Political News — June & July 2006

The Right Slant: reporting of Ken Lay & Enron reviewed

Is the press slanted towards big business? The very existence in the past of a law supported by court rulings to protect the public from such slant would seem to answer that question, and that answer was reinforced by its dismantling by the Republicans under Reagan and after. Of the many ways to effect opinion, the most common is the selection of what is carried. For example the story about Enron goes to the Whitehouse and Bush who met repeatedly with Ken Lay. However, upon his conviction, this story was only the 10th most covered news item—jk.

In These Times covers this example of biased news coverage at www.inthesetimes.com, May 26, 2006, by Susan J. Douglas, Professor of Communication at the University of Michigan... If Kenneth Lay was black (and, say, a former athlete or fading pop star) and Jeffrey Skilling was the has-been lead of a ’70s detective show (or a domestic diva), might the Enron trial be getting more front and center coverage? After all, this was supposed to be the trial about the corporate corruptions of the late 20th and early 21st centuries—the case that dramatized the ongoing and urgent need for corporate oversight and reform. Yet, despite reports that the trial’s Houston courthouse is surrounded by media, it has received virtually no coverage. While lacking sex and murder, the case has a simple and dramatic story line: A couple of very greedy guys became obscenely rich while allegedly bilking their workers and stockholders out of millions, including, and especially, their pensions. So why is this narrative a flatliner? The trial is in federal court—it cannot be televised. But since when has this stopped the networks from sending in their SWAT teams of sketch artists? That didn’t stop the incessant coverage of Martha Stewart’s trial, or Scott Peterson’s, or Michael Jackson’s—for Jackson’s, the media hired actors in costume to perform what happened. Possibly because the collapse of Enron happened late in 2001, which now seems a lifetime ago in the 24-7 news cycle, news directors have deemed the Enron trial not newsworthy. Or, more likely, it’s because Lay and Skilling are white male executives who also happen not to be celebrities. According to the Tyndall report, during the first week of Kenneth Lay’s long-awaited testimony, the Enron trial was not even among the top 10 stories covered by the three networks that week. Yes, the soaring price of oil and gas was deservedly the top story, but Enron was beat out by the irrelevant hoopla about whether the national anthem should be sung in Spanish—the sixth most-covered story that week. During the course of the trial so far, ABC seems to have offered one brief “tell story” plus one slightly longer story about how Enron continued to pay accountants, lawyers and consultants even as it laid off about 4,500 people. “NBC Nightly News” appears not to have covered it at all, while the “Today Show” has offered only short rip-and-read accounts. Over at CNN, when Skilling was being cross-examined, the “Nancy Grace Show” devoted an entire program—punctuated by three sentences about the Enron trial—to, yes, the Natalee Holloway kidnapping story. Only Fox News covered—and derided—Kenneth Lay’s blaming the news media, and particularly the Wall Street Journal, for Enron’s problems. And where is Lou Dobbs here, the man who, during the Dubai Port scheme brouhaha, aligned himself as the populist defender against corporate interests run amok? Clearly relishing all the coverage he got (including in this column) about his new style of advocacy reporting, Dobbs has become even more rancorous about immigration, losing the brief, refreshing edge he had on corporate irresponsibility. It’s not that the trial has been without drama, particularly during the cross-examinations. Prosecutor John Hueston reportedly shredded Kenneth Lay’s affable mask and his story about why he dumped so much Enron stock in such a short period of time, ridiculing Lay’s tales of financial hardship. Between July 26 and Sept. 4, 2001, Lay reportedly sold $24 million in Enron shares back to the company because his debts were being called in. Lay had a $200,000 birthday party for his wife and other niceties to fund. “We had realized the American Dream and were living a very expensive lifestyle … where it is difficult to turn off the spigot,” he said. Hueston would have none of it and asked why he, Lay, did not sell any one of his multi-million dollar homes? According to the Houston Chronicle’s blog, “During some of the prosecutor’s questions, Lay is increasingly making what can be best described as a low groaning or growling noise that is audible in the media overflow room via his microphone.” Does anyone besides me think that this is both juicy stuff and testimony Americans might want to hear just a tad more about? Let’s just remember: In 2000, according to the Los Angeles Times, Kenneth Lay made $123 million in stock trades, nearly 10 times what he made in 1998. Jeffrey Skilling made more than $62 million cashing in on his options that year, and both men continued to clean up in 2001 when, among other things, parts of California were experiencing rolling blackouts and metastasizing energy prices. (Recall the phone calls about screwing all the poor grannies in the state?) Approximately 4,500 Enron employees lost their jobs and their pensions, and stockholders were bilked out of their investments. This is the current state and, without correction, the future of corporate America. This is why the most powerful media bias of all—the corporate bias—is so especially pernicious. What is left out also is telling> There was no commentary about the need for reform of the process of running corporations which has repeatedly produce excess rewards for board members and CEOs. There was no coverage of Enron’s connections to the White House including the appointing that the person appointed to head the oversight of the Energy Commission was selected in 01 by Ken Lay. There was nothing about the $9 billion rip-off through the manipulating of energy prices in California and Texas in 01. The Republican Justice department has done nothing over this abuse by monopoly capitalism.

