Blog Archive: March, 2007

Much of the focus of the Senate's questioning of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff, is on how Sampson's story squares with other Justice Depart read more »

Much of the focus of the Senate's questioning of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff, is on how Sampson's story squares with other Justice Department and White House officials, especially because Sampson and others risk being busted for misleading Congress, and folks are looking to save themselves and shift blame.

As I've blogged before, the Bush Administration has been governing under the guidance of the Heritage Foundation paper, "Taking Charge of Federal Personnel," issued just as Bush was assuming the presidency.

It sniffed at the "Public Administration Model" of government as "emphasiz[ing] the Progressive ideal--a value-free 'scientific' program of government administration." Instead, it preferred the "Political Administration Model" which it defined as "providing presidential leadership to committed top political officials...holding them and their subordinates personally accountable for achievement of the President's election-endorsed and value-defined program."

And it explicitly called for "appointment decisions based on loyalty first and expertise second."

We have seen this conservative governing philosophy in action in the Bush Era, as political hacks have been empowered to undermine civil servants faithful to the law and the facts.

The pressure on CIA analysts to cook Iraq intelligence. The threatening of the chief Medicare actuary to clam up on the cost of the prescription drug bill. The misinformation pumped out of the Social Security Administration. The muzzling of our scientists regarding global warming.

And now the Prosecutor Purge, an attempt to pack our Justice Department with "loyal Bushies" and turn it into a partisan weapon. And thus today Sampson explained to the Senate Judiciary Commnittee that in regards to the administration's reasons for purging eight U.S. attorneys, "the distinction between political and performance-related reasons … is in my view largely artificial."

This is not unique to the Bush Era. As Robert Borosage laid out recently in "Alberto Gonzales: Why Conservatives Can't Govern":

Conservative presidents--from Nixon to Reagan to Bush--believe in the imperial presidency. They assume that in the area of the national security, the president operates above the law, or as Nixon put it, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." They operate routinely behind the shield of secrecy and executive privilege, with utter disdain for the law.

Sampson — like Gonzales, like the White House —does not apologize for the Purge itself. He said today the decision was "properly made but poorly explained." Purging a independent prosecutor for political reasons, in the conservative view, is proper.

Certainly, there are individuals in this scandal who need to be held accountable.

But until the conservative approach to government is excised from the Oval Office, we will not have a government that follows the law, delivers the facts and truly serves the public.

More on the Sampson testimony is on the new Common Sense blog at the Campaign For America's Future website.

There is more evidence today that the Bush administration’s economic policies are widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

read more »

There is more evidence today that the Bush administration’s economic policies are widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

University of California at Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Picketty of the Paris School of Economics released two studies this week, one looking at income and another looking at tax policy. The bottom line: Under Bush, the rich aren’t just getting richer. They’re making a killing.

How much so? As The New York Times reported Thursday, the nation’s richest 300,000 Americans make as much money as the bottom 150 million. Calculations based on 2005 tax data, the latest available, average incomes for people among the bottom 90 percent of Americans that year declined 0.6 percent, while the incomes of those in the top 10 percent increased about 14 percent.

And that is not just a one-year blip. Since 1970, based on data posted on Saez’ website, while the annual average wage, adjusted for inflation, increased 15.2 percent  between 1970 and 2005, the average wage for the nation’s top 100 CEOs in that period increased a whopping 2,193 percent.

Meanwhile, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a study based on the research of Saez and Picketty that shows the extent to which the wealthiest Americans benefited greatly from conservative tax policy while the pocketbooks of average Americans remain significantly unchanged. “Large reductions in tax progressivity since the 1960s took place primarily during two periods:  the Reagan presidency in the 1980s and the Bush administration in the early 2000s,” Piketty and Saez say in the Center’s study.

In fact, the wealthier the individual, the greater the magnitude of the tax benefit: The average tax rate declined by a larger amount for households in the top one hundredth of 1 percent of the income scale (where incomes in 2004 averaged about $15 million) than for households in the top tenth of 1 percent (where incomes averaged above $3.7 million) or for households in the top 1 percent (where incomes averaged about $850,000). 

“During a period in which economic forces have been generating increased pre-tax inequality, changes in the tax system have exacerbated rather than mitigated the widening of the income gap,” the Center concludes.

