Don't know why I'm inspired to write this. (Perhaps it's my
current proximity to the Capitol and White House) There are a couple
of pieces I've read over the past few months that have convinced me to
vote against Pres. Bush and for Sen. Kerry and I just thought I would
pass them along. If I'm preaching to the choir or you're peeved or not
interested or just ready for this whole election thing to be over--my
sincerest apologies. Anyway, things to think about with the election
just hours away.
Hope everyone is planning to get out to the polls...
1) Bush's true pandering to corporate America is the number one Bush
fault in my opinion....
Manservant
by Jonathan Chait [From the New Republic last December]
Post date 12.05.03 Issue date 12.15.03
[Peter Beinart is out of the country. He will return to writing TRB in
two weeks.]
Is President Bush a conservative? His successful push for the Medicare
bill, as well as his unsuccessful (for now) push for an energy bill,
have prompted another round of gentle tsk- tsking by conservative
pundits. "One side advantage of the measure is that it should, at
least, retire for good and all that absurd claim that President Bush
is some kind of ideological extremist," writes former Bush
speechwriter David Frum in National Review Online. "It's sobering to
consider that with the prescription-drug benefit, George W. Bush has
created the first major new federal entitlement since Gerald Ford
signed the Earned Income Tax Credit a quarter-century ago. If that
isn't 'moderation,' what is?"
This argument betrays a common misunderstanding of the precise nature
of the president's right-wingery. Bush's extremism does not lie in the
purity of his devotion to the teachings of Milton Friedman but rather
in the slavishness of his fealty to K Street. The distinction is a
fine one, but it's highly revealing. In most instances, being pro-free
market and pro-business amount to the same thing. Businesses usually
want the government out of their way, which is why the business lobby
threw its weight behind Bush's efforts to cut taxes, scuttle workplace
safety standards, and so on. The way you tell the difference between a
free-marketer and a servant of business is how he behaves when the
interests of the two diverge. And all the evidence, including the
Medicare and energy bills, points to the conclusion that Bush is happy
to throw free-market conservatism out the window when business
interests so desire.
Consider, for instance, the $180 billion farm bill signed by Bush in
2002. The notion that taxpayers should subsidize farmers rather than,
say, butchers or t- shirt salesmen represents the most archaic and
unjustifiable kind of government intervention. But farmers have lots
of clout in Washington, in part because they're relatively affluent
(farm households earn more on average than non-farm households) but
mainly due to the disproportionate representation of rural states in
the Senate and electoral college. In the course of showering federal
largesse upon farmers a year ago, some senators tried to mitigate
their shame slightly by limiting payments to $275,000 per farmer.
Republicans removed this modest measure. Bush also capitulated to the
textile and steel industries by imposing tariffs on competing imports,
overruling the advice of his economic advisers. (Only after
steel-consuming industries complained and the World Trade Organization
ruled the tariffs illegal did Bush finally relent.)
A cornerstone of Bush's domestic policy is his aptitude for economic
giveaways that are supported by neither liberals nor true
conservatives--indeed, that are supported only by those who profit
from them monetarily or politically. Take the energy bill, which
lavished subsidies upon favored industries. Not only did
environmentalists and mainstream liberal economists denounce it, so
did conservative scholars at think tanks like the Heritage Foundation
and the Cato Institute. Everything you need to know about the politics
and policy of the energy bill is contained within one sentence that
appeared in The Washington Post last month: "The assembled
lobbyists--representing farm, corn, soybean, wind, geothermal, coal,
oil and gas interests that benefit from provisions in the 1,100 page
bill-- gave [GOP Senator and energy-bill champion Pete] Domenici a
standing ovation, and he thanked them for helping to push the
legislation to the brink of passage, according to one person present."
Similarly, the Medicare bill, supposedly evidence of Bush's
moderation, is in fact typical of his domestic agenda, which revolves
around granting favors to powerful interest groups. Again, most of the
major liberal and conservative think tanks opposed the bill. But the
pharmaceutical companies were ecstatic with it: Not only does it
subsidize drug purchases, it specifically prohibits the federal
government from using its negotiating power to hold down the cost of
the drugs it purchases. (Got that? Those who spend your tax dollars
are forbidden from striking a good bargain with the drug companies.)
