
YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Strongly Opposes topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(-5 points on Social scale) YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Strongly Opposes topic 17:
US out of Iraq
(-5 points on Social scale) YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Kenny Marchant is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.
________________________________________
Home | Issues | Candidates | Most Recent Quote | Candidate Grid | Books + Debates | Senate | VoteMatch | The Forum | About Us | Contact OnTheIssues | Contact Kenny_Marchant
Contact Kenny_Marchant:
* Official Contacts
* Candidate Profile
* Contact OnTheIssues:
submit @ OnTheIssues . org
OnTheIssues reports on issues, and has no contacts with campaigns except as linked above.
Send donations or submit quotations to:
On The Issues
1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630
Cambridge, MA 02140
Written by
WebMerchants
Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages.
Copyright © 1999-2008 OnTheIssues.org & the SpeakOut Foundation, all rights reserved.
OnTheIssues.org 1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail us at:info at OnTheIssues.org | Advertising information
The Incumbent U.S. House District 24 for the 2008 election.
Kenny Marchant on Abortion
Click here for 5 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
• Parental notification for underage to receive abortion. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
• Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
• Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190 members). (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Budget & Economy
Click here for the full quote on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.
• Voted NO on regulating the subprime mortgage industry. (Nov 2007)
Kenny Marchant on Civil Rights
Click here for 5 full quotes on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.
• Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
• Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
• Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
• Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Corporations
Click here for the full quote on Corporations OR background on Corporations.
• Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Kenny Marchant on Crime
Click here for 2 full quotes on Crime OR background on Crime.
• Voted NO on expanding services for offendors' re-entry into society. (Nov 2007)
• Rated 88% by the NCJA, indicating a "tough-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Drugs
Click here for the full quote on Drugs OR background on Drugs.
• Rated -10 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Education
Click here for 3 full quotes on Education OR background on Education.
• Voted NO on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Energy & Oil
Click here for 7 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.
• Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel. (Aug 2007)
• Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
• Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Environment
Click here for 3 full quotes on Environment OR background on Environment.
• Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Families & Children
Click here for background on Families & Children.
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
Kenny Marchant on Foreign Policy
Click here for 2 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.
• Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
• Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Free Trade
Click here for 3 full quotes on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.
• Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Government Reform
Click here for 7 full quotes on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform.
• Voted YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
• Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
• Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Gun Control
Click here for the full quote on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
• Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Health Care
Click here for 3 full quotes on Health Care OR background on Health Care.
• Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Oct 2007)
• Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
• Voted YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Homeland Security
Click here for 6 full quotes on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.
• Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
• Voted NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
• Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
• Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
Kenny Marchant on Immigration
Click here for 3 full quotes on Immigration OR background on Immigration.
• Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
• Rated 100% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Jobs
Click here for 2 full quotes on Jobs OR background on Jobs.
• Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Kenny Marchant on Principles & Values
Click here for the full quote on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values.
• Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Social Security
Click here for background on Social Security.
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org.
Kenny Marchant on Tax Reform
Click here for 4 full quotes on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform.
• Make Bush's tax cuts permanent. (Nov 2004)
• Voted NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
• Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Technology
Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR background on Technology.
• Voted NO on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Kenny Marchant on War & Peace
Click here for 2 full quotes on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.
• Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Kenny Marchant on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for the full quote on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.
• Voted NO on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
VoteMatch Responses
(Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background) Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Strongly Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(-5 points on Social scale) Parental notification for underage to receive abortion: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190 members): Strongly Opposes topic 1
YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions: Strongly Opposes topic 1
NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research: Opposes topic 1
NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Opposes topic 1
Strongly Opposes topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(+5 points on Economic scale) Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance: Strongly Opposes topic 2
NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance: Strongly Opposes topic 3
YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman: Strongly Opposes topic 3
NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation: Strongly Favors topic 4
NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance: Favors topic 4
Neutral on topic 8:
Death Penalty
(0 points on Social scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 88% by the NCJA, indicating a "tough-on-crime" stance: Strongly Favors topic 9
NO on expanding services for offendors' re-entry into society: Favors topic 9
Strongly Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+5 points on Economic scale) YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers: Strongly Favors topic 10
Strongly Opposes topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(+5 points on Economic scale) YES on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay: Strongly Opposes topic 5
NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D: Opposes topic 5
NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility: Opposes topic 5
Neutral on topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Neutral on topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(+5 points on Economic scale) Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence: Opposes topic 18
YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries: Strongly Opposes topic 18
YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on investing in homegrown biofuel: Strongly Opposes topic 18
NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC: Opposes topic 18
Strongly Favors topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated -10 by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance: Strongly Favors topic 19
Neutral on topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services
(0 points on Economic scale) (No votes on which to base response)
Strongly Opposes topic 11:
Repeal tax cuts on wealthy
(+5 points on Economic scale) Make Bush's tax cuts permanent: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation: Strongly Opposes topic 11
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends: Strongly Opposes topic 11
NO on paying for AMT relief by closing offshore business loopholes: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Strongly Opposes topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(-5 points on Social scale) Rated 100% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on building a fence along the Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Strongly Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+5 points on Economic scale) YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade: Strongly Favors topic 13
NO on assisting workers who lose jobs due to globalization: Favors topic 13
YES on promoting free trade with Peru: Favors topic 13
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the armed forces
(-5 points on Social scale) YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses: Favors topic 15
NO on restricting no-bid defense contracts: Strongly Favors topic 15
Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-3 points on Economic scale) YES on restricting independent grassroots political committees: Opposes topic 16
YES on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations: Strongly Favors topic 16
Strongly Opposes topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(-5 points on Social scale) YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant: Strongly Opposes topic 14
YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad: Strongly Opposes topic 14
Strongly Opposes topic 17:
US out of Iraq
(-5 points on Social scale) YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date: Strongly Opposes topic 17
NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Kenny Marchant is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.
________________________________________
Home | Issues | Candidates | Most Recent Quote | Candidate Grid | Books + Debates | Senate | VoteMatch | The Forum | About Us | Contact OnTheIssues | Contact Kenny_Marchant
Contact Kenny_Marchant:
* Official Contacts
* Candidate Profile
* Contact OnTheIssues:
submit @ OnTheIssues . org
OnTheIssues reports on issues, and has no contacts with campaigns except as linked above.
Send donations or submit quotations to:
On The Issues
1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630
Cambridge, MA 02140
Written by
WebMerchants
Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages.
Copyright © 1999-2008 OnTheIssues.org & the SpeakOut Foundation, all rights reserved.
OnTheIssues.org 1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail us at:info at OnTheIssues.org | Advertising information
Monday, March 10, 2008
Backers Offer a Way to Stage New Primaries
A Possible Way to Hold New Primaries in Florida and Michigan
By JOHN M. BRODER and DAVID W. CHEN
Two Governors, who are also two of the Democratic Party’s most successful fund-raisers, have offered to help raise millions of dollars to stage new primaries in Florida and Michigan.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said Sunday that they would be willing to raise half the $30 million it would take to run new contests in those two states. Mr. Corzine and Mr. Rendell submitted their proposal to The Washington Post.
The two governors argue that the Democratic National Committee, and not taxpayers in Florida and Michigan, should pay for a re-election in those states.
Democrats have been struggling to find a way to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, who were excluded when those states held primaries in January, violating national party rules.
With a virtual tie in both convention delegates and the nationwide popular vote, the dispute over the two states has the potential of deciding the overall race.
Mrs. Clinton won in both states, though Senator Barack Obama’s name did not appear on the Michigan ballot and neither candidate campaigned actively in Florida. Her supporters at first pressed for the disputed delegates to be seated, but both campaigns and Democratic Party leaders have been searching for an alternative solution.
Talk of the problem dominated the Sunday morning political television programs.
“I think it’s very unlikely that Florida and Michigan, given how close this race is, are going to be seated as is,” said Howard Dean, the Democratic national chairman, on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “But everybody’s going to work very hard to find a compromise within the rules that’s fair to both campaigns that will allow Florida and Michigan in the end to be seated.”
Mr. Rendell raised the fund-raising proposal on “Meet the Press” on NBC as he pressed for re-votes in the two states. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, speaking for the Obama campaign, also appeared on the program and said he would go along.
“We don’t have any problem with that,” Mr. Daschle said.
Mr. Rendell said that, in the submission to The Washington Post, he and Mr. Corzine offered to “help raise the approximately $15 million which would be half of the $30 million it would take to run those two contests.”
Asked about the proposal by WNBC-TV on Sunday, Mr. Corzine said it had not been cleared with the Obama campaign. He also said the best time for new contests, were they to happen, would be after the last scheduled primaries are held in early June.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Corzine, Deborah Howlett, later said: “He doesn’t think that the states or the taxpayers in Michigan or Florida should pay for the election. And he’s glad to help the D.N.C. raise money to cover the costs.”
Asked if Mr. Corzine, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who spent $100 million of his own money to win an election to the United States Senate in 2000 and the governor’s office in 2005, would be a contributor, Ms. Howlett said: “He’s been pretty generous with causes he believes in. I wouldn’t be surprised if he donated money. But he’s not going to underwrite the whole thing.”
In his appearance on CBS, Mr. Dean urged the parties to find a solution quickly, saying that with the lead Democrats hold in polls and in fund-raising, “the only thing that can beat us is if we’re divided.”
In a separate interview, on ABC, Mr. Dean suggested that a compromise might involve using mail-in ballots to restage both primaries, with the cost — perhaps one-third that of conventional elections — to be absorbed by Democratic donors.
Another possibility would be to split the delegates in half, but that would effectively cement Mr. Obama’s delegate lead in place and thus be unacceptable to Clinton supporters.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/politics/10campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205172182-CE6olBty%20F4BuKH710hySQ&pagewanted=print
By JOHN M. BRODER and DAVID W. CHEN
Two Governors, who are also two of the Democratic Party’s most successful fund-raisers, have offered to help raise millions of dollars to stage new primaries in Florida and Michigan.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said Sunday that they would be willing to raise half the $30 million it would take to run new contests in those two states. Mr. Corzine and Mr. Rendell submitted their proposal to The Washington Post.
The two governors argue that the Democratic National Committee, and not taxpayers in Florida and Michigan, should pay for a re-election in those states.
Democrats have been struggling to find a way to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, who were excluded when those states held primaries in January, violating national party rules.
With a virtual tie in both convention delegates and the nationwide popular vote, the dispute over the two states has the potential of deciding the overall race.
Mrs. Clinton won in both states, though Senator Barack Obama’s name did not appear on the Michigan ballot and neither candidate campaigned actively in Florida. Her supporters at first pressed for the disputed delegates to be seated, but both campaigns and Democratic Party leaders have been searching for an alternative solution.
Talk of the problem dominated the Sunday morning political television programs.