If Kenneth Lay was black (and, say, a former athlete or fading pop star) and Jeffrey Skilling was the has-been lead of a ’70s detective show (or a domestic diva), might the Enron trial be getting more front and center coverage?

After all, this was supposed to be the trial about the corporate corruptions of the late 20th and early 21st centuries—the case that dramatized the ongoing and urgent need for corporate oversight and reform. Yet, despite reports that the trial’s Houston courthouse is surrounded by media, it has received virtually no coverage. While lacking sex and murder, the case has a simple and dramatic story line: A couple of very greedy guys became obscenely rich while allegedly bilking their workers and stockholders out of millions, including, and especially, their pensions. So why is this narrative a flatliner?

The trial is in federal court—it cannot be televised. But since when has this stopped the networks from sending in their SWAT teams of sketch artists? That didn’t stop the incessant coverage of Martha Stewart’s trial, or Scott Peterson’s, or Michael Jackson’s—for Jackson’s, the media hired actors in costume to perform what happened. Possibly because the collapse of Enron happened late in 2001, which now seems a lifetime ago in the 24-7 news cycle, news directors have deemed the Enron trial not newsworthy. Or, more likely, it’s because Lay and Skilling are white male executives who also happen not to be celebrities.

According to the Tyndall report, during the first week of Kenneth Lay’s long-awaited testimony, the Enron trial was not even among the top 10 stories covered by the three networks that week. Yes, the soaring price of oil and gas was deservedly the top story, but Enron was beat out by the irrelevant hoopla about whether the national anthem should be sung in Spanish—the sixth most-covered story that week.

During the course of the trial so far, ABC seems to have offered one brief “tell story” plus one slightly longer story about how Enron continued to pay accountants, lawyers and consultants even as it laid off about 4,500 people. “NBC Nightly News” appears not to have covered it at all, while the “Today Show” has offered only short rip-and-read accounts.