The Bush administration and congressional Republicans, not surprisingly, are trying to change the subject. As Democrats unveiled their admittedly imperfect and incomplete plans to balance the budget by 2012—a vote on the budget resolution will come Thursday afternoon—the Republicans have settled on a mantra: that Democrats will enact “the largest tax increase in American history.” They will try to persuade working-class Americans that the Democrats will dip into their pockets.

Democrats and progressives do not have to fall into that rhetorical trap. The evidence is on their side. It is the Republicans who have been playing reverse Robin Hood, robbing lower- and middle-income Americans by rigging tax and economic policies to benefit the rich. In an honest moment, a few Republicans will acknowledge the truth. But as we see over and over again, honesty and economic fairness are not high on the agenda of the conservative ideologues still trying to call the shots.

If memory serves, back in 1995, right after the Republicans took over Congress, a pre-Fox News Dennis Miller looked at footage of a sea of grumpy white men sitting on their hands d read more »

If memory serves, back in 1995, right after the Republicans took over Congress, a pre-Fox News Dennis Miller looked at footage of a sea of grumpy white men sitting on their hands during a Bill Clinton State of the Union address, and remarked:

It's the elders from Footloose! Let. The. Kids. Dance!

This week James Inhofe, who was swept into the Senate with that GOP takeover, has proven Miller prescient.

The Hill reports that Inhofe is single-handedly blocking a Senate resolution to allow the planned Live Earth concert event from performing on the U.S. Capitol grounds.

Live Earth, a July 7th series of concerts on all seven continents, is a benefit to fund "a new, multi-year global effort to combat the climate crisis led by Vice President Al Gore."

Inhofe, fresh off of his laughably juvenile performance during Gore's Senate testimony, dishonestly claimed his opposition to the concert was that it is a "partisan political event." But the resolution opening up the Capitol grounds, which needs unanimous consent to be quickly approved, is co-sponsored by a Democrat and a Republican.

Inhofe has firmly established himself as the most childish member of Congress, which makes him the perfect face for the global warming denial movement.

President Bush, desperately trying to tamp down the rising tide of public pressure against the war, is seeking to misframe the read more »

President Bush, desperately trying to tamp down the rising tide of public pressure against the war, is seeking to misframe the Iraq bill he will soon veto.

Funding for our forces in Iraq will begin to run out in mid-April. Members of Congress need to stop making political statements [and] start providing vital funds for our troops ... If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.

This makes the eventual bill sound like it will cut off funds for troops already in the field, which it simply does not. It would fund the troops while they are in Iraq, but calls for their redeployment by next year—which only departs from public opinion in that the public wants troops home sooner.

There is no debate between Congress and the White House about funding those already in the field.The debate is over our final goals in Iraq: do we want to permanently occupy Iraq, or do we want a free and sovereign Iraq?

Permanent occupation is a strategy for failure.

Iraqi support for attacks on our troops is directly linked to opposition to permanent bases (which already exist). Belief that such bases will be used to expand the war beyond Iraq's borders prevents essential regional diplomacy from working.

Both House and Senate versions of the Iraq bill ban funds for permanent bases.

Beyond the flexible timelines for redeployment, such a ban represents a fundamental change in course of our foreign policy goals—away from continued failure.

Troops already in the field should not be hung out to dry. But funding a failed strategy does exactly that.

The debate is not about whether to fund troops in the field. It's about whether or not we should occupy Iraq forever.

The public is firmly opposed to permanent occupation. And Congress is carrying out the people's will.

But when Bush vetoes this bill, he will make it crystal clear he does not believe the people decide the direction of our foreign policy. And the American people will know who to hold responsible for a failed foreign policy.

The health care goals and plans of seven presidential candidates, all Democrats, are being laid side by side for the first time Saturday as the Center for American Progress and Ser read more »

The health care goals and plans of seven presidential candidates, all Democrats, are being laid side by side for the first time Saturday as the Center for American Progress and Service Employees International Union host the "New Leadership On Health Care" presidential forum in Las Vegas. (You can comment on the debate here.)

Former senator John Edwards kicked off the presidential forum by laying out his previously announced health care plan. He stressed that his plan "covers all Americans" through "shared responsibilities." He noted that "employers are required to either cover their employees or to pay into a fund" that will provide coverage.

And regarding our government's role, Edwards said:

Government plays an important role, [setting] up health care markets all across America. And in each of those markets, if you’re the consumer, you can go in and choose what your health care plan will be.

Some of the choices are private insurers. And then one choice is a government plan, basically a Medicare-plus plan.