“I think it’s very unlikely that Florida and Michigan, given how close this race is, are going to be seated as is,” said Howard Dean, the Democratic national chairman, on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “But everybody’s going to work very hard to find a compromise within the rules that’s fair to both campaigns that will allow Florida and Michigan in the end to be seated.”
Mr. Rendell raised the fund-raising proposal on “Meet the Press” on NBC as he pressed for re-votes in the two states. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, speaking for the Obama campaign, also appeared on the program and said he would go along.
“We don’t have any problem with that,” Mr. Daschle said.
Mr. Rendell said that, in the submission to The Washington Post, he and Mr. Corzine offered to “help raise the approximately $15 million which would be half of the $30 million it would take to run those two contests.”
Asked about the proposal by WNBC-TV on Sunday, Mr. Corzine said it had not been cleared with the Obama campaign. He also said the best time for new contests, were they to happen, would be after the last scheduled primaries are held in early June.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Corzine, Deborah Howlett, later said: “He doesn’t think that the states or the taxpayers in Michigan or Florida should pay for the election. And he’s glad to help the D.N.C. raise money to cover the costs.”
Asked if Mr. Corzine, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who spent $100 million of his own money to win an election to the United States Senate in 2000 and the governor’s office in 2005, would be a contributor, Ms. Howlett said: “He’s been pretty generous with causes he believes in. I wouldn’t be surprised if he donated money. But he’s not going to underwrite the whole thing.”
In his appearance on CBS, Mr. Dean urged the parties to find a solution quickly, saying that with the lead Democrats hold in polls and in fund-raising, “the only thing that can beat us is if we’re divided.”
In a separate interview, on ABC, Mr. Dean suggested that a compromise might involve using mail-in ballots to restage both primaries, with the cost — perhaps one-third that of conventional elections — to be absorbed by Democratic donors.
Another possibility would be to split the delegates in half, but that would effectively cement Mr. Obama’s delegate lead in place and thus be unacceptable to Clinton supporters.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/us/politics/10campaign.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205172182-CE6olBty%20F4BuKH710hySQ&pagewanted=print
ETHICS
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Benjamin Armbruster
More Money, More Problems
With an estimated $16 billion in defense contracts, KBR is by far the largest contractor in Iraq, "with eight times the work of its nearest competitor." The firm has 54,000 people working on its projects in Iraq. Until last year, KBR operated as a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil services conglomerate over which Vice President Cheney once presided. Prior to the Iraq war, KBR received no-bid contracts from the Bush administration to "rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure" and to "provide support services to troops." The company has profited handsomely from its sweetheart deals, racking up a $71 million profit in the fourth-quarter of 2007 alone. Yet for all the financial success it has attained, KBR has repeatedly engaged in abusive corporate practices and has shirked its duty to preserve and protect those men and women who are serving on the front lines of war.
DON'T DRINK THE WATER: According to a new report from the Pentagon Inspector General, dozens of American troops in Iraq fell sick at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water supplied by KBR. The Associated Press writes that the medical records for troops at one KBR-run site indicated "38 cases of illnesses commonly attributed to problem water. These include skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections and diarrhea. Doctors diagnosed 24 of the cases in January and February 2006, the same period when medical officials warned of a rise in bacterial infections at the base." In January 2006, former Halliburton employees accused the company of "supplying contaminated water to American troops and Iraqi civilians at a marine base in Ramadi." In an internal e-mail, a Halliburton employee warned, "The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates river." Halliburton denied the allegations, and more soldiers continued to fall sick because of the water. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who has led investigations in contract abuses, said, "I think it's outrageous that KBR tried to deny that there was a problem, especially when it turned out that there were dozens of U.S. troops reporting water-related illnesses."
DODGING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TAXES: Despite the massive profits KBR has been earning, it has worked hard to shelter those revenues from the U.S. government and its own employees. According a detailed investigation by the Boston Globe, KBR has "avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies" based in the Cayman Islands -- a scheme established by Halliburton under Cheney's tenure. In doing so, the firm deprived KBR employees of guaranteed future retirement benefits and unemployment insurance should they lose their jobs. Since at least 2004, the Pentagon has known about KBR's practices, but has chosen to ignore the issue. The use of the shell companies to divert millions from Social Security and Medicare gives KBR an unfair advantage over its rivals, almost all of whom pay the federal taxes. "It is both shocking and disappointing that some American companies continue to exploit our system in wartime by setting up shell corporations via a tax haven mailbox," said Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA). "You have to wonder why the Pentagon continues to do business with these contractors who skirt the rules."
COVERING UP RAPE: There is one circumstance in which KBR does claim its employees as its own: "when it comes to receiving the legal immunity extended to employers working in Iraq." When former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones revealed late last year that she was gang-raped by her co-workers while serving in Baghdad, the company pushed hard for the case to be heard in private arbitration, without a public record or transcript. "Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law." Last week, lawyers for Jones argued that her case should be "tried in court, not settled in private arbitration," but KBR insists her contract binds her to settle all claims through arbitration. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) has said his office has been contacted by other KBR employees who say they were sexually assaulted in Iraq. The Pentagon has refused to investigate these cases, and thus far, the Bush administration "has not offered to develop a coordinated response to the problem."
"Vice President Dick Cheney will visit the Middle East next week and meet with leaders of Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Palestinian West Bank and Turkey." Cheney's office did not provide any details of what issues would be discussed during the trip.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is set to release "a detailed critique of the Bush administration's claims in the buildup to war with Iraq." The report "reaches a mixed verdict" on whether "the White House misused intelligence to make the case for war," but it does criticize White House officials for "making assertions that failed to reflect disagreements or uncertainties in the underlying intelligence on Iraq."
In a CBS 60 Minutes interview that aired yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised to release his medical records "sometime in the next month or two." Yet so far, campaign officials have assured reporters at least three times since March 2007 "that they would provide the detailed information" about the senator's health, "but they have not done so."
Average U.S. gas prices "have reached a new high of almost $3.20 per gallon and will likely jump another 20 to 30 cents in the next month, worsening the pain of consumers struggling to make ends meet in an economic downturn." Prices increased "about 9.44 cents per gallon in the past two weeks" and "64 cents per gallon in the past 12 months."
Climate change research published in separate journals over the past few weeks from scientists from around the world has a "simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further."
Children in Iraq "have been more gravely affected by the U.S. occupation than any other segment of the population." According to the United Nations, "at least two million Iraqi children lack adequate nutrition" and "only 40 percent of children nationwide have access to safe drinking water."
www.americanprogressaction.org
More Money, More Problems
With an estimated $16 billion in defense contracts, KBR is by far the largest contractor in Iraq, "with eight times the work of its nearest competitor." The firm has 54,000 people working on its projects in Iraq. Until last year, KBR operated as a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil services conglomerate over which Vice President Cheney once presided. Prior to the Iraq war, KBR received no-bid contracts from the Bush administration to "rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure" and to "provide support services to troops." The company has profited handsomely from its sweetheart deals, racking up a $71 million profit in the fourth-quarter of 2007 alone. Yet for all the financial success it has attained, KBR has repeatedly engaged in abusive corporate practices and has shirked its duty to preserve and protect those men and women who are serving on the front lines of war.
DON'T DRINK THE WATER: According to a new report from the Pentagon Inspector General, dozens of American troops in Iraq fell sick at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water supplied by KBR. The Associated Press writes that the medical records for troops at one KBR-run site indicated "38 cases of illnesses commonly attributed to problem water. These include skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections and diarrhea. Doctors diagnosed 24 of the cases in January and February 2006, the same period when medical officials warned of a rise in bacterial infections at the base." In January 2006, former Halliburton employees accused the company of "supplying contaminated water to American troops and Iraqi civilians at a marine base in Ramadi." In an internal e-mail, a Halliburton employee warned, "The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates river." Halliburton denied the allegations, and more soldiers continued to fall sick because of the water. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who has led investigations in contract abuses, said, "I think it's outrageous that KBR tried to deny that there was a problem, especially when it turned out that there were dozens of U.S. troops reporting water-related illnesses."
DODGING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE TAXES: Despite the massive profits KBR has been earning, it has worked hard to shelter those revenues from the U.S. government and its own employees. According a detailed investigation by the Boston Globe, KBR has "avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies" based in the Cayman Islands -- a scheme established by Halliburton under Cheney's tenure. In doing so, the firm deprived KBR employees of guaranteed future retirement benefits and unemployment insurance should they lose their jobs. Since at least 2004, the Pentagon has known about KBR's practices, but has chosen to ignore the issue. The use of the shell companies to divert millions from Social Security and Medicare gives KBR an unfair advantage over its rivals, almost all of whom pay the federal taxes. "It is both shocking and disappointing that some American companies continue to exploit our system in wartime by setting up shell corporations via a tax haven mailbox," said Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA). "You have to wonder why the Pentagon continues to do business with these contractors who skirt the rules."
COVERING UP RAPE: There is one circumstance in which KBR does claim its employees as its own: "when it comes to receiving the legal immunity extended to employers working in Iraq." When former KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones revealed late last year that she was gang-raped by her co-workers while serving in Baghdad, the company pushed hard for the case to be heard in private arbitration, without a public record or transcript. "Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law." Last week, lawyers for Jones argued that her case should be "tried in court, not settled in private arbitration," but KBR insists her contract binds her to settle all claims through arbitration. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) has said his office has been contacted by other KBR employees who say they were sexually assaulted in Iraq. The Pentagon has refused to investigate these cases, and thus far, the Bush administration "has not offered to develop a coordinated response to the problem."
"Vice President Dick Cheney will visit the Middle East next week and meet with leaders of Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Palestinian West Bank and Turkey." Cheney's office did not provide any details of what issues would be discussed during the trip.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is set to release "a detailed critique of the Bush administration's claims in the buildup to war with Iraq." The report "reaches a mixed verdict" on whether "the White House misused intelligence to make the case for war," but it does criticize White House officials for "making assertions that failed to reflect disagreements or uncertainties in the underlying intelligence on Iraq."
In a CBS 60 Minutes interview that aired yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) promised to release his medical records "sometime in the next month or two." Yet so far, campaign officials have assured reporters at least three times since March 2007 "that they would provide the detailed information" about the senator's health, "but they have not done so."
Average U.S. gas prices "have reached a new high of almost $3.20 per gallon and will likely jump another 20 to 30 cents in the next month, worsening the pain of consumers struggling to make ends meet in an economic downturn." Prices increased "about 9.44 cents per gallon in the past two weeks" and "64 cents per gallon in the past 12 months."
Climate change research published in separate journals over the past few weeks from scientists from around the world has a "simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further."
Children in Iraq "have been more gravely affected by the U.S. occupation than any other segment of the population." According to the United Nations, "at least two million Iraqi children lack adequate nutrition" and "only 40 percent of children nationwide have access to safe drinking water."
www.americanprogressaction.org
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Job Losses Suggest Economy Is in Recession
By Kevin G. Hall
McClatchy Newspapers
Friday 07 March 2008
Washington - Recession fears mounted Friday after new data showed that employers shed 63,000 jobs in February and a private-sector index pointed to sagging consumer confidence amid sinking stocks and rising prices for oil and gasoline.