The Best Pork Barrel Contributions Can Buy

The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota is internationally renowned for fighting cancer and other diseases. But lately it has been fighting a congressional "earmark." {What’s wrong with the proper name “pork barrel”—jk.} During the final negotiations over the FY 2006 transportation bill, Sen. John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, tacked on language that would dramatically expand a federal program and help a small railroad company in his state get a $2.5 billion government loan. The loan would allow the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad to build new track right past the clinic, which says it would jeopardize sensitive equipment and increase the risk of nearby hazardous spills at one of the state's most important businesses. Thune says he's helping his state. But Steve Ellis, with the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, calls it the "granddaddy of all earmarks," given its large price tag. Earmarks like this are getting a lot of attention in Washington these days. Earmarks, an increasingly popular form of pork-barrel spending, are special state or local projects attached to federal legislation, often without congressional debate. Earmarks are perfectly legal, though many of the current congressional corruption investigations revolve around lawmakers who are suspected of giving them out in exchange for campaign contributions, meals, gifts, and lavish trips. "Earmarks," says Ellis, "are the direct result of a corrupt process that encourages and rewards lawmakers who don't spend their time legislating ... but pulling money in million-dollar chunks back to their ... political patrons." Senator Thune, who used to lobby for DM&E, says that expanding the rail company's existing 1,100 miles of track mainly in South Dakota and Minnesota into a 2,800-mile coal line will create tens of thousands of jobs. Any railroad can apply for these loans, he says. "This has national implications in terms of public benefit," Thune says. "It's about cheaper, cleaner coal." It's true that other rail companies might benefit from the federal Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program that Thune expanded from $3.5 billion to $35 billion. But the language Thune put into the bill was custom made for the DM&E line, says Sen. Mark Dayton (news, bio, voting record), the Minnesota Democrat who has taken the side of the Mayo Clinic. He and others question the rail company's ability to repay the loan--one of the largest federal loans ever given to a private company, he says. "It's a real perversion of the process and the public interest," says Dayton. Kevin Schieffer, president and chief executive officer of the DM&E, says arguments against the project have no merit. "We are very solid financially," he adds. "The project has overwhelming support throughout our entire region." The White House has tried to end the railroad loan program as an unnecessary giveaway to private companies. "In the event of a loan default, the federal government would be responsible for covering any losses, which could be significant," says a recent report by the Office of Management and Budget. The railroad earmark dwarfs most pork projects, but it remains part of a skyrocketing trend. From 1994 to 2005, the number of earmarks more than tripled, while their cost shot up from $30 billion to $47 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. {Given the frequency of duplicitous politicking, I wonder if the try was just show—jk.} Distorted spending. Earmarks are sometimes approved to the detriment of other important federal spending, say pork opponents. The unprecedented increase has caused a decline in significant research and development budgets, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and often circumvents the normal process of competing for research grants. Fiscal conservatives are furious at the Senate for adding $17 billion to the president's recent war and hurricane relief spending bill. The increase is due to a number of earmarks, including a $700 million project to move a railroad track in Mississippi that had been recently repaired after the hurricane. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill. Earmarks are so intertwined with the corruption scandals on Capitol Hill that Rep. Jeff Flake (news, bio, voting record), an Arizona Republican, calls them the "currency of corruption." Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for doling out defense contract earmarks. As part of the Cunningham probe, federal investigators are now trying to figure out if other lawmakers, including House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, a California Republican, steered contractors to hire friends, family, or staff or solicit campaign contributions in exchange for earmarks. Lewis denies any wrongdoing. And Rep. Alan Mollohan (news, bio, voting record), a West Virginia Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, is under scrutiny for giving millions in earmarks to groups staffed by his friends and business partners. Mollohan denies any wrongdoing. According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal public opinion poll, 39 percent of U.S. adults said prohibiting earmarks should be the No.1 priority of Congress this session. Congress approved minor curbs on earmarks as part of the lobbying reforms passed this year. The new rules would require bills and reports to include a list of their earmarks along with the names of the requesting lawmaker. {How is publishing the author a curb??? “Curb” means “limit”.—jk} But there's a hitch. More than 40 percent of earmarks will not be subject to these new disclosure rules, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. The new regulations do not include pork directed at federal entities, such as the Department of Transportation. So earmarks, like the one Senator Thune included to expand the federal loan program that benefits his former client, would be exempt.

During the final negotiations over the FY 2006 transportation bill, Sen. John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, tacked on language that would dramatically expand a federal program and help a small railroad company in his state get a $2.5 billion government loan. The loan would allow the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad to build new track right past the clinic, which says it would jeopardize sensitive equipment and increase the risk of nearby hazardous spills at one of the state's most important businesses.

Thune says he's helping his state. But Steve Ellis, with the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, calls it the "granddaddy of all earmarks," given its large price tag. Earmarks like this are getting a lot of attention in Washington these days. Earmarks, an increasingly popular form of pork-barrel spending, are special state or local projects attached to federal legislation, often without congressional debate. Earmarks are perfectly legal, though many of the current congressional corruption investigations revolve around lawmakers who are suspected of giving them out in exchange for campaign contributions, meals, gifts, and lavish trips.

"Earmarks," says Ellis, "are the direct result of a corrupt process that encourages and rewards lawmakers who don't spend their time legislating ... but pulling money in million-dollar chunks back to their ... political patrons."

Senator Thune, who used to lobby for DM&E, says that expanding the rail company's existing 1,100 miles of track mainly in South Dakota and Minnesota into a 2,800-mile coal line will create tens of thousands of jobs. Any railroad can apply for these loans, he says. "This has national implications in terms of public benefit," Thune says. "It's about cheaper, cleaner coal."

It's true that other rail companies might benefit from the federal Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program that Thune expanded from $3.5 billion to $35 billion. But the language Thune put into the bill was custom made for the DM&E line, says Sen. Mark Dayton (news, bio, voting record), the Minnesota Democrat who has taken the side of the Mayo Clinic. He and others question the rail company's ability to repay the loan--one of the largest federal loans ever given to a private company, he says. "It's a real perversion of the process and the public interest," says Dayton.

