The Coverup? Yeah, the coverup. This is a stretch for the tour but I'm running out of time here.
So what happened yesterday besides the pres conference that you absolutely MUST know about? The budget! Passed in stunning 1993 form without a single Democratic vote. Why is 1993 important? This is when the Republicans came out with the Contract with America and trampled into the congress the next year. Now the same thing has happened in the other direction. And Republicans did cross the isle. How close were the votes? House: 214-211 Senate: 52-47
So, where are the priorities? Medicaid got cut $10 billion and taxes got cut ten times that much! This budget gives an additional $106 billion in tax cuts and leaves a $386 billion deficit. WOW. That's right, this stuff is nuts. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times:
(1)The compromise calls for $40 billion in savings in Medicaid, farm programs and other fast-growing entitlement programs over five years.
Read "savings" as "cuts." That's right they cut important programs for tax cuts and they wouldn't have had to make any cuts if they had only given less of a tax cut.
This all happens in the midst of the Bush Press conference and will go largely under the radar.
Sources:
(1) GOP agrees on budget for 2006 Seattle Times - April 29
(2) House Passes Budget Plan, 214-211, Senate Passes 52-47 Daily KOS - April 29
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Medicaid
Hello and welcome to the new bush plan. It's different, it's better, it's still nowhere near good.
Sorry for not posting in a while (way too long) but school has been doing that to me. Anyway, today was the unveiling of the new plan on social security.
Part 1: Private Accounts
That's right, this is still in there. It's not going to go away, this is what Bush isn't budging on. No news here, and unfortunately that's not good news.
Part 2: Cuts
This is new, a $3 trillion cut to social security that is supposed to go mostly onto to the wealthier people in the system. Most people are reading this as an olive branch because this would be a progressive cut. Is the fact that the cut is progressive a good thing? Yes. Ok, so this one is bad because it is a huge cut, but it's not SO bad.
Part 3: Double Standard
Ok, here's the good stuff. Wealthy people will have their benefits tied to inflation instead of wages. Let me make this clear, I don't know how this will work out. Here's the thing though: this creates two different systems. If, say, the price of gas is going up but you have no increase in your paycheck, then those who have more in our society's benefits are going up and yours are not.
Sources:
Fact Sheet: Strengthening Social Security For Those In Need White House - April 29
Bush Recasts Message on Social Security LA Times - April 29
The press conference: more details emerge Club for Growth (yeah I linked the CFG - get over it) - April 29
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security
Energy, stability, due attention to liberties, and the republican form are were - and are - essential to the government.
That's from a post that I made last week on the attack on the filibuster and the Judiciary. But why is it that important to have energy, stability, and protection of liberties in a government? They must be present because society, because people need them. Here's the neat thing: Social Security touches every one of them.
Stability is the most obvious of the three. If you get hurt at work, Social Security is there. When you get too old to work, Social Security is there. When you need it most, it's a safety net what is more important to your personal stability, your personal security than Social Security.
Energy is new life granted to those who need it. It is the ability to have mobility in society. If you are born to the son of a mill worker you MUST be able to become a Senator. After you retire you should be able to be free enough
How can your liberties be protected if you have no money. Remember that FDR, the founder of Social Security, regards a quality of life and the freedom from fear as a part of this category. If you have no money and no way to get it and two children who need to be fed, are you scared? This is the category of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and Social Security is needed to protect each one.
The same people who are attacking the stability in our government are attacking your personal security by trying to take out Social Security.
Sources:
The attack on Stability
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security
Roosevelt's vision gave conservatives in both parties apoplexy in 1944 and it would still drive them crazy today. But the truth is that during the 1950's and 60's the nation made substantial progress toward his wonderfully admirable goals, before the momentum of liberal politics slowed with the war in Vietnam and the election in 1968 of Richard Nixon.
....
Roosevelt was far from a perfect president, but he gave hope and a sense of the possible to a nation in dire need. And he famously warned against giving in to fear.
