How else can we explain all the elected officials who mouth words of concern but continue to prove a total lack of concern by their actions?
- The way the people of New Orleans were treated during and since Hurricane Katrina.
- The way the Pentagon puts dollar interests and politics before the welfare of those they send off to fight and die for them – lack of properly armored vehicles, issuing incompatible weapons and ammunition, and lying to families about how their loved ones are killed.
- The way mercenaries, hired by our government, kill innocent civilians and are not accountable to anyone for their actions.
- The way the veterans, (you remember - those troops everyone claims to support), are not properly cared for when they come home with brain injuries, missing limbs, post traumatic stress, and other life altering wounds.
- The way corporations avoid responsibility for illnesses caused by chemicals in the work place, and pollution of rivers, groundwater and even the air in residential areas surrounding their plants.
- The way government agencies, created to protect the people, instead benefit big business at the expense of we the people who pay the price in illness, lost livelihood, homelessness, death from treatable diseases, and death by incompetence in war zones.
- The way our government promotes poverty in other countries by lending “aid” which destroys their economies and leaves them worse off than they were before we “helped.”
- The way we are told over and over that our problems - lack of health care, outsourcing of jobs, failing infrastructure – are a priority with our leaders but strangely things continue to get worse and solutions never materialize.
So when the people talk about change, regardless of which specific issue they are talking about, it really boils down to one change – putting “for the people” back into our government. That one change will be the beginning of solutions to the issues that concern us all.
So when you hear John McCain talking about making the tax cuts permanent, look at the economy, look at the deficit; when you hear him talking about staying in Iraq, look at the economy, look at the deficit, and most particularly, count the wounded and the dead; when Mr. McCain talks about drilling off shore and in Alaska for oil, look at what the hunger for oil has brought us – wars, environmental destruction, high gasoline prices, and high heating costs; when John McCain talks about continuing the Bush policies, think about the fact that doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
Seems like a no-brainer but in the “Wonderland” of American politics it apparently isn’t. The purpose of public campaign finance by the government is to get the special interest money out of our government and therefore reduce or even eliminate their influence in the running of our country.
If ever there was a “publicly financed” candidate, it is Barack Obama. For the first time since Bobby Kennedy, the people are actually vested in a candidate, supporting him with donations that in many cases come from their need not their excess. It is these donations, not special interests’ money, fueling Obama’s campaign. That means it is the people, not special interests, that Obama will be beholden to when he becomes president.
That clearly shows that the purpose of public finance is achieved by Obama’s campaign and therefore, it is not necessary for him to go with government supported public financing. It also shows that he has good judgment. It would be foolish for Obama to settle for $85 million when he can stay true to the purpose of public financing and bring in much more than that. We do want a president with good judgment don’t we?
It would also be foolish to limit his ability to raise funds since experience from the last two presidential campaigns almost guarantees 527 smear campaigns from the Republicans before this election is over. This is definitely an example of learning from experience despite Republican denials about 527s in this election. We keep hearing how important experience is. We do want a president who learns from experience don’t we?
So what is the truth the Republicans don't want us to know? It seems likely that John McCain’s inability to match Obama’s fund raising means Barack’s decision to forego government funds is a big deal. Not, as McCain would have us believe, because Barack is betraying the American people by his decision but rather because it leaves McCain in the position of running an under funded campaign. Of course the RNC and 527s have plenty of money which they will no doubt use in less than ethical ways to help McCain. If Obama allowed himself to be limited to government public financing, he would be unable to compete with this big money because the DNC isn't that rich and Barack does not want 527s working on his behalf.
The media, exercising its now common practice of creating news by making mountains out of molehills, and totally missing the point, will continue to stir things up egging McCain and company on in making sanctimonious declarations about Obama’s decision. Meanwhile people are distracted from real flip-flops by McCain on:
Perhaps we should be paying attention to some of the really worrisome things about the idea of McCain as president such as:
We don’t want a president who is hot headed, hawkish, doesn’t care about children, has no empathy for people caught in the middle of financial scams, and wants to continue the lobbyist influence in Washington while allowing our planet to further deteriorate… Do we?