Kevin Schieffer, president and chief executive officer of the DM&E, says arguments against the project have no merit. "We are very solid financially," he adds. "The project has overwhelming support throughout our entire region."

illegal residents cheapen labor

The current Congressional bills on illegal aliens is not about making things better for the working class. Don’t listen to what they say, don’t read the conservative press, but dig deeper to find the truth. Below is an excellent article on the impact of the illegals residents. UNITED STATES: Legalise free movement of immigrant labour! On May 1, millions of immigrants and their supporters took part in protests and stay-aways throughout the US. Hundreds of thousands of others skipped school or boycotted shopping. It was a spectacular manifestation of the movement that arose in response to reactionary anti-immigrant legislation. Malik Miah, an editor of the US socialist magazine Against the Current, offers his view of the stance that US unionists should take on the question of “illegal” immigrants”. Visit the Against the Current website at <http://www.solidarity-us.org/atcTC.shtml>.] From Green Left Weekly, June 7, 2006 at www.greenleft.org.

On May 1, millions of immigrants and their supporters took part in protests and stay-aways throughout the US. Hundreds of thousands of others skipped school or boycotted shopping. It was a spectacular manifestation of the movement that arose in response to reactionary anti-immigrant legislation. Malik Miah, an editor of the US socialist magazine Against the Current, offers his view of the stance that US unionists should take on the question of “illegal” immigrants”.

The immigration debate is exposing deep social, racial and class divisions within US society. They are sharp, furious and divide many families — immigrant as well as native born. There has been an oversimplification of the issue. Not everyone who is in favour of more border patrols, English-only (in May the US Senate voted to make English the “national language of the United States”) and deportation of “illegal aliens” are racists. The anti-immigrant vigilantes Minutemen are, but most of our co-workers aren’t. Confusion and anger is common when the issue becomes personal.

The mass immigrants’ rights mobilisations seemed to appear from nowhere in city after city. They were primarily organised through radio stations listened to, and newspapers read by, immigrants. They were led by the immigrants themselves — documented and undocumented. The demands were simple: respect, legalisation and citizenship rights. The protests have helped to clarify and sharpen the debate. Undocumented immigrants are workers and families people born in the US. They are our neighbours, co-workers and friends.

The issue is not, as most media pundits and conservative politicians assert, about “national security”, patriotism or terrorism. It is an issue of human rights and social and class solidarity. It is necessary to step back and see two related subjects separately — legal rights for immigrants and the path to citizenship.

There are at least at least 10-20 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. People from all over the world come to the country primarily for one purpose — to work and earn a better living than is possible in their home countries. This is true for the lowest-paid worker from Mexico to the highly-paid skilled worker from India employed in Silicon Valley. The driver is economics. The class issue is also the main motivator for the employers — agribusiness, commuter tech giants, meat packers in the Midwest and other industries seek cheap labour. The bosses know “illegals” will work harder because they have few legal protections. The employers are not the groups promoting criminalisation. The demagogues in Congress and elsewhere are using the immigration issue for political gain — tapping fears among US-born working people about future jobs and “national security”.

Stopping immigration is not the objective — controlling the flow of immigration is. Employers support an “underground” work force, because a free flow of cheap labour across borders, where everyone is legal, would raise their labour costs. The exception is in high technology, where the expansion of legal visas provides a more reliable and stable work force. Another way to look at the immigration debate is to see it as the flip side of outsourcing. Both allow employers to get the skills they desire at the lowest cost — outside the borders and domestically. Those industries that can’t send the work abroad must rely on importation of documented and undocumented immigrants to drive down costs.