For the second consecutive month, employment was in negative territory, a trend most often associated with recession. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also issued a new count of how many non-farm payroll jobs were lost in January, boosting it from 17,000 to 22,000 positions.
The losses stood in stark contrast to the forecasts of most mainstream economists, who'd predicted an increase of about 25,000 jobs in February.
The steep job losses brought President Bush out for a statement in front of White House cameras. He signaled that he's aware of the fiscal hardships that Americans face and said that last month's economic stimulus package, including tax rebates to consumers, should improve the economy in coming months.
"I know this is a difficult time for our economy, but we recognized the problem early and provided the economy with a booster shot," the president said. "We will begin to see the impact over the coming months."
Afterward, a Treasury Department statement sought to talk up the economy. With oil hovering around $105 a barrel and the cost of wheat, corn and other commodities driving up food prices, the Treasury stressed that the core inflation rate remained contained at 2.5 percent.
It was an odd choice for positive news, since core inflation doesn't include the high prices in the volatile food and energy sectors. In effect, this measure of inflation ignores the record prices that Americans are paying at the gas pump and the grocery store. The latest reading of the consumer price index, which measures what Americans pay at the cash register, was almost double the core rate and stood at 4.3 percent for the12-month period that ended in January.
While Bush and the Treasury Department avoided using the "R" word - recession - the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers left open that possibility.
"We are going to have a weak-growth quarter, and whether you call that a recession or not is something that we won't know for many months," Ed Lazear, the council's chairman, said at the White House.
Many economists disagreed.
"Sure looks like a recession, with exports remaining the only bright spot in the U.S. economy," John Silvia, chief economist for Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia, said in a note to investors.
Later, in announcing a conference call to revise their forecast, Wachovia's economic researchers wrote: "We now expect the U.S. has entered its first recession in seven years, as economic activity likely contracted in the first quarter."
Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for forecaster Global Insight in Lexington, Mass., was equally blunt.
"The debate should no longer be about whether there is or is not a recession, only about how deep it will be," he told investors. "Private employment has now fallen for three months in a row, according to today's new data, with the steepest decline in February."
Billionaire investor Warren Buffet, considered the richest man in the world, said Monday that the U.S. economy already was in what would be a short recession.
A textbook definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. Recessions are dated after the fact by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which defines recession as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy and lasting over several months.
Friday's dismal jobs report makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will slash interest rates again at its March 18 meeting in a bid to prevent or shorten a recession.
Wall Street, through the futures market, is expecting a three-quarters of a percentage point cut, which would bring the benchmark federal funds rate to 2.25 percent. Banks would follow suit by lowering the prime rate to 5.25 percent.
Stocks dipped yet again Friday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 146.70 points to close at 11,893.69. The S&P 500 was off 10.97 points to close at 1293.37, while the NASAQ was down 8.01 points to 2212.49.
The job losses aren't yet in the hundreds of thousands associated with deep economic turndowns. But job losses in consecutive months seldom happen outside of recessions. The last such consecutive months of falling employment were in May and June 2003, when the economy wasn't in recession.
Jobs also are a lagging indicator, providing a snapshot of past business activity. And since recessions aren't called until the economy has been in one for months, the dour job numbers clearly point to an economy that already was slowing drastically when growth braked to just 0.6 percent during the final three months of 2007.
Problems in housing dominate headlines, but until late last year the broader economy was in strong shape. Deepening problems in financial markets, however, have dried up lending for businesses and consumers.
And consumers have pulled back since they've seen their wealth evaporate as the stock market and home prices drop like stones. The RBC Cash Index, a survey of consumer attitudes and spending by household, fell to 33.1 percent in its March reading, announced Friday. That's the lowest since the index was created in 2002.
Friday's jobs report gives a snapshot of which sectors of the economy are struggling. Private-sector employment fell by 101,000 jobs, and the overall picture would have been far worse if not for robust hiring by federal, state and local governments.
Manufacturing led the employment losers, shedding 52,000 jobs in February and almost 300,000 jobs over the past 12 months. Construction employment fell by 39,000 posts and retail employment dipped by 34,000 positions.
Among industries that were hiring, government employment was up by 38,000 jobs, the health-care industry added 36,000 posts and the leisure and travel sector added 21,000 payroll jobs.
The nation's unemployment rate dipped a tenth of a percent to 4.8 percent as more workers exited the economy. It's measured independently of the employment report.
In separate news Friday, the Federal Reserve announced that it would make $100 billion in short-term loans available through two auctions this month. This Trade Auction Facility is a new creation by the Fed that allows banks to bid on short-term loans that have low interest rates. The Fed had been offering $60 billion a month but has upped that to $100 billion to keep banks offering short-term credit to corporations.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29729.html
McClatchy Newspapers
Friday 07 March 2008
Washington - Recession fears mounted Friday after new data showed that employers shed 63,000 jobs in February and a private-sector index pointed to sagging consumer confidence amid sinking stocks and rising prices for oil and gasoline.
For the second consecutive month, employment was in negative territory, a trend most often associated with recession. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also issued a new count of how many non-farm payroll jobs were lost in January, boosting it from 17,000 to 22,000 positions.
The losses stood in stark contrast to the forecasts of most mainstream economists, who'd predicted an increase of about 25,000 jobs in February.
The steep job losses brought President Bush out for a statement in front of White House cameras. He signaled that he's aware of the fiscal hardships that Americans face and said that last month's economic stimulus package, including tax rebates to consumers, should improve the economy in coming months.
"I know this is a difficult time for our economy, but we recognized the problem early and provided the economy with a booster shot," the president said. "We will begin to see the impact over the coming months."
Afterward, a Treasury Department statement sought to talk up the economy. With oil hovering around $105 a barrel and the cost of wheat, corn and other commodities driving up food prices, the Treasury stressed that the core inflation rate remained contained at 2.5 percent.
It was an odd choice for positive news, since core inflation doesn't include the high prices in the volatile food and energy sectors. In effect, this measure of inflation ignores the record prices that Americans are paying at the gas pump and the grocery store. The latest reading of the consumer price index, which measures what Americans pay at the cash register, was almost double the core rate and stood at 4.3 percent for the12-month period that ended in January.
While Bush and the Treasury Department avoided using the "R" word - recession - the head of the president's Council of Economic Advisers left open that possibility.
"We are going to have a weak-growth quarter, and whether you call that a recession or not is something that we won't know for many months," Ed Lazear, the council's chairman, said at the White House.
Many economists disagreed.
"Sure looks like a recession, with exports remaining the only bright spot in the U.S. economy," John Silvia, chief economist for Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia, said in a note to investors.
Later, in announcing a conference call to revise their forecast, Wachovia's economic researchers wrote: "We now expect the U.S. has entered its first recession in seven years, as economic activity likely contracted in the first quarter."
Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for forecaster Global Insight in Lexington, Mass., was equally blunt.
"The debate should no longer be about whether there is or is not a recession, only about how deep it will be," he told investors. "Private employment has now fallen for three months in a row, according to today's new data, with the steepest decline in February."
Billionaire investor Warren Buffet, considered the richest man in the world, said Monday that the U.S. economy already was in what would be a short recession.
A textbook definition of recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. Recessions are dated after the fact by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which defines recession as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy and lasting over several months.
Friday's dismal jobs report makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will slash interest rates again at its March 18 meeting in a bid to prevent or shorten a recession.
Wall Street, through the futures market, is expecting a three-quarters of a percentage point cut, which would bring the benchmark federal funds rate to 2.25 percent. Banks would follow suit by lowering the prime rate to 5.25 percent.
Stocks dipped yet again Friday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 146.70 points to close at 11,893.69. The S&P 500 was off 10.97 points to close at 1293.37, while the NASAQ was down 8.01 points to 2212.49.
The job losses aren't yet in the hundreds of thousands associated with deep economic turndowns. But job losses in consecutive months seldom happen outside of recessions. The last such consecutive months of falling employment were in May and June 2003, when the economy wasn't in recession.
Jobs also are a lagging indicator, providing a snapshot of past business activity. And since recessions aren't called until the economy has been in one for months, the dour job numbers clearly point to an economy that already was slowing drastically when growth braked to just 0.6 percent during the final three months of 2007.
Problems in housing dominate headlines, but until late last year the broader economy was in strong shape. Deepening problems in financial markets, however, have dried up lending for businesses and consumers.
And consumers have pulled back since they've seen their wealth evaporate as the stock market and home prices drop like stones. The RBC Cash Index, a survey of consumer attitudes and spending by household, fell to 33.1 percent in its March reading, announced Friday. That's the lowest since the index was created in 2002.
Friday's jobs report gives a snapshot of which sectors of the economy are struggling. Private-sector employment fell by 101,000 jobs, and the overall picture would have been far worse if not for robust hiring by federal, state and local governments.
Manufacturing led the employment losers, shedding 52,000 jobs in February and almost 300,000 jobs over the past 12 months. Construction employment fell by 39,000 posts and retail employment dipped by 34,000 positions.
Among industries that were hiring, government employment was up by 38,000 jobs, the health-care industry added 36,000 posts and the leisure and travel sector added 21,000 payroll jobs.
The nation's unemployment rate dipped a tenth of a percent to 4.8 percent as more workers exited the economy. It's measured independently of the employment report.
In separate news Friday, the Federal Reserve announced that it would make $100 billion in short-term loans available through two auctions this month. This Trade Auction Facility is a new creation by the Fed that allows banks to bid on short-term loans that have low interest rates. The Fed had been offering $60 billion a month but has upped that to $100 billion to keep banks offering short-term credit to corporations.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/29729.html
THE ECONOMY & Other Issues
FEBRUARY SEES UNEXPECTED NATIONAL JOB LOSS OF 63,000:
This morning the Labor Department announced that the United States had lost 63,000 jobs in February, "the biggest drop since March 2003" and a follow-up to January's 22,000-job loss. Though the jobless rate fell slightly to 4.8 percent, it "reflect[ed] a shrinking labor force as some people gave up looking for work." "We're in a recession. I don't think there is any doubt about it at this point," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight Inc. The news followed reports yesterday that U.S. home foreclosures rose to record highs in the forth quarter, and that homeowner equity reached its lowest point since 1945. Currently, 50 percent of Americans are worried about maintaining their standard of living. Paul Krugman commented that "it's a very good guess that we will eventually be told that the second recession of the Bush administration began in December 2007 or January 2008."