]]>On June 9, 2008, Dennis Kucinich introduced thirty-five Articles of Impeachment against George Bush. He introduced it as a “privileged resolution” which requires the House to act on it within two legislative days. According to a Washington Post article:
As they have previously, Democratic leaders staunchly oppose Kucinich's impeachment effort. They expect to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they expect it to die.That is exactly what happened.
It would seem that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration continues to determine the actions of the House in this matter. When asked to explain her stand on impeachment, Pelosi asserts that it would be a “distraction.” So let us ask her:
Under what set of moral imperatives is impeachment appropriate for lying about having sex but impeachment for lying our country into a war is considered a distraction?On what planet is holding someone accountable for their actions considered a distraction, when those actions result in the deaths of over 4000 of America’s young men and women?
Under what Constitution can it be considered a distraction for Congress to fulfill its duty to oversee and check attempts by the Executive Branch to usurp powers our Founding Fathers established as belonging to other branches of the government?
According to what accepted standard of human behavior can accountability for illegal detention, kidnapping, and torture be dismissed as a distraction?
Under what kind of democratic rule can a president ignore the Constitution, the laws, and the human needs of the country he leads and have calling him to account be deemed a distraction?
All of these questions can be rolled up into one simple question. And so I ask Nancy Pelosi,
Since when is justice a distraction?
]]>Perhaps I am missing something but it seems to me that trying to solve one problem by creating another with deadly consequences, just doesn’t make sense. And yet that is what the proponents of nuclear energy seem to be doing as they push ahead with plans to build 15 new nuclear plants. Without a permanent repository for the spent fuel currently stored on site around the country, the industry can’t possibly move forward with these plans for additional construction and that explains why the nuclear power industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have spent around $72 million lobbying in favor of the Yucca Mountain dump.
No new nuclear plants have been built since the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. However, we have accumulated what is variously reported as 70,000 – 77,000 metric tons of radioactive waste from the existing reactors. It will cost $70 billion to create the Nevada nuclear waste dump to store it. That is if the people of Nevada lose their fight to keep this dump from being built at Yucca Mountain, a fight that has been going on for years. But with the high cost of oil and the push for “green” living as excuses, the government is pushing hard once again to get this dump built.
Californians should be concerned because Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border. The nuclear waste, currently being stored in 39 states, would have to be transported by truck and rail across the country to reach Yucca Mountain. There are 109 cities with populations of more than 100,000 along the proposed routes. That means there are a lot of other states that should be concerned as well because an accident could occur anywhere en route with calamitous results.
Some of the interesting facts that should be considered before supporting the building of more nuclear plants are:
Yucca Mountain, itself a volcanic ridge, has 7 young volcanoes and 39 faults in the area surrounding it, with earthquakes occurring as recently as 2002. In 1996 even the Energy Department admitted that some water from the waste repository could go to the water table within 50 years. This water eventually flows into wells and springs.Nuclear fuel consists of uranium pellets encased in metal rods. Used or "spent" fuel is removed from the reactor to water-filled pools, where it cools for about 10 years. It is then moved to "dry" storage, where it has been piling up at reactor sites because there is no place to dispose of it.
The metal containers designed to carry spent nuclear fuel from the Calvert Cliffs plant and other reactors to a proposed storage site in Nevada would have failed if the transport train had been engulfed in the estimated 1,500- degree heat of the Baltimore rail tunnel fire in the summer of 2001. Each rail cask weighs about 145 tons fully loaded and contains 260 times the amount of radioactive cesium released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The fire would not have triggered a nuclear blast, but the city would have been exposed to a catastrophic release of radiation.
Think about Katrina and New Orleans. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), intended to be the public’s help in emergencies – exhibited colossal incompetence which allowed chaos to reign during and following Katrina. The money grabbers swooped in, the American public lost confidence in FEMA, and the way New Orleans is being rebuilt is resulting in the exile of the poor who lived there. FEMA, now understaffed, under funded, and no longer a stand alone agency but part of a larger bureaucracy will be even slower to act, less efficient, and much less flexible to deal with on the spot needs.