Iraq: US Casualties top 20,000

Political News--June & July 06 Iraq: US Casualties top 20,000 From Green Left weekly at http://www.greenleft.org. World news that Fox News would rather not give balanced reporting of. IRAQ: US casualties top 20,000 Doug Lorimer By the end of April, total US troop casualties in Iraq had topped 20,000, with at least 2401 killed and 17,648 wounded since the US-led invasion in March 2003. April was the deadliest month for US troops this year, with 70 killed, up from 31 in March. While the Pentagon states that there are 132,000 US troops deployed in Iraq, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that total US troop deployments for the Iraq war, including providing support in Kuwait and other Middle Eastern countries, is nearly double that number — 260,000. The Knight Ridder Newspapers agency reported on April 28: “If Congress passes the emergency spending request that’s before the Senate, the cost of military operations since the 9/11 terrorist attacks will top $439 billion, with $320 billion of that for the Iraq war alone, according to a report this week by the Congressional Research Service. “Even with a significant reduction in US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that total war spending could top $811 billion by 2016. “For comparison, the 1991 Persian Gulf War cost about $89 billion in today’s dollars, while the Korean War cost $455 billion and the Vietnam War cost $655 billion, according to Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent policy research group in Washington.” A US congressional inspection team set up to monitor reconstruction in Iraq published a scathing report on May 1 of failures by private contractors, mainly from the US, to carry out projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The detailed and lengthy report was written by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. Bowen’s office was set up after the US Congress expressed concern about the slow rate of reconstruction and the misuse of funds on a massive scale. Congress has approved $21 billion for reconstruction since the US-led invasion, of which 67% has been allocated. Last year the congressional team reported that almost $9 billion in Iraqi oil revenues disbursed to US-supervised Iraqi ministries had gone missing. The inspection team found that three years after the invasion only six of 150 health centres proposed for Iraq had been completed by a US contractor, in spite of 75% of the $186 million allocated having been spent. The report stated: “Fourteen more will be completed by the contractor, and the remaining facilities, which are partially constructed, will have to be completed by other means.” Revealing how the “fully sovereign” Iraqi government remains a puppet of the US occupation forces, the April 28 US News reported that several “US diplomats will serve as unofficial advisers to Iraqi prime minister designate Nouri al Maliki to help him create a transition team and prepare him to assume the top post once he assembles a cabinet. The team will include officials from the US embassy in Baghdad, along with James Wilkinson, a key aide to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.” Wilkinson, it reported, stayed behind in Baghdad after the joint visit by Rice and US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld on April 26, five days after Maliki was appointed by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as the country’s new PM. US News added: “Washington does not want to be seen as meddling in Iraqi politics, but the Bush administration is clearly eager to see Iraq’s next government get up and running quickly. Maliki has announced that he wants to form his government by early May, but the constitutional deadline appears to be May 22. More US advisers might come in from outside Iraq in the coming days to assist the transition.” From Green Left Weekly, May 10, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. Comments by jk The 9/11 attack was singularly successful for the Moslem zealots. We asked for it by invading Afghanastan and our political, social, and economic involvement in their region. The U.S. is an ungodly society: loose sexual morals of women, materialism, scientific explanation of the nature of things, and worship of a false god and his son. Moreover, the US is the chief exponent of them through the media. Allah, the one true god, wants them to stop this satanic tide of U.S. culture. To weaken the US economically is to slow the spread of the US culture, thus their 2nd attack upon the world trade center, and their ongoing attacks upon Iraq oil, for to drive up the prices have been quite effective. With 9/11 they have succeed in disrupting the US economy, which included the sharp economic downturn lasting over 2 years (the stock market took a dump and the economy slowed to zero growth). Instead of spending funds on social programs to address social injustices which could bring the US up to European standards, the US has diverted $438 billion in emergency spending, of which $320 billion has gone for the Iraq war. The U.S, based on a perception of decisive leadership, has reelected the worst president in our history. Consider what those funds could have accomplished if there had been a president like Gore. Moreover, with the Democrats in control, they would not have passed a $10 trillion dollar take break to the wealthy. The Bush Republicans have made the U.S. being the greatest debtor nation based on percentage of debt to GDP in recent history. Our dollar has fallen (a major part of the rise in the cost of foreign imports including oil) for to slow the exodus of the trillions of foreign dollars invested in the U.S. Election of Republicans and their fiscal irresponsibility, foreign wars, rising oil prices, and a 2-year recession all principle caused by 9/11. Not since the murder of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife has so few done so much.

From Green Left weekly at http://www.greenleft.org. World news that Fox News would rather not give balanced reporting of. IRAQ: US casualties top 20,000 Doug Lorimer By the end of April, total US troop casualties in Iraq had topped 20,000, with at least 2401 killed and 17,648 wounded since the US-led invasion in March 2003. April was the deadliest month for US troops this year, with 70 killed, up from 31 in March.

By the end of April, total US troop casualties in Iraq had topped 20,000, with at least 2401 killed and 17,648 wounded since the US-led invasion in March 2003. April was the deadliest month for US troops this year, with 70 killed, up from 31 in March.