The American Medical Association was brought on board with a promise
to boost Medicare reimbursements. And employers received federal
subsidies--more than twice what they requested--to help cover the cost
of their retirees' health care. As Thomas Scully, the Bush appointee
who heads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, put it,
businesses received "way beyond their wildest requests" and "should be
having a giant ticker-tape parade." Perhaps deeming a ticker-tape
parade unseemly, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce instead launched a lobbying campaign on the bill's behalf.
Note that all these measures would require the government to spend
more money. But they triggered nary a complaint from conservatives.
What they hated about the Medicare bill was the part about helping
senior citizens buy medicine. When the government gives money to sick
people, you see, that's incipient socialism. When it gives money to
drug companies, doctors, and employers, that's the free market in
action.
All this is in keeping with the recent pattern of Republican
governance. Last year, the Associated Press conducted a remarkable
study showing how federal spending patterns had changed since the GOP
took over Congress in 1995. Republicans did not shrink federal
spending, it found, they merely transferred it, from poorer Democratic
districts to wealthier Republican ones. This, the A.P. reported,
"translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer
public housing grants and food stamps." In 1995, Democratic districts
received an average of $35 million more in federal largesse than
Republican districts, which seems roughly fair given that Democratic
districts have more people in need of government aid. By 2001, the gap
had not only reversed, it had increased nearly twentyfold, with GOP
districts receiving an average of $612 million more than Democratic
ones. Justifying this shift, then- Majority Leader Dick Armey said,
"To the victor goes the spoils." It would be a worthy slogan for
Bush's reelection campaign.
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at TNR.
2) Kerry's record promoting gov't openness I find admirable; and I
have found Bush secrecy a bit frightening--this is an issue I've
become fairly familiar with and care about deeply.... This report is
from the Federation of American Scientists Project on Gov't Secrecy,
an organization that I have found to be quite thorough, fair and
balanced (unlike the clear partisanship of TNR above and below)
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2004, Issue No. 95
October 30, 2004
** KERRY ON OPENNESS AND SECRECY
** BUSH ON OPENNESS AND SECRECY
KERRY ON OPENNESS AND SECRECY
Though it has gone largely unremarked by supporters and opponents
alike, John Kerry has an extraordinary Senate record as an
investigator and overseer of some of the government's most
controversial, complex and secretive activities.
He has repeatedly exposed abuses of the government secrecy system,
and has often prevailed in overcoming unwarranted secrecy.
One high point of his Senate career is his chairmanship of the
Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, which culminated in a 1200
page final report in 1993.
Perhaps it is a sign of the anemic state of American democracy that
this monument of government accountability is out of print and
forgotten. But it is a remarkable document -- lucid, passionate
and decent.
Among other things, the Committee report is a testament to the
power of openness and declassification and to clarify and to heal.
The Kerry Committee's achievements included "the most rapid and
extensive declassification of public files and documents on a
single issue in American history" as of 1993.
A decade before the 9/11 Commission wrestled with the White House
over access to the President's Daily Brief, members of Senator
Kerry's committee sought and gained limited access to PDBs in the
first Bush Administration.
"Nothing has done more to fuel suspicion about the government's
handling of the POW/MIA issue than the fact that so many documents
related to those efforts have remained classified for so long,"
the Kerry Committee report concluded.
"The Committee believes that its legacy will be that it removed the
shroud of secrecy which for too long has hidden information about
POW/MIAs from public scrutiny."
Though it pulled few punches and displayed a willingness to find
fault with individuals and agencies inside and outside of
government (and to praise others, such as then-Secretary of
Defense Dick Cheney), Senator Kerry's Committee was still able to
function effectively on a bipartisan basis.
Of course, the policies of a hypothetical President Kerry cannot be
reliably predicted based on the practices of Committee Chairman
Kerry.