What about the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) intended to protect the safety of foods, drugs, and other products? Instead, without public knowledge for a long time, they have allowed Pharmaceuticals to pay for the testing of their own drugs. The result has been large profits for Big Pharma and poorly tested drugs for consumers. As food imports have increased, FDA staffing and funding have not kept pace allowing unsafe foods to repeatedly reach our markets.
Then there is the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) intended to protect consumers from unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products. Again, underfunded and understaffed, with no one sounding the alarm, products, including high lead count toys made their way into our formerly well regulated markets.
In Iraq, no bid contracts and careless lack of accountability for cash have allowed the loss of millions of taxpayers dollars. This isn’t incompetence, it’s robbery pure and simple.
Now we have the media reporting that our President went to Saudi Arabia to beg for more oil production and was turned down. Is that what really happened? Hasn’t the Bush family been tight with the Saudis for years? Aren’t a lot of their money interests tied up with oil companies? Aren’t the high oil prices bringing huge profits to the oil companies? Maybe Bush’s so called groveling was just for show, to make the American people think he is trying to do something about gas prices. That seems more likely than the idea that he would do anything to stop the oil companies from raking in the profits doesn’t it?
We really need to get it right in the upcoming elections if we want to stop the train wreck that is our government. NY Times columnist and three time Pulitzer Prize winner, Thomas L. Friedman wrote a piece called Who will tell the people? * in which he said it well: “We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.”
* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
It seems pretty clear the Clintons are used to winning and were so sure Hillary was going to be the nominee that they simply can't accept the fact that Obama whupped her. This morning in Florida she was pandering to Floridians about how “every American has the right to have his vote counted..." yada, yada, yada.. Wouldn't It be interesting to hear what she would be saying if those states (FL & MI) had gone to Obama? You can bet it would be something about how they broke the rules and there must be consequences. You may have noticed the contrast - Obama is not agitating on either side of the question.
And what's up with using Rove's statement as a positive talking point? Hillary should be smart enough (especially if she is qualified to be the Prez) to realize that the Republicans want her to be the nominee because she is such a perfect target for their attacks and they really don't have that much to use against Obama. Many Republicans registered as Democrats and voted for Hilary in the primary- not because they support her, (and they sure won't be voting for her in the general election) but because they want to stop Obama. Interestingly, these votes are part of that "winning" popular vote she keeps touting.
The Republicans do not want to run McCain - old, bad tempered, not very articulate, economically challenged, and hitched to Bush's policies - against Obama - young, unflappable, not only articulate but downright inspiring, economically knowledgeable, and able to show, point by point, the failures of those Bush policies.
So, what's up with the Super delegates? Are they just trying to let Hillary run it out (as long as she stopped the negativity toward Obama) until the primaries play out on June 3? Then, will they, as many have aleady said, throw their votes to Obama and end it? If that's the plan, I just hope they are not shooting the Democratic Party in the foot by letting Clinton's supporters harden against Obama.
They (these Hillary supporters) blame Obama for what they consider sexist and unequal coverage by the media. Where did these people get the idea that Barack Obama controls the media? In what kind of convoluted thinking is he responsible for everything the newscasters and pundits say that might be interpreted as sexist? What about both the Clintons playing the race card several times while Obama never played the gender card and has in fact praised Hillary and her abilities? This is a real case of the pot calling the kettle black (pun intended).
As far as unequal coverage - what about the early campaign when everyone thought Hillary was the inevitable nominee and most of the coverage was of her? Did you hear any complaints about unequal coverage then? If Obama is getting more or better coverage now could it be because he looks like the winner? Isn’t the winner the one the media usually covers?
As a woman, I am embarrassed by the whining and finger pointing of these Clinton supporters. Why are they so bound and determined that Hillary has to be the nominee or they will take their ball home and not play anymore? Could it be because she is a woman and they want a woman in the white house no matter what?
Uh… isn’t that attitude the essence of sexism?