NATIONAL SECURITY -- CANADA REJECTS EVIDENCE CIA OBTAINED THROUGH WATERBOARDING: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) "quietly withdrew statements by alleged Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah from public papers outlining the case against two alleged terror 'sleeper' operatives in Ottawa and Montreal" because the information gleaned from Zubaydah was a result of him being waterboarded. Newsweek reports that a dossier filed for one of the suspects once referred to information gathered by the CIA from Zubaydah linking the suspect to al Qaeda operations. However, a revised version of the dossier omits the CIA evidence and instead relies on public documents to make the link -- "the latest sign of potential international fallout from the CIA's recent confirmation that it waterboarded a handful of high-profile Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003." A CSIS spokesman said the spy agency's director "has stated publicly that torture is morally repugnant and not particularly reliable. CSIS does not knowingly use information which has been obtained through torture."
IRAQ -- PERINO: 'DON'T KNOW' IF WHITE HOUSE WILL SEEK CONGRESS' APPROVAL FOR PERMANENT OCCUPATION: Earlier this week, State Dept. Coordinator for Iraq David Satterfield refused to say whether it was "a constitutional requirement" for the administration to "consult with Congress" on a long-term agreement with Iraq. Yesterday morning on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino echoed Satterfield, saying that "we don't know" whether Congress has any constitutional role in authorizing such treating. In reality, the administration does know it will bypass Congress. In a follow-up letter to Satterfield's testimony obtained by The Progress Report, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Bergner said the President does have "constitutional authority" to "continue combat operations" in Iraq without Congress's authorization. As justification, Bergner cited the 2002 authorization of force against Saddam Hussein and the resolution passed after 9/11. In defending the executive agreement, Perino cited "the long-term relationship we have with countries Japan and Germany and South Korea." Of course, these "strategic framework agreements" were approved by Congress first, as Oona Hathway of Yale Law School noted.
A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is scheduled to be completed this month. But intelligence officials "have not decided whether to make its key judgments public" and "lean toward a return to the traditional practice of keeping such documents secret."
"A House committee will question three Wall Street executives later today over compensation awards reaching hundreds of millions of dollars while shareholders bear the brunt of billions in writedowns from subprime mortgages."
Alleging that the White House "made apparently false and misleading statements in court about the White House e-mail controversy," CREW asked a federal judge yesterday "to demand an explanation" about "testimony at a congressional hearing last week" that is inconsistent with "what the White House told a federal court in January."
In a new book, former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias says that a former protege of President Bush told him that he was fired for political reasons. "Iglesias recalls Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton telling him shortly after he was ousted. 'If I were you, I'd just go quietly.'"
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) recently introduced an earmark moratorium bill, but House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) says Kingston "privately told him he was in favor of earmarks." "You know, David, I am really for earmarks," Obey said Kingston told him. Kingston confirmed the conversation.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signaled yesterday "that she is ready to fall back on the strategy of 'ping-ponging' alternatives" on the FISA bill between the House and the Senate. The two chambers have been unable to reach consensus on immunity for telecommunications companies.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "plans to leave Baghdad as early as January," and retire from the foreign service, “not long after the top military commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, is expected to rotate out of Iraq."
And finally: On his recent visit to the White House, John McCain ditched an opportunity to enjoy fine gourmet and instead ate a hot dog. "[President Bush] said he was having a hot dog, so I had a hot dog," McCain said. The LA Times explains that a typical day for McCain "includes doughnuts in the morning, followed by an afternoon Coke-and-candy-bar snack."
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to beef up the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which "oversees the safety of consumer products after a spate of recalls involving imported products."
CALIFORNIA: State senator sponsors "package of bills intended to address California's most pressing firefighting and wildfire-protection needs."
ALABAMA: Birmingham approves "a $3.5 million plan to provide schoolchildren with 15,000 computers produced by the non-profit One Laptop Per Child Foundation."
THINK PROGRESS: White House Press Secretary Dana Perino attacks Congress on wiretapping using a factually inaccurate slide.
ON THE PLANE: Reporters are no longer interested in traveling with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
SWAMPLAND: Viktor Bout, the notorious arms trafficker arrested yesterday, had received U.S. taxpayer money for logistics in Iraq.
"We don't know if this is going to result in something that Congress will need to approve or not."
-- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 3/6/08, on a long term Iraq agreement
VERSUS
DELAHUNT: It's the position of this Administration that they do not need to come before Congress to receive authorization?
SATTERFIELD: That's correct.
-- Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) to Amb. David Satterfield, 3/4/08
www.americanprogressaction.org
This morning the Labor Department announced that the United States had lost 63,000 jobs in February, "the biggest drop since March 2003" and a follow-up to January's 22,000-job loss. Though the jobless rate fell slightly to 4.8 percent, it "reflect[ed] a shrinking labor force as some people gave up looking for work." "We're in a recession. I don't think there is any doubt about it at this point," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight Inc. The news followed reports yesterday that U.S. home foreclosures rose to record highs in the forth quarter, and that homeowner equity reached its lowest point since 1945. Currently, 50 percent of Americans are worried about maintaining their standard of living. Paul Krugman commented that "it's a very good guess that we will eventually be told that the second recession of the Bush administration began in December 2007 or January 2008."
NATIONAL SECURITY -- CANADA REJECTS EVIDENCE CIA OBTAINED THROUGH WATERBOARDING: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) "quietly withdrew statements by alleged Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah from public papers outlining the case against two alleged terror 'sleeper' operatives in Ottawa and Montreal" because the information gleaned from Zubaydah was a result of him being waterboarded. Newsweek reports that a dossier filed for one of the suspects once referred to information gathered by the CIA from Zubaydah linking the suspect to al Qaeda operations. However, a revised version of the dossier omits the CIA evidence and instead relies on public documents to make the link -- "the latest sign of potential international fallout from the CIA's recent confirmation that it waterboarded a handful of high-profile Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003." A CSIS spokesman said the spy agency's director "has stated publicly that torture is morally repugnant and not particularly reliable. CSIS does not knowingly use information which has been obtained through torture."
IRAQ -- PERINO: 'DON'T KNOW' IF WHITE HOUSE WILL SEEK CONGRESS' APPROVAL FOR PERMANENT OCCUPATION: Earlier this week, State Dept. Coordinator for Iraq David Satterfield refused to say whether it was "a constitutional requirement" for the administration to "consult with Congress" on a long-term agreement with Iraq. Yesterday morning on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino echoed Satterfield, saying that "we don't know" whether Congress has any constitutional role in authorizing such treating. In reality, the administration does know it will bypass Congress. In a follow-up letter to Satterfield's testimony obtained by The Progress Report, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey Bergner said the President does have "constitutional authority" to "continue combat operations" in Iraq without Congress's authorization. As justification, Bergner cited the 2002 authorization of force against Saddam Hussein and the resolution passed after 9/11. In defending the executive agreement, Perino cited "the long-term relationship we have with countries Japan and Germany and South Korea." Of course, these "strategic framework agreements" were approved by Congress first, as Oona Hathway of Yale Law School noted.
A new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is scheduled to be completed this month. But intelligence officials "have not decided whether to make its key judgments public" and "lean toward a return to the traditional practice of keeping such documents secret."
"A House committee will question three Wall Street executives later today over compensation awards reaching hundreds of millions of dollars while shareholders bear the brunt of billions in writedowns from subprime mortgages."
Alleging that the White House "made apparently false and misleading statements in court about the White House e-mail controversy," CREW asked a federal judge yesterday "to demand an explanation" about "testimony at a congressional hearing last week" that is inconsistent with "what the White House told a federal court in January."
In a new book, former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias says that a former protege of President Bush told him that he was fired for political reasons. "Iglesias recalls Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton telling him shortly after he was ousted. 'If I were you, I'd just go quietly.'"
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) recently introduced an earmark moratorium bill, but House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) says Kingston "privately told him he was in favor of earmarks." "You know, David, I am really for earmarks," Obey said Kingston told him. Kingston confirmed the conversation.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signaled yesterday "that she is ready to fall back on the strategy of 'ping-ponging' alternatives" on the FISA bill between the House and the Senate. The two chambers have been unable to reach consensus on immunity for telecommunications companies.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "plans to leave Baghdad as early as January," and retire from the foreign service, “not long after the top military commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, is expected to rotate out of Iraq."
And finally: On his recent visit to the White House, John McCain ditched an opportunity to enjoy fine gourmet and instead ate a hot dog. "[President Bush] said he was having a hot dog, so I had a hot dog," McCain said. The LA Times explains that a typical day for McCain "includes doughnuts in the morning, followed by an afternoon Coke-and-candy-bar snack."
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to beef up the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which "oversees the safety of consumer products after a spate of recalls involving imported products."
CALIFORNIA: State senator sponsors "package of bills intended to address California's most pressing firefighting and wildfire-protection needs."
ALABAMA: Birmingham approves "a $3.5 million plan to provide schoolchildren with 15,000 computers produced by the non-profit One Laptop Per Child Foundation."
THINK PROGRESS: White House Press Secretary Dana Perino attacks Congress on wiretapping using a factually inaccurate slide.
ON THE PLANE: Reporters are no longer interested in traveling with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
SWAMPLAND: Viktor Bout, the notorious arms trafficker arrested yesterday, had received U.S. taxpayer money for logistics in Iraq.
"We don't know if this is going to result in something that Congress will need to approve or not."
-- White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 3/6/08, on a long term Iraq agreement
VERSUS
DELAHUNT: It's the position of this Administration that they do not need to come before Congress to receive authorization?
SATTERFIELD: That's correct.
-- Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) to Amb. David Satterfield, 3/4/08
www.americanprogressaction.org
IMMIGRATION
Political Fences
As the presidential election season gets under way, the issue of immigration is once again heating up -- as are right-wing efforts. This past week, conservative senators introduced a package of punitive immigration measures, an effort to "put pressure on the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to take a tougher stance on immigration." Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has already abandoned his efforts at comprehensive immigration reform in order to appease this constituency. Whoever the next president will be, he or she will also inherit the Bush administration's "fence to nowhere" -- a barrier between the U.S. and Mexico meant to appease the right wing -- and a horribly mismanaged federal immigration agency notorious for politically-motivated raids and an inexcusable backlog in citizenship applications.
RIGHT-WING POSTURING: On Wednesday, a dozen conservative senators introduced 15 hard-right immigration measures, including ones that would require jail time for undocumented immigrants "caught crossing the border, make it harder for them to open bank accounts and compel them to communicate in English when dealing with federal agencies." This package of bills poses a challenge for McCain, who previously led the push for comprehensive immigration reform, but has since switched positions. "I think they're basically handcuffing the Republicans' presidential nominee," said William Frey of the Brookings Institution. "He's either going to have to denounce these people, which he's not likely to do, or it's going to keep him from moving a little bit toward the center." In fact, McCain is likely to choose a third path: skip the votes entirely. Earlier this week, The Hill reported that McCain plans to "steer far away from his day job" in order to avoid "politically sensitive votes." Campaign adviser Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) confirmed that voting in the Senate is not "a high priority" for McCain, who has already missed at least 57 percent of the votes this session.