While the Pentagon states that there are 132,000 US troops deployed in Iraq, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that total US troop deployments for the Iraq war, including providing support in Kuwait and other Middle Eastern countries, is nearly double that number — 260,000. The Knight Ridder Newspapers agency reported on April 28: “If Congress passes the emergency spending request that’s before the Senate, the cost of military operations since the 9/11 terrorist attacks will top $439 billion, with $320 billion of that for the Iraq war alone, according to a report this week by the Congressional Research Service. “Even with a significant reduction in US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that total war spending could top $811 billion by 2016. “For comparison, the 1991 Persian Gulf War cost about $89 billion in today’s dollars, while the Korean War cost $455 billion and the Vietnam War cost $655 billion, according to Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent policy research group in Washington.” A US congressional inspection team set up to monitor reconstruction in Iraq published a scathing report on May 1 of failures by private contractors, mainly from the US, to carry out projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The detailed and lengthy report was written by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. Bowen’s office was set up after the US Congress expressed concern about the slow rate of reconstruction and the misuse of funds on a massive scale. Congress has approved $21 billion for reconstruction since the US-led invasion, of which 67% has been allocated. Last year the congressional team reported that almost $9 billion in Iraqi oil revenues disbursed to US-supervised Iraqi ministries had gone missing. The inspection team found that three years after the invasion only six of 150 health centres proposed for Iraq had been completed by a US contractor, in spite of 75% of the $186 million allocated having been spent. The report stated: “Fourteen more will be completed by the contractor, and the remaining facilities, which are partially constructed, will have to be completed by other means.” Revealing how the “fully sovereign” Iraqi government remains a puppet of the US occupation forces, the April 28 US News reported that several “US diplomats will serve as unofficial advisers to Iraqi prime minister designate Nouri al Maliki to help him create a transition team and prepare him to assume the top post once he assembles a cabinet. The team will include officials from the US embassy in Baghdad, along with James Wilkinson, a key aide to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.” Wilkinson, it reported, stayed behind in Baghdad after the joint visit by Rice and US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld on April 26, five days after Maliki was appointed by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as the country’s new PM. US News added: “Washington does not want to be seen as meddling in Iraqi politics, but the Bush administration is clearly eager to see Iraq’s next government get up and running quickly. Maliki has announced that he wants to form his government by early May, but the constitutional deadline appears to be May 22. More US advisers might come in from outside Iraq in the coming days to assist the transition.” From Green Left Weekly, May 10, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. Comments by jk The 9/11 attack was singularly successful for the Moslem zealots. We asked for it by invading Afghanastan and our political, social, and economic involvement in their region. The U.S. is an ungodly society: loose sexual morals of women, materialism, scientific explanation of the nature of things, and worship of a false god and his son. Moreover, the US is the chief exponent of them through the media. Allah, the one true god, wants them to stop this satanic tide of U.S. culture. To weaken the US economically is to slow the spread of the US culture, thus their 2nd attack upon the world trade center, and their ongoing attacks upon Iraq oil, for to drive up the prices have been quite effective. With 9/11 they have succeed in disrupting the US economy, which included the sharp economic downturn lasting over 2 years (the stock market took a dump and the economy slowed to zero growth). Instead of spending funds on social programs to address social injustices which could bring the US up to European standards, the US has diverted $438 billion in emergency spending, of which $320 billion has gone for the Iraq war. The U.S, based on a perception of decisive leadership, has reelected the worst president in our history. Consider what those funds could have accomplished if there had been a president like Gore. Moreover, with the Democrats in control, they would not have passed a $10 trillion dollar take break to the wealthy. The Bush Republicans have made the U.S. being the greatest debtor nation based on percentage of debt to GDP in recent history. Our dollar has fallen (a major part of the rise in the cost of foreign imports including oil) for to slow the exodus of the trillions of foreign dollars invested in the U.S. Election of Republicans and their fiscal irresponsibility, foreign wars, rising oil prices, and a 2-year recession all principle caused by 9/11. Not since the murder of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife has so few done so much.

The Knight Ridder Newspapers agency reported on April 28: “If Congress passes the emergency spending request that’s before the Senate, the cost of military operations since the 9/11 terrorist attacks will top $439 billion, with $320 billion of that for the Iraq war alone, according to a report this week by the Congressional Research Service.

“Even with a significant reduction in US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next several years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that total war spending could top $811 billion by 2016.