White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers were subpoenaed to testify before Congress in the investigation into the firing of US Attorneys General for partisan political motives. They refused to comply - an unprecedented action – totally refusing to even show up before Congress.
Both Bolten and Miers were cited for contempt of Congress, giving them the dubious honor of being the highest officials ever held in contempt of Congress. But Attorney General Mukasey refused to enforce the contempt decree. (So much for his testimony during confirmation hearings that he “believes in the rule of law.”) Congress is now suing Bolten and Miers in District Court to demand compliance. This makes it obvious that regular Contempt charges don’t work very well with an Attorney General who chooses deriliction of duty over the rule of law.
However, there is another route Congress can take. Inherent Contempt. This is a little used, little known tool that the House or Senate can use. It requries only a majority…which should be easily attainable in the House. Under the Inherent Contempt power, the individual is "brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisioned. The purpose of the imprisonment may be punitive or coercive, and can be indefinite." The Inherent Contempt power is recognized by the Supreme Court as Constitutional.
The Vice President's Chief of Staff, David Addington, refused to testify on the investigation into the Bush Administration's ordering of torture. Carl Rove continues the pattern of executive arrogance by also refusing to testify. It is alleged that Mr. Rove personally instigated the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegleman. The Siegleman case has been criticized by legal experts, and 52 former state attorneys general – both Republicans and Democrats called for an investigation. (Siegleman is now out of prison pending appeal). If Rove refuses to testify and ignores a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, then the House of Representatives should pass an Inherent Contempt citation and exercise the right to send the House Sergeant-of-Arms to pick up Mr. Rove and bring him before Congress to testify.
No American is above the law. None of us should be able to ignore Congress without consequence. Congress has few options when the Administration totally refuses to submit to any type of reasonable Congressional oversight. However, Congress has not only the right but the obligation to investigate these questionable circumstances. That is one of the purposes of the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution. If we back off or continue to drag our feet, we effectively forfeit the power of Congress to investigate the Executive branch and that is unacceptable.
The Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Dunn, in 1821 held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.
Our representatives in Congress need to ensure that such criminal offenses have consequences.
I have trouble with that kind of hair-splitting. If you were in custody, locked up, not allowed to leave, and accused of wrongdoing wouldn’t you think of whatever was done to you as punishment? I wonder if Antonin Scalia was subjected to waterboarding, if he might answer differently.
Strange as it seems, the American people appear to like having their country run by liars. First they elected Bill Clinton (ole Slick Willie) who lies when the truth would serve him better. Then they elected George W. Bush who not only lies to the public but from all accounts even lies to himself. Now there are those who want to elect Hillary Clinton who has shown in her campaign that she can and will lie with the best of them. These supporters are so determined to have her that they are willing to risk a McCain presidency if she doesn’t get the nomination.
What happened to the idea that the president of our country should be a man or woman of honor; someone we can look up to; someone who puts our interests before his or her own; someone we can trust?
Winston Churchill said, “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”
Based on that, what America needs now is courage. There are plenty of us doing the first - standing up and speaking - on the radio, TV, and the internet, in newspapers, magazines and books. But hardly anyone is doing the second – sitting down and listening. And doing one, to the exclusion of the other isn’t courageous.
Talking and listening only to those who agree with us, stunts our growth both intellectually and morally. Not only does it display a lack of courage it also does not serve our best interests because in the end it divides us as a people and a country.
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.If the media is to live up to its own professional code, then journalists are obligated to hold these public servants accountable for their actions or lack of action by bringing this information into the arena of public discussion.
Robert Wexler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the NSA wireless wiretapping program had produced thousands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down, but that no Al-Qaeda networks were discovered. During a July 17, 2007 briefing, FBI deputy director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States. In August of 2007 Congress passed the Protect America Act, giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. I have two questions in this regard.
RW: Has the FBI found any sleeper cells yet? One…
RW: Two. Has the NSA’s wireless wiretapping programs either before the Protect America Act or after led to the prosecution and conviction of any terrorists in the United States?