BORDERING ON A VIRTUAL DISASTER: One of the right wing's favorite "solutions" to undocumented immigration is the border fence between the United States and Mexico. On March 14, 2007, McCain lamented that undocumented immigrants were able to cross into Arizona because his state did not "have the fences and the barriers that they have in California and Texas." But both the actual and "virtual" border fences are a mess. In October 2006, Bush authorized the construction of a 700-mile fence at the U.S.-Mexico border. Now, however, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) construction plans are facing opposition from Texans who object to the fence cutting through their property. U.S. attorneys acting on behalf of the Bush administration have resorted to filing lawsuits against resisting landowners. Conveniently, the border fence in one small town would "abruptly end" at the property owned by Dallas billionaire Ray L. Hunt, who was a Bush-Cheney campaign "Pioneer" in 2000 and "donated $35 million to Southern Methodist University to help build Bush's presidential library." Meanwhile, the virtual fence -- a "sophisticated mix of radar, satellites, sensors and computers" -- is plagued by cost overruns and delays. According to the Arizona Republic, "The $20 million project was such a shambles that the government gave Boeing another $65 million in December to fix the glitches." The first phase was supposed be completed by the end of 2008, but will now take another three years. Last month, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff declared this project a success.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND INSECURITY: Yesterday, Bush and top DHS officials celebrated the five-year anniversary of the agency. The mismanagement of the border fence, however, is just the tip of the agency's abysmal record on immigration and emblematic of larger problems. (Of course, none of these details were mentioned in yesterday's festivities.) Center for American Progress Senior Fellow P.J. Crowley called the failure of the virtual fence "inevitable," the result of "an unrealistic and heavily politicized policy imperative...and poor management by the federal government's least experienced bureaucracy." In the past five years, the number of undocumented immigrants has risen, as have the number of deportations and arrests at work sites. After Tam Tran, the daughter of Vietnamese immigrants, was featured in an October 2007 USA Today article and testified before a House committee on immigration, federal officers forcibly arrested her family in the middle of the night. Tran's family was detained on a "years-old deportation order," even though they have been in regular communication with immigration officials for almost 20 years since arriving in the United States. This week at a House hearing, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) noted that children at immigrant detention facilities have reportedly been "put in cells alone for hours, awakened in the middle of the night with flashlights in their faces and threatened with being permanently separated from their parents." Chertoff, however, defended these raids and detentions. Despite anticipating a significant uptick in applications, DHS officials did nothing to increase staffing to meet the demand. Immigrants are also now suing DHS after being forced to wait for years with little or no information about the status of their citizenship applications.
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Benjamin
www.americanprogressaction.org
As the presidential election season gets under way, the issue of immigration is once again heating up -- as are right-wing efforts. This past week, conservative senators introduced a package of punitive immigration measures, an effort to "put pressure on the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to take a tougher stance on immigration." Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has already abandoned his efforts at comprehensive immigration reform in order to appease this constituency. Whoever the next president will be, he or she will also inherit the Bush administration's "fence to nowhere" -- a barrier between the U.S. and Mexico meant to appease the right wing -- and a horribly mismanaged federal immigration agency notorious for politically-motivated raids and an inexcusable backlog in citizenship applications.
RIGHT-WING POSTURING: On Wednesday, a dozen conservative senators introduced 15 hard-right immigration measures, including ones that would require jail time for undocumented immigrants "caught crossing the border, make it harder for them to open bank accounts and compel them to communicate in English when dealing with federal agencies." This package of bills poses a challenge for McCain, who previously led the push for comprehensive immigration reform, but has since switched positions. "I think they're basically handcuffing the Republicans' presidential nominee," said William Frey of the Brookings Institution. "He's either going to have to denounce these people, which he's not likely to do, or it's going to keep him from moving a little bit toward the center." In fact, McCain is likely to choose a third path: skip the votes entirely. Earlier this week, The Hill reported that McCain plans to "steer far away from his day job" in order to avoid "politically sensitive votes." Campaign adviser Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) confirmed that voting in the Senate is not "a high priority" for McCain, who has already missed at least 57 percent of the votes this session.
BORDERING ON A VIRTUAL DISASTER: One of the right wing's favorite "solutions" to undocumented immigration is the border fence between the United States and Mexico. On March 14, 2007, McCain lamented that undocumented immigrants were able to cross into Arizona because his state did not "have the fences and the barriers that they have in California and Texas." But both the actual and "virtual" border fences are a mess. In October 2006, Bush authorized the construction of a 700-mile fence at the U.S.-Mexico border. Now, however, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) construction plans are facing opposition from Texans who object to the fence cutting through their property. U.S. attorneys acting on behalf of the Bush administration have resorted to filing lawsuits against resisting landowners. Conveniently, the border fence in one small town would "abruptly end" at the property owned by Dallas billionaire Ray L. Hunt, who was a Bush-Cheney campaign "Pioneer" in 2000 and "donated $35 million to Southern Methodist University to help build Bush's presidential library." Meanwhile, the virtual fence -- a "sophisticated mix of radar, satellites, sensors and computers" -- is plagued by cost overruns and delays. According to the Arizona Republic, "The $20 million project was such a shambles that the government gave Boeing another $65 million in December to fix the glitches." The first phase was supposed be completed by the end of 2008, but will now take another three years. Last month, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff declared this project a success.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND INSECURITY: Yesterday, Bush and top DHS officials celebrated the five-year anniversary of the agency. The mismanagement of the border fence, however, is just the tip of the agency's abysmal record on immigration and emblematic of larger problems. (Of course, none of these details were mentioned in yesterday's festivities.) Center for American Progress Senior Fellow P.J. Crowley called the failure of the virtual fence "inevitable," the result of "an unrealistic and heavily politicized policy imperative...and poor management by the federal government's least experienced bureaucracy." In the past five years, the number of undocumented immigrants has risen, as have the number of deportations and arrests at work sites. After Tam Tran, the daughter of Vietnamese immigrants, was featured in an October 2007 USA Today article and testified before a House committee on immigration, federal officers forcibly arrested her family in the middle of the night. Tran's family was detained on a "years-old deportation order," even though they have been in regular communication with immigration officials for almost 20 years since arriving in the United States. This week at a House hearing, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) noted that children at immigrant detention facilities have reportedly been "put in cells alone for hours, awakened in the middle of the night with flashlights in their faces and threatened with being permanently separated from their parents." Chertoff, however, defended these raids and detentions. Despite anticipating a significant uptick in applications, DHS officials did nothing to increase staffing to meet the demand. Immigrants are also now suing DHS after being forced to wait for years with little or no information about the status of their citizenship applications.
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Benjamin
www.americanprogressaction.org
New National Study: The EPI report
New National Study Shows Teacher Pay Falling Further Behind
The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, today released "The Teaching Penalty: Teacher Pay Losing Ground," which highlights the growing gap in salary growth between teachers and other professions.
On behalf of the American Federation of Teachers, Texas AFT's national affiliate, Executive Vice President Antonia Cortese said this study "is a new addition to the long list of teacher compensation reports reaching the same conclusion: Teachers continue to be vastly underpaid compared with similar workers. This makes recruitment and retention of the best and brightest increasingly difficult, even as the nation recognizes the growing need for high-quality teaching."
As the EPI report's authors put it, "For all the attempts to improve education in recent years, one tactic apparently has not been tried: Raising wages to draw top talent to the vocation of teaching. In fact, according to the EPI study, relative pay for public school teachers has been falling rather dramatically, even when benefits and time off are taken into consideration. The authors note: "In 2006, public school teachers earned 15.1% less than other employees with comparable education credentials and experience--a substantial jump since 1996, when the disadvantage was only 4.3%. Teacher pay has lost ground any way you slice it, they say, whether by education, by gender, or by age.
The EPI report points out that most “merit pay” schemes are destined to fail because they don’t address the issue of a competitive base salary for all teachers. The point couldn't be simpler; salary growth for teachers must be on par with the salary growth in other professions. Unless merit-pay plans also are part of a comprehensive plan to develop and support high-quality teaching, based on agreements negotiated with and approved by the employees affected, they will produce the same dismal results that they have in the past.
Cortese added: "Teachers are the most important in-school influence on student achievement. We can't discuss recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers until we are ready to take a serious look at the very real financial penalty assessed to those who choose a career in the classroom."
The EPI report is available in full on the institute's Web site at http://www.epi.org/books/teaching_penalty/teaching-penalty-full-text.pdf.
For additional information on teacher salary growth compared with other professions, visit the American Federation of Teachers Salary Survey page online: www.aft.org/salary.
The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, today released "The Teaching Penalty: Teacher Pay Losing Ground," which highlights the growing gap in salary growth between teachers and other professions.
On behalf of the American Federation of Teachers, Texas AFT's national affiliate, Executive Vice President Antonia Cortese said this study "is a new addition to the long list of teacher compensation reports reaching the same conclusion: Teachers continue to be vastly underpaid compared with similar workers. This makes recruitment and retention of the best and brightest increasingly difficult, even as the nation recognizes the growing need for high-quality teaching."
As the EPI report's authors put it, "For all the attempts to improve education in recent years, one tactic apparently has not been tried: Raising wages to draw top talent to the vocation of teaching. In fact, according to the EPI study, relative pay for public school teachers has been falling rather dramatically, even when benefits and time off are taken into consideration. The authors note: "In 2006, public school teachers earned 15.1% less than other employees with comparable education credentials and experience--a substantial jump since 1996, when the disadvantage was only 4.3%. Teacher pay has lost ground any way you slice it, they say, whether by education, by gender, or by age.
The EPI report points out that most “merit pay” schemes are destined to fail because they don’t address the issue of a competitive base salary for all teachers. The point couldn't be simpler; salary growth for teachers must be on par with the salary growth in other professions. Unless merit-pay plans also are part of a comprehensive plan to develop and support high-quality teaching, based on agreements negotiated with and approved by the employees affected, they will produce the same dismal results that they have in the past.
Cortese added: "Teachers are the most important in-school influence on student achievement. We can't discuss recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers until we are ready to take a serious look at the very real financial penalty assessed to those who choose a career in the classroom."
The EPI report is available in full on the institute's Web site at http://www.epi.org/books/teaching_penalty/teaching-penalty-full-text.pdf.
For additional information on teacher salary growth compared with other professions, visit the American Federation of Teachers Salary Survey page online: www.aft.org/salary.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Setting the Record Straight
First off, let me set the record straight, I do not believe my opponent, Kenny Marchant to be anything other than a good man with a good family, and have a real sense of commitment and dedication to public service. I differ with him on issues and direction on where to take this country. I do not and will not engage in personal attacks over personal issues and respect his position as a member of Congress.
I do believe that he has represented an ideology over his community in respect to responsible government spending, Congressional oversight, and in maintaining needed medical programs for our citizens of the 24Th District. I think we can do better.
I will point out those differences and issues in future discussions, and present my ideas for the future, but for now, I look forward to determining and listening to the needs of the 24Th Congressional District. A District for which, I am proud to be the Democratic Party Nominee for US Congress.