“For comparison, the 1991 Persian Gulf War cost about $89 billion in today’s dollars, while the Korean War cost $455 billion and the Vietnam War cost $655 billion, according to Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent policy research group in Washington.”

Private Contractors are worse than government

Political News--June & July 06 Private Contractors are worse than government Another Pork Barrel, Private Contractors. Report blasts Bush administration on private contracts. He promised while electioneering that there would be smaller government and reduced spending through the use of private companies. Instead there has been an 86% increase in payments to private companies and at the same time an increase in the number of people working for the federal government--jk. Los Angeles Times Wednesday, June 21, 2006 WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has greatly expanded the use of contracts with private companies to provide public goods and services even as the number of government employees has increased, a congressional report has found. But the administration's tilt toward doing business with private companies has failed to bring promised savings and has been characterized by "waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement," according to the report released this week by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee. Of particular concern, the report said, were contracts related to homeland security, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina recovery. Waxman's report is described as the first comprehensive assessment of contracting under the Bush administration, which had vowed upon taking office in January 2001 to provide services more efficiently while reducing the size of government. It reveals an 86 percent increase in contracts with private businesses, from $203 billion in 2000 to $377.5 billion a year in 2005 — nearly double the growth of federal spending as a whole. At the same time, federal payrolls also have grown: The government now has about 1,874,000 civilian employees, up from 1,738,000 five years ago. '"Nearly 40 cents of every dollar appropriated goes to private contractors, which is a record level," Waxman said. Yet, Waxman said, his biggest concern is not the growth in contracts, but the abuse of them. Poor planning and weak oversight, the report said, have led to government overspending and corruption by companies that have padded their invoices, charged for services not provided and received award fees for jobs that were completed late. In June of 06, the Republicans voted not to investigate or oversee the federal contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan—jk.

Another Pork Barrel, Private Contractors. Report blasts Bush administration on private contracts. He promised while electioneering that there would be smaller government and reduced spending through the use of private companies. Instead there has been an 86% increase in payments to private companies and at the same time an increase in the number of people working for the federal government--jk. Los Angeles Times Wednesday, June 21, 2006

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has greatly expanded the use of contracts with private companies to provide public goods and services even as the number of government employees has increased, a congressional report has found. But the administration's tilt toward doing business with private companies has failed to bring promised savings and has been characterized by "waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement," according to the report released this week by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee. Of particular concern, the report said, were contracts related to homeland security, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina recovery. Waxman's report is described as the first comprehensive assessment of contracting under the Bush administration, which had vowed upon taking office in January 2001 to provide services more efficiently while reducing the size of government. It reveals an 86 percent increase in contracts with private businesses, from $203 billion in 2000 to $377.5 billion a year in 2005 — nearly double the growth of federal spending as a whole. At the same time, federal payrolls also have grown: The government now has about 1,874,000 civilian employees, up from 1,738,000 five years ago. '"Nearly 40 cents of every dollar appropriated goes to private contractors, which is a record level," Waxman said. Yet, Waxman said, his biggest concern is not the growth in contracts, but the abuse of them. Poor planning and weak oversight, the report said, have led to government overspending and corruption by companies that have padded their invoices, charged for services not provided and received award fees for jobs that were completed late. In June of 06, the Republicans voted not to investigate or oversee the federal contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan—jk.

Waxman's report is described as the first comprehensive assessment of contracting under the Bush administration, which had vowed upon taking office in January 2001 to provide services more efficiently while reducing the size of government. It reveals an 86 percent increase in contracts with private businesses, from $203 billion in 2000 to $377.5 billion a year in 2005 — nearly double the growth of federal spending as a whole. At the same time, federal payrolls also have grown: The government now has about 1,874,000 civilian employees, up from 1,738,000 five years ago.

'"Nearly 40 cents of every dollar appropriated goes to private contractors, which is a record level," Waxman said. Yet, Waxman said, his biggest concern is not the growth in contracts, but the abuse of them. Poor planning and weak oversight, the report said, have led to government overspending and corruption by companies that have padded their invoices, charged for services not provided and received award fees for jobs that were completed late.

In June of 06, the Republicans voted not to investigate or oversee the federal contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan—jk.