But it is noteworthy that as a Senator, Kerry demonstrated an
exceptionally vivid understanding of the pitfalls of executive
branch secrecy and the essential function of government
accountability in a democracy.
The executive summary of the 1993 Report of Senator Kerry's
Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs may be found here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1993_rpt/pow-exec.html
BUSH ON OPENNESS AND SECRECY
The documented increase in government secrecy under President Bush
is partly driven by the heightened state of security associated
with military action and the threat of terrorism. But it also
reflects a seeming disdain for public deliberation and official
accountability that predates September 11, 2001.
The President's secrecy policies are within the parameters of the
law and the Constitution -- with the exception of the refusal by
the CIA and the Justice Department to release historical
intelligence budget information, which violates the Constitutional
statement and account clause, we believe.
But Bush Administration secrecy places a premium on strong
executive branch authority at the expense of congressional
oversight, freedom of information and even such mundane things as
making the President available to answer questions from the press.
As a result, the character and the possibilities of citizenship
in our democracy are increasingly constrained.
In a small but telling example, the telephone directory for the
Department of Defense, which for many years used to be for sale at
the Government Printing Office Bookstore, has been deemed "for
official use only" in the Bush Administration and is no longer
available. A wall between the public and its government that did
not previously exist has now been erected.
(The White House's own telephone directory is also stamped "for
official use only," though it may be purchased by anyone for $35
from the private Bureau of National Affairs. Meanwhile, the
Department of Energy, which handles information and materials as
sensitive as any in government, makes its telephone directory
available on the web.)
Many of the Bush Administration's official policies and
pronouncements on secrecy may be found here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/index.html
A recent, mostly critical discussion of Bush Administration secrecy
policy is presented in "Groups raise concerns about increased
classification of documents" by Gregg Sangillo, National Journal,
October 23:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/102704nj1.htm
3) Is the administration being deceitful about Iraq? Has the
administration flip-flopped regarding the rationale for invasion?
Signs point to yes. The administration's difficulty in holding onto
the impetus for invasion bolsters the allegations that the war was
planned and justified (in the president's mind) long before 9/11,
perhaps even before the president took office--a frightening thought.
Again from TNR (Notebook section--3/29/04)
FACE THE MUSIC
For months, the Bush administration has insisted it never said the
threat from Iraq was imminent. So we were gratified to see Donald
Rumsfeld stumble and fall when confronted by Bob Schieffer and Thomas
Friedman on "Face the Nation" this Sunday. In response to a
straightforward question--Schieffer asked, "If [Iraq] did not have
these weapons of mass destruction, though, ... why then did they pose
an immediate threat to us, to this country?"--Rumsfeld said:
Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people
I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat.' I didn't. The president
didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's
happened. ... If you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
Then, like a gift from the Gods of Nexis, Friedman produced such a citation:
Friedman: We have one here. It says "some have argued that the
nu"--this is you speaking--"that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not
imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having
nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."
Rumsfeld: And--and--
Friedman: It was close to imminent.
Rumsfeld: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to
be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've--
Friedman: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate
threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world
than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he
had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other
countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we
will know.
Perhaps that will put the "imminence" debate to rest--once and for all.
Again from TNR; Notebook Section 6/28/04 (and again I admit and I am
aware that this is not your typical neutral commenator)
IF BY 'LONG ESTABLISHED' HE MEANS 'NO,' THEN MAYBE HE ISN'T LYING
"He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda."
--Vice President Dick Cheney, referring to Saddam Hussein during a
speech in Orlando, Florida, on June 14, 2004
"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training
camps, as well as assistance procuring weapons, but Iraq never
responded. There have been reports [of] contacts between Iraq and Al
Qaeda ... but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative
relationship. ... We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda
cooperated on attacks against the United States."
--The 9/11 Commission's Staff Statement No. 15, released on June 16, 2004
Ok, enough, I'm sure most if not all of you did not read all of this.
I'm looking forward to tomorrow, should be an exciting day. Vote, vote, vote
Take care,
Nathan