Sincerely,
Tom Love
www.TomLoveforTexas.com
I do believe that he has represented an ideology over his community in respect to responsible government spending, Congressional oversight, and in maintaining needed medical programs for our citizens of the 24Th District. I think we can do better.
I will point out those differences and issues in future discussions, and present my ideas for the future, but for now, I look forward to determining and listening to the needs of the 24Th Congressional District. A District for which, I am proud to be the Democratic Party Nominee for US Congress.
Sincerely,
Tom Love
www.TomLoveforTexas.com
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The $2 Trillion Nightmare
By BOB HERBERT
We’ve been hearing a lot about “Saturday Night Live” and the fun it has been having with the presidential race. But hardly a whisper has been heard about a Congressional hearing in Washington last week on a topic that could have been drawn, in all its tragic monstrosity, from the theater of the absurd.
The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more. There has been very little in the way of public conversation, even in the presidential campaigns, about the consequences of these costs, which are like a cancer inside the American economy.
On Thursday, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, conducted a public examination of the costs of the war. The witnesses included the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (who believes the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion), and Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.
Both men talked about large opportunities lost because of the money poured into the war. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”
Mr. Hormats mentioned Social Security and Medicare, saying that both could have been put “on a more sustainable basis.” And he cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.
What we’re getting instead is the stuff of nightmares. Mr. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia, has been working with a colleague at Harvard, Linda Bilmes, to document, among other things, some of the less obvious costs of the war. These include the obligation to provide health care and disability benefits for returning veterans. Those costs will be with us for decades.
Mr. Stiglitz noted that nearly 40 percent of the 700,000 troops from the first gulf war, which lasted just a month, have become eligible for disability benefits. The current war is approaching five years in duration.
“Imagine then,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “what a war — that will almost surely involve more than 2 million troops and will almost surely last more than six or seven years — will cost. Already we are seeing large numbers of returning veterans showing up at V.A. hospitals for treatment, large numbers applying for disability and large numbers with severe psychological problems.”
The Bush administration has tried its best to conceal the horrendous costs of the war. It has bypassed the normal budgetary process, financing the war almost entirely through “emergency” appropriations that get far less scrutiny.
Even the most basic wartime information is difficult to come by. Mr. Stiglitz, who has written a new book with Ms. Bilmes called “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” said they had to go to veterans’ groups, who in turn had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act, just to find out how many Americans had been injured in Iraq.
Mr. Stiglitz and Mr. Hormats both addressed the foolhardiness of waging war at the same time that the government is cutting taxes and sharply increasing non-war-related expenditures.
Mr. Hormats told the committee:
“Normally, when America goes to war, nonessential spending programs are reduced to make room in the budget for the higher costs of the war. Individual programs that benefit specific constituencies are sacrificed for the common good ... And taxes have never been cut during a major American war. For example, President Eisenhower adamantly resisted pressure from Senate Republicans for a tax cut during the Korean War.”
Said Mr. Stiglitz: “Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.”
Some former presidents — Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower — were quoted at the hearing on the need for accountability and shared sacrifice during wartime. But this is the 21st century. That ancient rhetoric can hardly be expected to compete for media attention, even in a time of war, with the giddy fun of S.N.L.
It’s a new era.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04herbert.html?ei=5087&em=&en=85633a4996272226&ex=1204866000&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print
We’ve been hearing a lot about “Saturday Night Live” and the fun it has been having with the presidential race. But hardly a whisper has been heard about a Congressional hearing in Washington last week on a topic that could have been drawn, in all its tragic monstrosity, from the theater of the absurd.
The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more. There has been very little in the way of public conversation, even in the presidential campaigns, about the consequences of these costs, which are like a cancer inside the American economy.
On Thursday, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, conducted a public examination of the costs of the war. The witnesses included the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (who believes the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion), and Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.
Both men talked about large opportunities lost because of the money poured into the war. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”
Mr. Hormats mentioned Social Security and Medicare, saying that both could have been put “on a more sustainable basis.” And he cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.
What we’re getting instead is the stuff of nightmares. Mr. Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia, has been working with a colleague at Harvard, Linda Bilmes, to document, among other things, some of the less obvious costs of the war. These include the obligation to provide health care and disability benefits for returning veterans. Those costs will be with us for decades.
Mr. Stiglitz noted that nearly 40 percent of the 700,000 troops from the first gulf war, which lasted just a month, have become eligible for disability benefits. The current war is approaching five years in duration.
“Imagine then,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “what a war — that will almost surely involve more than 2 million troops and will almost surely last more than six or seven years — will cost. Already we are seeing large numbers of returning veterans showing up at V.A. hospitals for treatment, large numbers applying for disability and large numbers with severe psychological problems.”
The Bush administration has tried its best to conceal the horrendous costs of the war. It has bypassed the normal budgetary process, financing the war almost entirely through “emergency” appropriations that get far less scrutiny.
Even the most basic wartime information is difficult to come by. Mr. Stiglitz, who has written a new book with Ms. Bilmes called “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” said they had to go to veterans’ groups, who in turn had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act, just to find out how many Americans had been injured in Iraq.
Mr. Stiglitz and Mr. Hormats both addressed the foolhardiness of waging war at the same time that the government is cutting taxes and sharply increasing non-war-related expenditures.
Mr. Hormats told the committee:
“Normally, when America goes to war, nonessential spending programs are reduced to make room in the budget for the higher costs of the war. Individual programs that benefit specific constituencies are sacrificed for the common good ... And taxes have never been cut during a major American war. For example, President Eisenhower adamantly resisted pressure from Senate Republicans for a tax cut during the Korean War.”
Said Mr. Stiglitz: “Because the administration actually cut taxes as we went to war, when we were already running huge deficits, this war has, effectively, been entirely financed by deficits. The national debt has increased by some $2.5 trillion since the beginning of the war, and of this, almost $1 trillion is due directly to the war itself ... By 2017, we estimate that the national debt will have increased, just because of the war, by some $2 trillion.”
Some former presidents — Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower — were quoted at the hearing on the need for accountability and shared sacrifice during wartime. But this is the 21st century. That ancient rhetoric can hardly be expected to compete for media attention, even in a time of war, with the giddy fun of S.N.L.
It’s a new era.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/opinion/04herbert.html?ei=5087&em=&en=85633a4996272226&ex=1204866000&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print
A New Approach to Trade
Letters to the Editor
washingtonpost.com
Monday, March 3, 2008; Page A16
Steven Pearlstein, who criticized Wall Street in his column "Mobilization for Globalization" [Business, Feb. 27], may be surprised that the 20 leading Wall Street chief executives who comprise the Financial Services Forum agree with his call for a more serious debate about globalization in Washington. In fact we recently commissioned a study ("Succeeding in the Global Economy: A New Policy Agenda for the American Worker") aimed at encouraging a new approach to trade that embraces the benefits of open markets while doing more to help workers.
A meaningful approach to the challenges of globalization lies somewhere between the reflexively pro-trade and anti-trade ideological fault lines.
Many workers have legitimate concerns about trade that should not be ignored. However, with export growth accounting for 40 percent of overall economic growth last year, retreating into economic isolationism would do real damage to the U.S. economy -- a serious mistake at a time of slowing economic growth.
ROB NICHOLS
President and Chief Operating Officer
The Financial Services Forum
http://www.financialservicesforum.org/site/c.mtJ2J7MKIsE/b.1529709/
Chevy Chase
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030201759.html?wpisrc=newsletter
washingtonpost.com
Monday, March 3, 2008; Page A16
Steven Pearlstein, who criticized Wall Street in his column "Mobilization for Globalization" [Business, Feb. 27], may be surprised that the 20 leading Wall Street chief executives who comprise the Financial Services Forum agree with his call for a more serious debate about globalization in Washington. In fact we recently commissioned a study ("Succeeding in the Global Economy: A New Policy Agenda for the American Worker") aimed at encouraging a new approach to trade that embraces the benefits of open markets while doing more to help workers.
A meaningful approach to the challenges of globalization lies somewhere between the reflexively pro-trade and anti-trade ideological fault lines.
Many workers have legitimate concerns about trade that should not be ignored. However, with export growth accounting for 40 percent of overall economic growth last year, retreating into economic isolationism would do real damage to the U.S. economy -- a serious mistake at a time of slowing economic growth.
ROB NICHOLS
President and Chief Operating Officer
The Financial Services Forum
http://www.financialservicesforum.org/site/c.mtJ2J7MKIsE/b.1529709/
Chevy Chase
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030201759.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Results from March 4, 2008 Texas Primary Election: Dallas, Tarrant & Denton Counties Reporting
I am on the ticket thanks to good people like you. I am deeply honored.
Thank you!!!
Tom Love
Candidate for US Congress District 24 (Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties)
www.TomLoveforTexas.com
---------------------------
Dallas County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 107 100.00% 4, 762 100.00% 7,882 100.00% 12,883 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For Democratic Party
Tom Love 107 100.00% 8,253 100.00% 10,110 100.00% 24,103 100.00%
Tarrant County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 123 100.00% 5,134 100.00% 7,626 100.00% 12,646 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Democratic Party
Tom Love 163 100.00% 10,060 100.00% 9,203 100.00% 17,619 100.00%
Denton County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 68 100.00% 2,168 100.00% 2,661 100.00% 4,829 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Democratic Party
Tom Love 68 100.00% 3, 921 100.00% 3,472 100.00% 7,393 100.00%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Marchant Total: 3 County Vote: 30,358
Tom Love Total: 3 County Vote: 49,115
Total 3 County vote: 79, 473
Love %=61.8, Marchant %=38.2
www.tomlovefortexas.com
Thank you!!!
Tom Love
Candidate for US Congress District 24 (Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties)
www.TomLoveforTexas.com
---------------------------
Dallas County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 107 100.00% 4, 762 100.00% 7,882 100.00% 12,883 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For Democratic Party
Tom Love 107 100.00% 8,253 100.00% 10,110 100.00% 24,103 100.00%
Tarrant County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 123 100.00% 5,134 100.00% 7,626 100.00% 12,646 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Democratic Party
Tom Love 163 100.00% 10,060 100.00% 9,203 100.00% 17,619 100.00%
Denton County
Candidate Office PCT Reporting Early Vote Election Day Total Election Results
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Republican Party
Kenny E. Marchant 68 100.00% 2,168 100.00% 2,661 100.00% 4,829 100.00%
United States Representative, District 24, Vote For 1 Democratic Party
Tom Love 68 100.00% 3, 921 100.00% 3,472 100.00% 7,393 100.00%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Marchant Total: 3 County Vote: 30,358
Tom Love Total: 3 County Vote: 49,115
Total 3 County vote: 79, 473
Love %=61.8, Marchant %=38.2
www.tomlovefortexas.com
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Safe Nurse to Patient Ratio Resolution
Let it be Resolved that we the members of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s Of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in their fight to:
ESTABLISHING MANDATORY HOSPITAL DIRECT CARE NURSING PRACTICE STANDARDS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE PROTECTIONS TO ASSURE THAT NURSING CARE IS PROVIDED IN THE EXCLUSIVE INTERESTS OF PATIENTS
MANDATING ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE-TO-PATIENT STAFFING RATIOS BY LICENSED HOSPTIAL FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR COMPETENT,SAFE AND THERAPEUTIC NURSING CARE AND FOR RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF QUALIFIED DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSES—
RECOGNIZING PROFESSIONAL DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE DUTY AND RIGHT OF PATIENT ADVOCACY—
PROVIDING EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION FOR REPORTING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE CONDITIONS AND FOR REFUSING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE ASSIGNMENTS.