Robert Mueller: Well, as to your first question as to whether we have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, yes we have. Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes we have. With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual to the terrorist surveillance program, again that is something that would have to be covered in a closed session.
RW: Alright, Mr. Director. An LA Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote “the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved” end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote “pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy” end quote.
RW: My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn't’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?
RM: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.
RW: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?
RM: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.
RW: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?
RM: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.
RW: So you can’t tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don’t you get involved; you can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?
RM: I’ll tell you we followed our own protocols.
RW: And what was the result?
RM: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.
RW: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?
RM: I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.
RW: Why can’t you comment on the actions of another agency?
RM: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.
RW: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?
RM: I am the Director of the FBI.
RW: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you’re saying?
RM: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.
RW: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?
RM: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.
RW: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?
RM: I’m not certain what you mean.
RW: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.
RM: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice….
(talking over each other)
RW: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that’s it.
RM: I’ve told you what our protocol was, and I’ve indicated that we’ve adhered to our protocol throughout.
RW: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.
]]>I watched what ABC stretched-credibility-to-call-a-debate last night and for the first hour felt like I was caught in a butter churn. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos shamed themselves and insulted the public by going round and round about Rev. Wright, Obama’s “bitter”, comment and flag pins. Finally, perhaps noticing how one-sided their “gotcha game” was, they threw in Hillary’s sniper-fire-in-Bosnia lie. There was no mention of her self-aggrandizing claim about her part in bringing peace to Ireland which Ireland itself sniggers about.
I also went on-line at ABC and MSNBC and read the comments and winner scoring. My last check on ABC’s comment site last night had over 8700 comments with at least 90% of them blasting ABC, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos calling the debate embarrassing, shameful, a farce, and other less polite negative names. The comments were over 15,000 by this morning but the percentages remained the same. The polling which last night had over 24,000 respondents was running 68% for Obama, 24% for Clinton and 7% for a tie. The respondent numbers climbed to over 57,000 by this morning but the statistics did not change.
So what happened this morning? The pundits spent their time talking to each other about the butter churning topics, while the public continued to post comments declaring their total lack of interest in these things and expressing disappointment and frustration because the “debate” wasted their time on such subjects. Never has it been so clear how totally out of touch the MSM is with what the public thinks and wants. While they stroke their own egos telling us what we think, they are totally clueless and out of touch with our reality.
If you are interested in reading an in-depth analysis of Clinton and Obama and how they compare and contrast, check out the article in the current issue of The New York Review of Books entitled "Molehill Politics" by Elizabeth Drew. It's online at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21231.
Drew defines Molehill Politics as “making a very big deal in the press about something that’s a very small deal” an apt description of last night’s debate and this morning’s coverage of it.
Why is it taking so long to pass this bill? More to the point, why do we even need a new law? Aren’t fraud, stealing and misappropriation of funds already illegal? Perhaps one of the problems is that Washington refers to “government funds” instead of more properly calling it “taxpayer’s money.” It is after all our money intended to fund a government that is supposed to operate in our interests. If, as the OMB** says, the goal for the abuse of purchase cards is zero, why wasn’t a zero tolerance policy instituted in 2002?
Instead we now have a new GAO report about federal employees’ misuse of government credit cards in 2005 and 2006. Upsetting as that is, what is really outrageous is the mealy mouthed discussions and lack of action by those who are responsible for oversight and enforcing consequences for this misappropriation of our money.
It seems pretty straightforward: These federal employees have stolen taxpayers' money; They should be fired, prosecuted, and required to pay restitution. We need a special law for this? It takes over six years to get this special law in place? Who are these people in Washington and where exactly are their heads?
According to the new GAO review, 41 percent of roughly $14 billion in purchases were unauthorized or not properly received. 41percent of $14 billion is over $5.7 billion
G.S.A.*** administrator, Lurita Doan, said that many oversight measures were already in place but admitted there was room for improvement. I’d say $5.7 billion in problem purchases indicates the oversight measures aren’t very effective and “room for improvement” is a colossal understatement. Doan added that using the purchase cards saved about $1.8 billion in administrative costs each year. Perhaps that “savings” would be better used for oversight and accountability controls. Especially since that savings offsets only about 32 percent of the $5.7 billion problems.