The idea is to determine whether Americans actually want a private insurer, or whether they’d rather have a government-run, Medicare-plus kind of single-payer plan. And we’ll find out over time which way people go.

He also emphasized cost containment. In response to a small businessman struggling with high costs, Edwards said that through mandatory preventative care coverage and competition between private insurers and government plans that have "extraordinarily low" administrative costs, those costs would "dramatically" drop.

But he did not flinch at addressing the "transitional" costs to a new system, saying it would cost $90 to $120 billion a year, which he would pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for those making more than $200,000.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said the "cornerstone" of his plan is to allow all Americans and business to be able to purchase the same coverage that members of Congress have, while offering "help" for those will low incomes. He also argued for an expansion of Medicare to cover those 55 and older, and a "cooperative relationship" between individuals, businesses and states "catalyzed by the government."

Without naming Edwards, he argued that additional sources of revenue are not necessary, saying increased efficiency, preventative care and an exit from Iraq will provide enough revenue to expand coverage. But it wasn't clear if Richardson was pledging to achieve universal coverage.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama reiterated his pledge to achieve universal health care by the end of his first term as president, and urged voters to "judge" his performance on that pledge.

He downplayed policy details, saying "every four years someone trots out a white paper," when the question is, "Are we able to bring a majority of people together to solve the problem now?" Nonetheless, he promised "a very detailed plan on our website" after a series of roundtable discussions with experts and voters during the next couple of months.

What he did offer was basic principles for his health care vision.

• "Everbody's in" the plan, "employers are going to have to play or pay"—offer coverage directly or help fund coverage—and subsidies should offered to those who struggling to afford health care.
• The plan should "save money" by emphasizing prevention, chronic care management and medical technology.
• There should be a "pooling of cost and risk," and money should be spent more efficiently to improve quality.

Much of that tracks what Edwards has offered, and in fact, Obama offered that Edwards' plan is "very credible."

When asked if additional tax revenue is needed, Obama did not dismiss the possibility, saying we need to "do whatever it takes" but noted there is much savings to be reaped with a more efficient system. He also said he would need to "put some money on the front end in creating a new system" and then "get those savings on the back end," emphasizing that "those savings [should] go into the pockets of families, and not just insurance companies or drug companies."

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton passionately recalled the “battle scars” from the days when she tried to launch a detailed health plan when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president, into what proved to be an unforgiving political environment.  In her opening statement, unlike Edwards, she chose to stick to general principles rather than details, but in response to questions she said she would support a plan that would require employers who do not purchase private health insurance for their employees to pay into a pool for a Medicare-for-all-type plan.

Clinton was particularly critical of insurance companies, promising to introduce a bill in this session of Congress that would eliminate barriers that prevent insured people from getting the care to which they are entitled. Recalling the story of a constituent whose insurance company refused to authorize coverage for an urgently needed medical procedure, Clinton said it shouldn’t take a call from a senator’s office to get an insurance company to provide the coverage patients pay for.

Clinton spent a little more time than the other candidates on stressing the importance of getting younger, healthy people into the insurance system and on people taking better care of themselves. She said it would take her two terms to get a universal health care system in place.

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd said his plan was based on four principles: universality (“everyone participates, everyone benefits,” prevention, extend Medicaid to more families, and improving the use of technology. He referenced his leadership in getting the Family Medical Leave Act written into the law as proof of his commitment to working families and to the health care issue. (He also mentioned his two young children and his status as perhaps the only lawmaker in Congress who “gets mail from the AARP and from diaper services.”)

As did some of the other candidates, Dodd said that all Americans should be able to get the same type of health care plan as members of Congress.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich used the forum to continue his vigorous pitch for a single-payer health care system, arguing that the plans of the other major candidates were too dependent on insurance companies and others with a profit motive that was antithetical to the notion of universal, nondiscriminatory care. To critics who raise the fear that a totally government-run system would end up rationing care to control costs, Kucinich said that insurance companies already ration care. He also scoffed at the argument that private-sector competition would reduce costs, saying that the opposite has been the case in health care.

"Health care is a right, not a privilege. It is a right. It is a human right,” Kucinich said.

Former Alaska senator Mike Gravel proposed a single-payer system of sorts, but under his system each American would get a health care voucher that they would use to purchase their choice of five or six private insurance plans. “Everyone gets the same product. If you want more than the product you’ve got, you pay for it,” he said. Gravel said he would not expand Medicare or Medicaid unless “we don’t see the private insurance companies shape up.”