Private Corporations Supply Personal Data to Government--Palast

Over 10 U.S. Agencies buy data gather by private companies. THE SPIES WHO SHAG USThe Times and USA Today have Missed the Bigger Story -- Againby Greg PalastFor BuzzflashFriday, May 12, 2006 From WWW.gregpalast.com

Lobbying Reporting Laws

States Outpace Congress in Upgrading Lobbying Laws 24 states have made disclosure strides since 2003 from www.publicintegrity.org THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS LIMITING CAMPAIGN MONEY AND PERSONAL GIFTS SUCH AS MEALS AND TRAVEL. DISCLOSURE DOESN’T GET AT THE PROBLEM OF INFLUENCE PEDDLING BY BIG BUSINESS. MOREOVER CONGRESS CAN TRADE ON INSIDER INFORMATION—that is why you don’t hear of them being criminal charged like Martha Stuart. DISCLOSURE LAWS ARE A WAY OF PRETENDING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT INFLUENCE PEDDLING, WHILE INFACT HAVING NO EFFECT UPON INFLUENCE PEDDLING--jk. By Leah Rush and David Jimenez

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS LIMITING CAMPAIGN MONEY AND PERSONAL GIFTS SUCH AS MEALS AND TRAVEL. DISCLOSURE DOESN’T GET AT THE PROBLEM OF INFLUENCE PEDDLING BY BIG BUSINESS. MOREOVER CONGRESS CAN TRADE ON INSIDER INFORMATION—that is why you don’t hear of them being criminal charged like Martha Stuart. DISCLOSURE LAWS ARE A WAY OF PRETENDING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT INFLUENCE PEDDLING, WHILE INFACT HAVING NO EFFECT UPON INFLUENCE PEDDLING--jk.

WASHINGTON, March 1, 2006 — As Congress struggles to maintain public trust in the midst of the lobbying scandal raging in Washington D.C., members could look to the states for ways to revamp the federal system. A Center for Public Integrity survey that evaluated the strength of lobbying disclosure laws nationwide found the federal law to be weaker than those of 47 of the 50 states. Since the original 2003 "Hired Guns" report, lawmakers in almost half the states — sometimes prompted by scandals — have beefed up their disclosure laws, but federal legislators haven't.

"The federal law is pretty terrible," said Robert M. Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies, who helped write California's 1974 political reform law. "Congress should be looking to the states," Stern said, because "states have had tremendous experience with enforcing and administering these laws. They are not that hard to enforce."

While no state earned an "A" when graded on providing the public with full disclosure on behind-the-scenes lobbying in the 2003 survey, Washington state had the highest score, 87 points out of a possible 100. The federal law tied with New Hampshire, earning a failing grade of 36 — almost two and a half times lower. Only Pennsylvania and Wyoming received worse marks. {DISCLOSURE LAWS DOESN’T STOP DONATIONS; MOREOVER, SUCH GIFTS ARE SELDOM NOTED IN THE MASS MEDIA—jk} What's more, 24 states have taken steps either to strengthen their laws or to implement or improve electronic disclosure systems in the two and a half years since the Center's study. At least another eight states have considered or are working on changes. In comparison, while the Senate Office of Public Records began putting federal lobby spending reports on the Internet in 2001, federal lobbying disclosure laws haven't been modified in the last eight years.

The Center for Public Integrity has studied lobbying in the states since 2002, including tracking overall spending, which neared the $1 billion mark in 2004 with only 42 states able to report a total. In 2005, the Center launched, "LobbyWatch," an ongoing investigation into federal lobbying, featuring a searchable database of spending disclosures.

Of the 24 states that made lobby law changes since the May 2003 report, 16 made substantive changes to existing regulations. The various measures included: requiring more frequent filings, requiring reporting of lobbying on state contracts, requiring disclosure of executive branch lobbying, and banning contingency fees. Seven of the remaining eight states put new electronic disclosure systems in place, and the Hawaii Ethics Commission began posting scanned copies of lobby disclosure filings on its Web site. Georgia, New Jersey, North Carolina and Tennessee were among the states with the most-revised rules. In addition to other provisions, the law in each state established a "cooling-off" period, which prohibits legislators from registering as lobbyists for a set period of time after leaving office. In Florida, another state with several rule changes, a stringent ban on legislators accepting gifts from lobbyists and a requirement that lobbyists disclose the amount of money they make to lobby were approved. However, the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists and others filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation on Feb. 17. Such new laws will no doubt raise the scores of many states in the Center's nationwide rankings when they are revised and updated later this year. For example, Georgia's revisions could earn the state 14 additional points, bringing its lobby disclosure score to 77 and pushing its ranking into the top tier.