The GAO recommendations seem to consist mainly of sending memos and reminders to agencies to be more vigilant about the authorizations and uses of the purchase cards. Say what? Isn’t that what manager and supervisor positions are all about? And what reasonably honest and at least minimally intelligent person needs to be reminded that taking things like iPods, computers, and LCD monitors that don’t belong to you, is stealing? Or that spending taxpayers’ money on suits, lingerie, Match.com, and a girlfriend’s breast augmentation is illegal? Send memos indeed! What are we paying agency managers and supervisors for if they have to be reminded it is their job to see that their subordinates are not treating taxpayers’ money like personal slush funds?
Why do we continue to allow our money to support such chronic incompetence – in federal agencies and in Congress? It is way past time to vote the incompetent out of office and elect people who will clean house in the agencies.
*GAO – Government Accountability Office - supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. Known as "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." THEY GET A "D"
**OMB – Office of Management and Budget - predominant mission is to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to supervise its administration in Executive Branch. In addition, OMB oversees and coordinates the Administration's procurement, financial management, information, and regulatory policies. In each of these areas, OMB's role is to help improve administrative management, to develop better performance measures and coordinating mechanisms, and to reduce any unnecessary burdens on the public.
THEY GET AN "F"
***GSA – General Services Administration - mission is to "help federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services and management policies." GSA consists of the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and various Staff Offices, including the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs (OCIA). Eleven Regional Offices extend GSA’s outreach to federal customers nationwide. THEY GET AN "F"
Congress - supposed to support government of the people, by the people and for the people. THEY GET AN "F"
The Decider-in-Chief, who cuts social programs at every turn, has a net worth estimated at $30 million.
Don’t you wonder what his attitude about these programs might be if his rich daddy and friends hadn’t funded him throughout his life?
The Shadow-Decider, who, on national television, arrogantly dismisses what the American public thinks about the war, has an estimated net worth of just under $100 million.
Don’t you wonder what his attitude about war might be if he had actually fought in one?
The Secretary of the Treasury, who is proposing an overhaul of the financial regulatory system that will give the Fed more power and some aspects of which will reduce rather than increase regulation, has an estimated net worth of over $700 million.
Don’t you wonder what his attitude might be if he was just a consumer and not a long time bigwig in investment banking?
58 percent of the Senate’s members could be considered millionaires and 44 percent of House members have a net worth estimated to be at least $1 million*. At the same time only about 1 percent of all American adults have a net worth greater than $1 million. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics said: "Now that the nation's economic road is turning rougher, members of Congress have a far more comfortable cushion than most Americans have to ride it out. If their constituents experience economic hardships, policymakers, who are in a position to help boost the economy, generally won't feel the same pain."
Don’t you wonder what the attitude of these governing bodies might be if they did feel the same pain?
*SOURCE: 10th Anniversary Edition of the World Wealth Report by investment firms Merrill Lynch and Capgemini, published 2006.
The first issue blamed is an overall “woman bias” But looking closely, Hillary has not achieved anything extraordinary except to be a woman in the running for President. Her record as First Lady and as a Senator is acceptable but certainly not outstanding. She is intelligent but not brilliant and sometimes seems lacking in discernment and judgment. So what, other than her gender and the “it’s time for a woman“ climate, has brought her to this position? It appears that perhaps Christine Ferraro’s chain of thought applies more to Hillary than Barack Obama
The second often blamed issue is resentment of Hillary because she is a “strong” woman. But what do people mean when they say that? Could they be confusing ambition with strength? Are they just parroting something they’ve heard? What are the signs of her strength? There has been evidence of whining more than once during her campaign and strong women don’t whine. She stood by her man when his philandering became public but that was simply a choice, not proof or disproof of strength. Many strong women would have felt they deserved better and said bye, bye.