Let It Be So Resolved that we Members of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in their Fight to Pass:
Texas Hospital Patient Protection Act Of 2009
Let It Be So Resolved that we the Members Of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in asking our Elected State Legislators in Support of these Ratios:
Intensive/Critical Care 1:2;
Neonatal Intensive Care 1:2;
Operating Room 1:1;
Conscious sedation 1:1;
Post-anesthesia Recovery 1:2;
Labor and Delivery 1:1;
Ante partum 1:3;
New Born Nursery 1:2;
Postpartum couplets 1:3;
Postpartum women only 1:4;
Pediatrics 1:3;
Emergency Room 1:4;
ICU patients in the ER 1:2;
Trauma patients in the ER 1:1;
Step Down & Telemetry 1:3;
Medical/Surgical 1:4;
Other Specialty Care 1:4;
Psychiatric 1:4;
Rehabilitation Unit & Skilled Nursing Facility 1:5
__._ Dear Fellow Democrats,
I urge you and remind you to go to vote and to go
your precinct convention. I would also like you to
take this resolution I have prepared on Safe Nurse to
Patient Ratios in our hospitals to make our Hospitals
safer.
Thank you for your support and let’s turn the votes
out.
In Solidarity
Richard Stephens
http://www.calnurses.org/
ESTABLISHING MANDATORY HOSPITAL DIRECT CARE NURSING PRACTICE STANDARDS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE PROTECTIONS TO ASSURE THAT NURSING CARE IS PROVIDED IN THE EXCLUSIVE INTERESTS OF PATIENTS
MANDATING ADOPTION OF MINIMUM DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE-TO-PATIENT STAFFING RATIOS BY LICENSED HOSPTIAL FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR COMPETENT,SAFE AND THERAPEUTIC NURSING CARE AND FOR RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF QUALIFIED DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSES—
RECOGNIZING PROFESSIONAL DIRECT CARE REGISTERED NURSE DUTY AND RIGHT OF PATIENT ADVOCACY—
PROVIDING EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION FOR REPORTING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE CONDITIONS AND FOR REFUSING UNSAFE PATIENT CARE ASSIGNMENTS.
Let It Be So Resolved that we Members of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in their Fight to Pass:
Texas Hospital Patient Protection Act Of 2009
Let It Be So Resolved that we the Members Of the Democratic Party Stand with the Bedside RN’s of Texas and The National Nurses Organizing Committee in asking our Elected State Legislators in Support of these Ratios:
The minimum direct care registered nurse-to-patient-ratios are;
Intensive/Critical Care 1:2;
Neonatal Intensive Care 1:2;
Operating Room 1:1;
Conscious sedation 1:1;
Post-anesthesia Recovery 1:2;
Labor and Delivery 1:1;
Ante partum 1:3;
New Born Nursery 1:2;
Postpartum couplets 1:3;
Postpartum women only 1:4;
Pediatrics 1:3;
Emergency Room 1:4;
ICU patients in the ER 1:2;
Trauma patients in the ER 1:1;
Step Down & Telemetry 1:3;
Medical/Surgical 1:4;
Other Specialty Care 1:4;
Psychiatric 1:4;
Rehabilitation Unit & Skilled Nursing Facility 1:5
__._ Dear Fellow Democrats,
I urge you and remind you to go to vote and to go
your precinct convention. I would also like you to
take this resolution I have prepared on Safe Nurse to
Patient Ratios in our hospitals to make our Hospitals
safer.
Thank you for your support and let’s turn the votes
out.
In Solidarity
Richard Stephens
http://www.calnurses.org/
Saturday, March 1, 2008
U.S.-Europe Team Beats Out Boeing on Big Contract
By LESLIE WAYNE
WASHINGTON — The Air Force, in a stunning upset against the Boeing Company, awarded a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers on Friday to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus, putting a critical military contract partly into the hands of a foreign company.
The contract, one of the largest at the Pentagon, is initially valued at $40 billion but has the potential to grow to $100 billion. It is also a sign of the growing influence of foreign suppliers within the Pentagon and breaks a relationship that has lasted decades with Boeing, which had built the bulk of the existing tanker fleet and had fought hard to land the new contract.
Under the contract, Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company would build a fleet of 179 planes, based on the existing Airbus 330, to provide in-air refueling to military aircraft, from fighter jets to cargo planes. It gives a huge lift to Airbus, whose commercial aviation program has suffered a number of setbacks in recent years. While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant near Mobile, Ala., parts would come from suppliers across the globe.
At a news conference, Air Force officials said that the creation of domestic jobs was not a factor in the decision. In response to questions about possible negative reaction to the deal in Congress, Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said, “This will be an American tanker, flown by American airmen with an American flag on its tail and, every day, it will be saving American lives.”
Reaction from some in Congress, however, was swift.
“We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military,” the Washington State delegation said in a joint statement. Boeing planes are assembled outside of Seattle. “This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform,” the statement added.
For its part, Boeing, which had been considered the strong favorite to retain the contract, said it was “very disappointed” in the outcome. But it did not say whether it would file a formal protest — something that Gen. T. Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the Air Force, has said that he hoped the losing bidder would not do because it would only further delay the tanker replacement program.
In its statement, Boeing said, “We believe that we offered the Air Force the best value and lowest-risk tanker for its mission.” The company added that only after a debriefing by the Pentagon would the company “make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and the nation.”
A Boeing victory was considered so certain that many Wall Street analysts had already factored the contract into their economic forecasts for the company. One senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, sent out a press release prematurely praising Boeing for its victory.
“This isn’t an upset,” said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research group. “It’s an earthquake.”
The Air Force decision is also a surprise ending to a protracted contracting process that went on for nearly a decade and became mired in scandal and international politics.
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, scuttled an earlier attempt by the Air Force to award the contract to Boeing, opening the door for the Northrop-Airbus bid.
Senator McCain’s campaign spokeswoman referred calls to his Senate office, which could not be reached for comment.
Representative Norm Dicks, a member of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and a Democrat from Washington State, said he was attending an anticipated victory party at Boeing’s offices in Washington when the mood suddenly darkened.
Mr. Dicks added: “Here we are in the middle of a recession, and we give this to Airbus? That is not going to go down well.”
Ronald D. Sugar, the chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said in a telephone interview that he expected members of Congress would have a “variety of views” depending on whether their districts would be gaining or losing jobs under the deal.
Mr. Sugar said that 60 percent of the content of the new tanker would come from the United States and that it would create 2,000 jobs in Mobile and 25,000 over all in the United States.
“This is more about the capability that we will give to the kids fighting the wars and the cost to the taxpayer,” Mr. Sugar said.
Backing Mr. Sugar’s view was Senator Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican who hailed the decision as “great news for Alabama.”
The Alabama and Mississippi delegations had lobbied hard in Congress to polish the image of Airbus. In Paris, at the annual air shows, Airbus officials and these politicians proudly displayed the proposed European tanker offering and made the argument that if the United States wanted to sell its weapons to European countries, it should also open its doors to foreign suppliers.
In terms of the craft itself, the Airbus 330 is far larger than the 767 that Boeing proposed using. The Air Force said it was attracted by the plane’s larger fuel capacity, its cost and its ability to also carry cargo and passengers.
The deal is the first phase of a multidecade program to replace the aging aerial tanker fleet, which dates to the Kennedy and Eisenhower eras. The fleet, which now numbers about 535 refitted Boeing 707s and DC-10s is one of the largest but oldest fleets of jets in the world.
Replacing these tankers has been the Air Force’s top priority since 1996, when the government first proposed obtaining new planes. The first 179 tankers will be acquired at a pace of about 15 a year. But it is expected that over time, nearly 400 new refueling planes will be needed, which could bring the program’s total cost to $100 billion.
For more than a decade the Air Force’s effort to modernize the fleet has been thwarted by global politics, Washington scandals and an aggressive attack by Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
In the end, a procurement scandal led to the departure of Philip M. Condit, the chief executive of Boeing; the resignation of James G. Roche, the Air Force secretary; and the imprisonment of two Boeing executives, one of whom had worked on the program as a Pentagon acquisition official.
The Air Force, short on cash and wanting to acquire the planes as fast as possible, proposed an arrangement to Congress in late 2001 under which the Pentagon would lease the Boeing 767s in a sole-source contract that would keep Boeing’s aging 767 production line alive.
But just as the Air Force was about to sign that deal, it came under sharp attack from Senator McCain, a former Navy pilot. He denounced the deal as a sweetheart arrangement between Boeing and the Air Force that would shortchange the taxpayer and that was arranged with insufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Soon afterward, it was reported that the Air Force’s No. 2 weapons buyer, Darleen A. Druyun, had been promised jobs for herself, her daughter and son-in-law in return for steering the tanker contract and billions of dollars of other Air Force business to Boeing.
Soon after she joined the company in a $250,000-a-year post, Ms. Druyun and Michael M. Sears, Boeing’s former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty and received prison terms.
The weight of the scandal caused the Boeing deal to collapse in 2004 and opened the door to competition from Boeing’s archrival EADS, which teamed up with Northrop.
Each side spent millions to sharpen its proposal, hire lobbyists and former generals to argue its case and wage extensive advertising efforts in Washington and at military gatherings.
David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01tanker.html?exprod=myyahoo
WASHINGTON — The Air Force, in a stunning upset against the Boeing Company, awarded a $40 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers on Friday to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and the European parent of Airbus, putting a critical military contract partly into the hands of a foreign company.
The contract, one of the largest at the Pentagon, is initially valued at $40 billion but has the potential to grow to $100 billion. It is also a sign of the growing influence of foreign suppliers within the Pentagon and breaks a relationship that has lasted decades with Boeing, which had built the bulk of the existing tanker fleet and had fought hard to land the new contract.
Under the contract, Northrop and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company would build a fleet of 179 planes, based on the existing Airbus 330, to provide in-air refueling to military aircraft, from fighter jets to cargo planes. It gives a huge lift to Airbus, whose commercial aviation program has suffered a number of setbacks in recent years. While final assembly of the craft would take place at an Airbus plant near Mobile, Ala., parts would come from suppliers across the globe.
At a news conference, Air Force officials said that the creation of domestic jobs was not a factor in the decision. In response to questions about possible negative reaction to the deal in Congress, Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, head of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, said, “This will be an American tanker, flown by American airmen with an American flag on its tail and, every day, it will be saving American lives.”