The nation is now in the hands of leaders who are experts at exploiting fear, and indifferent to the needs and hopes, even the suffering, of ordinary people.
"The test of our progress," said Roosevelt, "is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Sixty years after his death we should be raising a toast to F.D.R. and his progressive ideas. And we should take that opportunity to ask: How in the world did we allow ourselves to get from there to here?
How did we get here from there? That's not annother post; it's annother book or five. The question is more importantly this: Where do we go from here to get back to there? The tipping point that Herbert identifies is Vietnam. Maybe this new war on the other side will tip it back.
Sources:
A Radical in the White House New York Times - April 18
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security | FDR | Roosevelt
Stability is a critical part of our government. In, "Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government," one of the Federalist Papers, Madison points out that one major failing of some governments is a lack of "moderation" or stability.
It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it.
Madison goes on to further explain four basic parts of a good government that each contradict the others.
Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form. Without substantially accomplishing this part of their undertaking, they would have very imperfectly fulfilled the object of their appointment, or the expectation of the public; yet that it could not be easily accomplished, will be denied by no one who is unwilling to betray his ignorance of the subject. Energy in government is essential to that security against external and internal danger, and to that prompt and salutary execution of the laws which enter into the very definition of good government. Stability in government is essential to national character and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.
Energy, stability, due attention to liberties, and the republican form are were - and are - essential to the government. Each part is clearly represented in out government. The most convoluted part is probably due attention to liberties, which in context is talking about the rights of the states, not the rights of the people. Due attention to liberties is then addressed by the relationship between the states and the federal government in the Federal system. The Republican form is the House and energy comes in the executive branch. Stability is represented in the Senate and the Judiciary.
Is it really any surprise that the party in power would lash out against the parts of government that represent stability? These are the obstacles in the way of their complete rule. These aspects are, however, key to our government.
Our federal judiciary must make decisions independently of political pressure. This, in light of recent events and remarks, is a post in of itself for another time. For now, let's just say that the Judiciary has life terms because they should not be accountable to any representative once named to their position.
The Senate, which is also another post for another time, is the most stable elected branch of government. It has terms of six years elected on a rotating 2 year schedule. No more that slightly over one third of the entire body changes at once and each official has their seat for longer than either the House or President on a per term basis. They were supposed to be our public face to the world along with the president. One key tool of this stability is the Filibuster, which makes the minority party in the Senate stronger. This limits the power of the majority party and that lends itself to stability.
The recent remarks from Republicans about obstructionism will also be covered in another post, but in a bigger picture sort of way, let me say that anyone who does not respect the stabilizing forces in our government misunderstands their importance. The Filibuster in the Senate and the lack of accountability of our Federal Judiciary is essential and must remain intact.
Source:
Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government (Federalist 37) Daily Advertiser - January 11, 1788 (hosted online by Oklahoma College of Law)
(1) The national debate over the future of Social Security took on a new twist when the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York, called a halt to a forum that would have criticized the federal program's privatization. Library Director Cynthia Koch said she had been advised by legal counsel for the National Archives and Records Administration that the program - which was to feature Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a critic of President Bush's proposed reforms - lacked the balance that would make the library's Wallace Center an appropriate venue.
Sponsored by the Hudson Valley Chapter of the Older Women's League, the American Association of University Women Poughkeepsie Branch, and the League of Women Voters of the Mid-Hudson Region, the forum was scheduled for April 9 at the library whose namesake launched Social Security 70 years ago. The Associated Press reported April 1 that the women's groups received a letter from Koch stating that the law bars the use of federal facilities for partisan events and that the program lacked a speaker who could talk about the merits of President Bush's proposed changes to Social Security.
Now, to be fair, you'd have to find merits first. I kid. Because the American Libraries Online piece didn't go enough into detail, let's turn to the Washington Post, which points at the bush double standard in the mess of all this surprising anyone who actually both watches Fox News and reads the Washington Post.