As a woman of an age that placed me squarely in the middle of the fight for equal rights in the business world, I am fully aware of the problems of woman bias and have suffered my share of consequences for being considered a strong woman. But rather than bringing me to agreement, my experience causes me to dismiss these issues as the explanation for Hillary’s lack of popularity.
It seems more likely that Hillary’s problems lie with her personality and character. Bill Clinton has skated through many situations because he has a winning personality – lots of charm and a warm and personable appearance. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn’t have this advantage. She comes across as stiff, and has a tendency to sound abrasive when trying to appear tough. In the character department, both the Clintons seem wanting. But in a sad commentary on our society, people seem more inclined to overlook that lack in Bill because of his personality.
Hillary Clinton may be the first viable woman presidential candidate but she will not be the last. To support her just because she is a woman is a disservice to women everywhere. There have been female leaders in other countries - women of character and strength. We can afford to wait until we are sure we have found a woman with those qualities. It seems prudent to leave Hillary’s gender out of the equation and pay more attention to her character and past record when considering her qualifications for president.
When we inaugurate our next president, we will have lived through 20 years of administrations that did not value truth and did not work for the common good. This time let’s choose a leader we can trust.
]]>Three years ago, Justice Department Inspector General, Glenn Fine, reported on the FBI’s abuse of national security letters. These letters, a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors, reached a total of 140,000 requests over the period of 2003 to 2005. In his report Fine stated numerous instances of FBI personnel violating internal guidelines and procedures in how they obtained and used national security letters.
Despite his report and the subsequent Congressional involvement the abuses of this secret investigative tool continued in 2006. In a new report this past week; Inspector Fine concluded the continued abuse was in part because of “shoddy record keeping and poor oversight” which have gone uncorrected. Even the Justice Department and FBI reforms implemented last year do not guarantee correction of all the issues uncovered in the original investigation. Fine states:
“The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems. However, several of the FBI’s and the Department’s corrective measures are not yet fully implemented and it is too early to determine whether these measures will eliminate the problems with the use of these authorities.”
First the FBI and DOJ “…have shown a commitment to addressing these problems.” That’s a pretty innocuous statement. It gives lip service to doing something without a concrete pledge of doing anything particular. And apparently in the past three years they haven’t done anything particular.
Next is the statement: “…corrective measures are not yet fully implemented…” What kind of organization cannot, in three years, manage to get its employees to abide by its own internal guidelines and procedures? How about announcing a zero tolerance policy that starts immediately?
And last but not least, “…it is too early to determine whether these measures will eliminate the problems.” After three years, these measures that aren’t fully implemented may not even work when they are. Is this the kind of planning we pay our government agencies to do?
So what this statement seems to mean is, there is no real desire to correct this abuse. Could it be that all this - making mealy mouthed statements about commitment to handling the problem while very slowly implementing changes that may not even fix it - is just a way to run out the clock?
If we have people working for government agencies as big and powerful as the FBI and the DOJ who can’t understand, “Stop doing that now” … or who understand it but refuse to do it… then our government is out of control.
If we want real change, we have the opportunity for that in Barack Obama. But to realize this chance, we have to repudiate the smear tactics now in full force against him. We have repeatedly allowed ourselves to be influenced by rumors and gossip. Remember the attacks and accusations - against John McCain in the 2000 primary and against John Kerry in the 2004 election, just to name two – that manipulated voters even though the so called facts were patently false? We are way past the “fool me twice” stage and into the “now we’re just plain stupid” stage if we let this happen again.
The Washington insiders were caught off-guard by Obama’s ability to raise huge amounts from small donors thereby avoiding the usual octopus grip special interests have on potential candidates. As reported by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews.com:
This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama… lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries (realize)… It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible….So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”(Read entire article at http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022608.html )
http://www.solari.com/blog/?p=501 Where’s the Money? Let’s Get It Back!
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/S00223_collateral.htm Where’s The Collateral?
http://whereisthemoney.org/collateral_II.htm So, where is the collateral?
http://www.dunwalke.com/gideon/privatization030402.html Transcript:Greg Palast interview by Alex Jones
We cannot afford to be willfully uninformed. The future of our country depends on us.