Reaction from some in Congress, however, was swift.
“We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military,” the Washington State delegation said in a joint statement. Boeing planes are assembled outside of Seattle. “This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s men and women in uniform,” the statement added.
For its part, Boeing, which had been considered the strong favorite to retain the contract, said it was “very disappointed” in the outcome. But it did not say whether it would file a formal protest — something that Gen. T. Michael Moseley, chief of staff of the Air Force, has said that he hoped the losing bidder would not do because it would only further delay the tanker replacement program.
In its statement, Boeing said, “We believe that we offered the Air Force the best value and lowest-risk tanker for its mission.” The company added that only after a debriefing by the Pentagon would the company “make a decision concerning our possible options, keeping in mind at all times the impact to the warfighter and the nation.”
A Boeing victory was considered so certain that many Wall Street analysts had already factored the contract into their economic forecasts for the company. One senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, sent out a press release prematurely praising Boeing for its victory.
“This isn’t an upset,” said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research group. “It’s an earthquake.”
The Air Force decision is also a surprise ending to a protracted contracting process that went on for nearly a decade and became mired in scandal and international politics.
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, scuttled an earlier attempt by the Air Force to award the contract to Boeing, opening the door for the Northrop-Airbus bid.
Senator McCain’s campaign spokeswoman referred calls to his Senate office, which could not be reached for comment.
Representative Norm Dicks, a member of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee and a Democrat from Washington State, said he was attending an anticipated victory party at Boeing’s offices in Washington when the mood suddenly darkened.
Mr. Dicks added: “Here we are in the middle of a recession, and we give this to Airbus? That is not going to go down well.”
Ronald D. Sugar, the chief executive of Northrop Grumman, said in a telephone interview that he expected members of Congress would have a “variety of views” depending on whether their districts would be gaining or losing jobs under the deal.
Mr. Sugar said that 60 percent of the content of the new tanker would come from the United States and that it would create 2,000 jobs in Mobile and 25,000 over all in the United States.
“This is more about the capability that we will give to the kids fighting the wars and the cost to the taxpayer,” Mr. Sugar said.
Backing Mr. Sugar’s view was Senator Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican who hailed the decision as “great news for Alabama.”
The Alabama and Mississippi delegations had lobbied hard in Congress to polish the image of Airbus. In Paris, at the annual air shows, Airbus officials and these politicians proudly displayed the proposed European tanker offering and made the argument that if the United States wanted to sell its weapons to European countries, it should also open its doors to foreign suppliers.
In terms of the craft itself, the Airbus 330 is far larger than the 767 that Boeing proposed using. The Air Force said it was attracted by the plane’s larger fuel capacity, its cost and its ability to also carry cargo and passengers.
The deal is the first phase of a multidecade program to replace the aging aerial tanker fleet, which dates to the Kennedy and Eisenhower eras. The fleet, which now numbers about 535 refitted Boeing 707s and DC-10s is one of the largest but oldest fleets of jets in the world.
Replacing these tankers has been the Air Force’s top priority since 1996, when the government first proposed obtaining new planes. The first 179 tankers will be acquired at a pace of about 15 a year. But it is expected that over time, nearly 400 new refueling planes will be needed, which could bring the program’s total cost to $100 billion.
For more than a decade the Air Force’s effort to modernize the fleet has been thwarted by global politics, Washington scandals and an aggressive attack by Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
In the end, a procurement scandal led to the departure of Philip M. Condit, the chief executive of Boeing; the resignation of James G. Roche, the Air Force secretary; and the imprisonment of two Boeing executives, one of whom had worked on the program as a Pentagon acquisition official.
The Air Force, short on cash and wanting to acquire the planes as fast as possible, proposed an arrangement to Congress in late 2001 under which the Pentagon would lease the Boeing 767s in a sole-source contract that would keep Boeing’s aging 767 production line alive.
But just as the Air Force was about to sign that deal, it came under sharp attack from Senator McCain, a former Navy pilot. He denounced the deal as a sweetheart arrangement between Boeing and the Air Force that would shortchange the taxpayer and that was arranged with insufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Soon afterward, it was reported that the Air Force’s No. 2 weapons buyer, Darleen A. Druyun, had been promised jobs for herself, her daughter and son-in-law in return for steering the tanker contract and billions of dollars of other Air Force business to Boeing.
Soon after she joined the company in a $250,000-a-year post, Ms. Druyun and Michael M. Sears, Boeing’s former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty and received prison terms.
The weight of the scandal caused the Boeing deal to collapse in 2004 and opened the door to competition from Boeing’s archrival EADS, which teamed up with Northrop.
Each side spent millions to sharpen its proposal, hire lobbyists and former generals to argue its case and wage extensive advertising efforts in Washington and at military gatherings.
David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01tanker.html?exprod=myyahoo
Sen. Reid to defy Bush on foreclosure rescue plan
Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:11pm EST
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday he planned to defy a threatened White House veto and try to win passage of a bill to curb rising home foreclosures by changing bankruptcy law.
"I have no expectation of reaching any agreement with the White House," said Reid a day after the administration warned the bill would need changes to get President George W. Bush's signature.
"I have tried for seven years" to reach agreements with Bush on a variety of issues, but have repeatedly failed, said Reid, a Nevada Democrat, at a news conference.
"So we are going to do what we think is best for the country," Reid said. "If we get 67 votes (in the 100-member Senate to override a possible Bush veto), that's great."
The Senate could turn to the housing bill in the next few days, but it must first overcome a possible Republican procedural hurdle that would take 60 votes to clear.
"I think we are going to get more than 60 votes," said Reid, whose fellow Democrats control the Senate, 51-49.
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill, which is the latest congressional response to the subprime mortgage crisis that threatens to tip the economy into recession and push many Americans out of their homes.
The measure would let bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt and provide billions of dollars to rehabilitate abandoned properties. The White House said the bill was too costly and an unacceptable bailout for lenders and speculators.
It had been expected to be taken up Tuesday by the Senate, but got pushed back for consideration of an Iraq measure.
Reid said he opposed dropping the controversial provision to modify present bankruptcy law by letting bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt. He said the bill has drawn support from community banks and credit unions.
However, "the big banks, there is nothing we can do to get them to help us," Reid said. "This bankruptcy provision is fair."
In the House of Representatives, another key Democratic lawmaker is crafting a plan to provide about $15 billion to help a million troubled borrowers, an aide said on Wednesday.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, is developing the proposal which would involve the Federal Housing Administration and government purchases of distressed mortgages.
The five-year plan would apply only to owner-occupied homes and exclude investor-owned and second homes.
Frank is also working on another plan to provide as much as $20 billion in grants and loans to buy foreclosed or abandoned homes at or below market value.
(Additional reporting by John Poirier and Kevin Drawbaugh)
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro, editing by Richard Chang)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2744807220080227
Join The Discussion On The Foreclosure Prevention Act
Thanks to years of reckless and abusive lending practices, foreclosure rates around the country are skyrocketing. The nationwide housing crisis threatens many hardworking Americans.
But in the next few days, the Senate will vote on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. If passed, this commonsense solution will allow homeowners who are facing foreclosures to stay in their homes while they repay their debt.
Learn more by joining the discussion on AARP's blog, SHAARPsession.
Right now, many families who are unable to pay their mortgages are being forced out of their homes and into an uncertain future. The Foreclosure Prevention Act will change this, by giving homeowners the ability to work with bankruptcy judges to restructure their mortgages while staying in their homes. It would not let homeowners "off the hook" for paying their full mortgages; it would simply allow them to work with a judge to figure out how to "pay and stay." This will help keep communities stable and revive the slumping economy.
The Senate will be voting as early as Monday on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Join the online discussion today at SHAARPsession – learn more about the the Foreclosure Prevention Act and what other people are saying.
blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/divided_we_fail/
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday he planned to defy a threatened White House veto and try to win passage of a bill to curb rising home foreclosures by changing bankruptcy law.
"I have no expectation of reaching any agreement with the White House," said Reid a day after the administration warned the bill would need changes to get President George W. Bush's signature.
"I have tried for seven years" to reach agreements with Bush on a variety of issues, but have repeatedly failed, said Reid, a Nevada Democrat, at a news conference.
"So we are going to do what we think is best for the country," Reid said. "If we get 67 votes (in the 100-member Senate to override a possible Bush veto), that's great."
The Senate could turn to the housing bill in the next few days, but it must first overcome a possible Republican procedural hurdle that would take 60 votes to clear.
"I think we are going to get more than 60 votes," said Reid, whose fellow Democrats control the Senate, 51-49.
The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the bill, which is the latest congressional response to the subprime mortgage crisis that threatens to tip the economy into recession and push many Americans out of their homes.
The measure would let bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt and provide billions of dollars to rehabilitate abandoned properties. The White House said the bill was too costly and an unacceptable bailout for lenders and speculators.
It had been expected to be taken up Tuesday by the Senate, but got pushed back for consideration of an Iraq measure.
Reid said he opposed dropping the controversial provision to modify present bankruptcy law by letting bankruptcy judges erase some mortgage debt. He said the bill has drawn support from community banks and credit unions.
However, "the big banks, there is nothing we can do to get them to help us," Reid said. "This bankruptcy provision is fair."
In the House of Representatives, another key Democratic lawmaker is crafting a plan to provide about $15 billion to help a million troubled borrowers, an aide said on Wednesday.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, is developing the proposal which would involve the Federal Housing Administration and government purchases of distressed mortgages.
The five-year plan would apply only to owner-occupied homes and exclude investor-owned and second homes.
Frank is also working on another plan to provide as much as $20 billion in grants and loans to buy foreclosed or abandoned homes at or below market value.
(Additional reporting by John Poirier and Kevin Drawbaugh)
(Reporting by Thomas Ferraro, editing by Richard Chang)
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2744807220080227
Join The Discussion On The Foreclosure Prevention Act
Thanks to years of reckless and abusive lending practices, foreclosure rates around the country are skyrocketing. The nationwide housing crisis threatens many hardworking Americans.
But in the next few days, the Senate will vote on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. If passed, this commonsense solution will allow homeowners who are facing foreclosures to stay in their homes while they repay their debt.
Learn more by joining the discussion on AARP's blog, SHAARPsession.
Right now, many families who are unable to pay their mortgages are being forced out of their homes and into an uncertain future. The Foreclosure Prevention Act will change this, by giving homeowners the ability to work with bankruptcy judges to restructure their mortgages while staying in their homes. It would not let homeowners "off the hook" for paying their full mortgages; it would simply allow them to work with a judge to figure out how to "pay and stay." This will help keep communities stable and revive the slumping economy.
The Senate will be voting as early as Monday on the Foreclosure Prevention Act. Join the online discussion today at SHAARPsession – learn more about the the Foreclosure Prevention Act and what other people are saying.
blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/divided_we_fail/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)