(2) "If you cannot provide at least one speaker who will speak on the features and merits of the administration's plan for Social Security, then I must ask that you find another venue for your program," the library's director, Cynthia M. Koch, wrote on March 31 to one of the groups sponsoring the forum.
....
The National Council of Women's Organizations had protested the move by Koch. "In keeping with the Bush administration's determination to quash anyone who disagrees with them, federal agencies now consider it 'partisan' to hold any opinion that is not identical to the president's," the group said in a statement. It pointed out that yesterday, Bush promoted his plan at a federal facility -- the Bureau of Public Debt in West Virginia -- without giving time to anybody opposed to personal accounts.
Finally we come to a source that is certainly one sided, if admittedly so. This is a first hand account of the events and has not been put together with any corroborating evidence. That said, let's look at what went up over on the Daily KOS.
(3) The AAUW, OWL, and LWV are non-partisan groups which have organized this forum on Social Security to include three panelists from Washington, as well as invited all three members of Congress representing Dutchess County (Representatives Kelly-R, Sweeney-R, and Hinchey-D). Congressman Maurice Hinchey was the only member to accept the invitation to participate. Kelly and Sweeney both failed to respond to invitations.
Aha! Take that. If you don't think that you can argue your side coherently, all you have to do is refuse to show up and poof, no event. Funny how that works. This story certainly does not compare to those of people who were removed from Bush events, but it has gone much more unnoticed. The fact that the venue where this incident happened is named for the creator of Social Securit is icing on the cake. The word is spreadding about the plan and the word is not with Bush.
Sources:
(1) FDR Library Nixes Social Security Forum Amarican Libraries Online - April 8
(2)
FDR Library Blocks Social Security Forum Washington Post - April 6
(3)
BREAKING! Soc.Sec. Censorship at FDR Library Daily KOS - April 1
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security
Just a warning, I've got quite a few things saved up from the week. Midterms framed my week and so here we are and here we go.
When you quote something the first thing that you must always do is make sure that the quote is accurate. Next, and at least as important as the first point in the political realm, is making sure that you did not misrepresent what you are quoting. Finally, you must correctly attribute the quote to its source. As far as the GOP is concerned, two out of three ain't bad.
(1)On Thursday, privatization-pushers released a deceptive “research briefing” with excerpts from news stories on recent Social Security town-hall meetings. The article snippets give the impression that President Bush’s privatization plan enjoys nationwide backing; indeed, the document’s bold, italicized headline reads, “More Americans Support Call To Strengthen Social Security.”
Just one problem – several of the individuals quoted in the press release explain in the excerpted articles that they actually oppose privatization:
....
The pull-quote:
Scott Savelkol, Recent Graduate From Dickinson State University: “Doing Nothing Is Not An Option.”
The full quote:
Scott Savelkol, who recently graduated from Dickinson State University, said he also opposes to private accounts [sic]. He would prefer lawmakers lift a $90,000 cap on wages taxed for Social Security.
“Doing nothing is not an option,” Savelkol said.
This is just one of the quotes that was misrepresented, head over to Think Progress for more. To be fair, this doesn't surprise me much after the whole Jeff Gannon controversy. I think maybe what I like best is that some of the quotes that made it to the GOP's page weren't even that supportive.
(2)“Venus Blake, A Retired School Teacher And Accountant, Said Social Security Is More Important In North Dakota Than Other States Because Of The Number Of Rural Residents And Small Businesses.” (Dave Kolpack, “Social Security Overhaul Discussed At Hearing In Fargo,” The Associated Press, 3/23/05
In the end, a quote is used to represent annother person. Intentionally misrepresenting them is a great disservice, especially if it changes the meaning of the statement. When it comes to what he said, make sure that WAS what he said.
Sources:
(1) Privitizers Getting Desperate Think Progress - March 28
(2)
RNC Research Briefings GOP - March 24
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security
A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of "activist judges." Generally, the definition of an "activist judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution. Since I have sworn, as have they, to uphold and defend that Covenant, I must respectfully concur in the denial of the request for rehearing en banc. I conclude that Pub. L.109-3 ("the Act") is unconstitutional and, therefore, this court and the district court are without jurisdiction in this case under that 1 special Act and should refuse to exercise any jurisdiction that we may otherwise have in this case.
This is from the US Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. Judge Geoge W. Greer wrote the opinion. There you have it. This law, as I said, was unconstitutional. These are the very basic principles of this great land that were violated and thank goodness at least one branch of government understands this. Frankly, in my previous post I was complaining about other things but this is a much better argument than mine was and so I'll treat you to a little more.
It is axiomatic that the Framers established a constitutional design based on the principles of separation of powers. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176 (1803) (noting that separation of powers is one of the governmental principles “on which the whole American fabric has been erected”). The Framers established three coequal but separate branches of government, each with the ability to exercise checks and balances on the two others. And to preserve this dynamic, the “Constitution mandates that ‘each of the three general departments of government [must remain] entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect, of either of the others.’” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 380, 109 S. Ct. 647, 659 (1989) (quoting Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629, 55 S. Ct. 869, 874 (1935)). Because of the important constitutional role assigned to the judiciary by the Framers in safeguarding the Constitution and the rights of individuals, see Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton), the execution of this constitutional mandate is particularly important when legislative acts encroach upon the independence of the judiciary. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 961, 103 S. Ct. 2764, 2789 (1983) (Powell, J. concurring) (citing Federalist No. 48 for the proposition that the Framers enshrined in the Constitution separation of powers principles because of past legislative interference with the judiciary); Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 458 U.S. 50, 60, 102 S. Ct. 2858, 2866 (1982) (“[T]he independence of the judiciary [must] be jealously guarded.”). Accordingly, we risk imperiling our constitutional design if we do not inquire as to whether Pub. L. 109-3 infringes on the independence of the judiciary guaranteed by Article III of the United States Constitution.
....
Against these most elementary of constitutional principles, Section 1 of Pub. L. 109-3—which states that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear a suit regarding alleged violations of rights held by Mrs. Schiavo “under the Constitution or laws of the United States”—is not facially unconstitutional. If the Act only provided for jurisdiction consistent with Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Act would not be in violation of the principles of separation of powers. The Act, however, goes further. Section 2 of the Act provides that the district court: (1) shall engage in “de novo” review of Mrs. Schiavo’s constitutional and federal claims; (2) shall not consider whether these claims were previously “raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings”; (3) shall not engage in “abstention in favor of State court proceedings”; and (4) shall not decide the case on the basis of “whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.” Pub. L. 109-3, § 2. Because these provisions constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a “rule of decision”), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle.
Source:
Complete Opinion Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - March 25
If I have two apples in one hand and two oranges in the other, is what I have in each hand equal? Better yet, IIf I have an an 8 oz glass milk and a scoop of ice cream in one hand and a 6oz. cup of milk and a scoop of ice cream in the other hand are they equal? Of course not.
Doesn't it make sense for members of Congress to give younger workers the opportunity to do the same thing with their money that they get to do in their retirement system?" the president asked this week in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, baiting his congressional opponents. "Frankly, if it's good enough for federal workers and elected officials - putting aside some of your own money in a personal savings account - it ought to be good enough for all workers in America."
What Bush fails to mention is that his accounts differ from Thrift Savings Plan accounts in a key way: They would be carved out of the Social Security taxes nongovernment workers pay. By contrast, federal employees get their accounts in addition to a traditional Social Security benefit check.
You see, the missing 2oz of milk in one hand got turned into ice cream but the ice cream in the other hand is in addition to the original glass of milk. You can't compare apples and oranges and get away with it no matter who you are.
Source:
Bush Social Security analogy questioned Kansas City Star - April 01
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security
|
