RightWatch - April 5, 2003
Found at
http://www.buzzflash.com/
Fog of War Shrouds a 'Horrendous' Tax Cut Bill
By Saul Friedman - Newsday
Americans of every generation, especially those of us who
have =
witnessed=20
war or have been part of a nation at war,
will meet our obligations =
as=20
citizens - supporting the young
men and women who will fight in this =
latest=20
conflict, or
protesting it in the free streets of our land.
But what are we to make of those national leaders who =
would
spend the=20
public treasure waging this war while slashing
taxes for the =
wealthiest among=20
us, then ask for sacrifices
that they won't be called on to make =
while using=20
the fog of
war to cut the programs on which the poorest, =
oldest,
youngest=20
and most voiceless Americans depend?
Consider the House (Republican) budget resolution, which
passed =
on a=20
narrow, party-line vote on March 21 and was
based on the president's =
proposed=20
tax cuts of $726 billion
over the next decade. To help pay for those =
cuts and=20
the
war, the resolution orders $265 billion in spending cuts
over =
those 10=20
years, most of it - $159 billion - from basic
domestic entitlement=20
programs.
According to Washington's nonpartisan Center on Budget =
and
Policy=20
Priorities, the cuts would eliminate $92 billion in
Medicaid, the =
basic=20
federal-state health insurance program
for the very poor, mostly =
children,=20
and the elderly and the
disabled; $19 billion in Supplemental =
Security=20
Income; $14
billion in veterans benefits; $14 billion in the =
earned
income=20
tax credit for the working poor who don't make enough
to pay taxes; =
$13=20
billion in food stamps; $8 billion in
temporary assistance to needy =
families;=20
$7 billion in farmer
assistance; $6 billion for child nutrition and=20
school
lunches; and $2 billion in the State Children's =
Health
Insurance=20
Program (SCHIP), which Republicans had hailed for
providing health =
coverage=20
for children whose parents have
none.
Social Security was off limits, but unemployment
compensation, =
benefits=20
for retired military personnel, and
Medicare were the only =
entitlement=20
programs spared. House
Republican leaders were forced to rescind cuts =
of=20
$215
billion in Medicare by Republican moderates =
whose
middle-income=20
constituents depend on Medicare. The moderates
made no such protest =
on behalf=20
of Medicaid beneficiaries,
most of whom are politically =
invisible.
The Center estimates that New York State will lose more =
than
$18.8=20
billion in federal funds from these program cuts
between 2004 and =
2013,=20
including $12.7 billion for Medicaid
and SCHIP. Once upon a time, =
Republican=20
governors (now in
the administration) protested such cuts. The=20
estimated
losses in neighboring states include $4 billion in =
New
Jersey=20
and $1.7 billion in Connecticut.
Center director Robert Greenstein calls the House proposal =
-
which could=20
be modified in the Senate - an example of "class
warfare," with =
"lavish tax=20
cuts for the nation's richest
individuals" and "deep budget cuts that =
could=20
harshly affect
the poor, the vulnerable and many middle-class=20
Americans."
Here's an example of how this proposed budget pits =
Americans
against=20
each other. The House proposal sets aside $400
billion over 10 years =
for=20
Medicare "reform" and a
prescription drug benefit. Reform, as we've =
reported,=20
means
turning over much of the program to insurers, an issue =
that
may kill=20
any compromise on a drug benefit.
But even if the reform issue is put aside and all $400
billion =
were=20
spent on prescription drugs, it would not come
close to what's needed =
to=20
provide a decent benefit for 40
million Medicare beneficiaries. A =
veteran=20
seniors lobbyist
told me that Medicare advocates may be forced to =
choose=20
a
benefit for only the very poor, plus catastrophic =
coverage
(costs over=20
$4,000), or no benefit at all. For the first
time, Medicare's =
coverage would=20
be split according to class,
or one's ability to pay.
Greenstein suggested that the House budget serves a =
useful
purpose,=20
demonstrating that "these large tax cuts aren't
free and that, at =
bottom, the=20
issue is one of national
priorities." He hit on the real reason for =
the tax=20
cuts, to
change the national priorities, to get the government out =
of
the=20
business of providing health insurance or welfare.
Indeed, as with =
the Reagan=20
administration, the Bush tax cuts
and the inevitable deficits are=20
deliberately designed to
force reductions in domestic spending and=20
permanently reduce
the size of government.
Economist George Akerlof of the University of California =
at
Berkeley,=20
one of 10 Nobel laureates among the 450 economists
who petitioned the =
White=20
House to withdraw its tax cut
proposal, told a campus interviewer =
that=20
the
administration's "stimulus package" is no such thing. In
fact, =
the tax=20
cut has about as much to do with "stimulus" as
the attack on Iraq has =
to do=20
with weapons of mass
destruction.
"It's a horrendous bill," Akerlof said. "But the public does
not =
seem to=20
be aware of the extraordinarily serious
consequences.... The deficits =
being=20
contemplated are out of
sight.... Most of these tax cuts are =
envisaged as=20
being
permanent. That means a shortfall on revenues as far as =
the
eye can=20
see into the future.... One cannot even contemplate
how we are going =
to pay=20
for our governmental needs, but
especially on our promises to the=20
elderly."
A new study by the Center estimates that the revenue lost to
the =
treasury via the tax cut would be more than enough to
keep Social =
Security=20
solvent until 2075. As it is, the
trustees reported on March 17 that =
the=20
system's trust fund
grew by 13.6 percent last year, to $1.378 =
trillion.=20
That
means without the tax cut, the United States could =
fund
Medicaid and=20
a Medicare drug benefit and even pay for the
war - with help from my =
Social=20
Security trust fund.
Write to Saul Friedman, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville,
NY, =
11747-4250, or by e-mail at saul
friedman@comcast.net.
Copyrig=
ht =A9=20
2003, Newsday, Inc.
________________
This email may contain copyrighted material, the use of
which =
has not=20
always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. I =
am making=20
this material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of=20
environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy,=20
scientific,
and social issues. I believe this constitutes a =
'fair=20
use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in =
section
107 of=20
the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, =
the=20
material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have =
expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for =
research=20
and
educational purposes. For more information, see:
http://www4.law.c=
ornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. =20
If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes=20
that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from =
the
copyright=20
owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility=20
for
Windows. See
http://organizenow.net/ewrapper<=
/A>.
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C2FBC9.7B9732E0--
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Mon Apr 14 19:51:03 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Mon Apr 14 18:51:03 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Bechtel's Pipe Dream Come True
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030414153536.0368ed50@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- April 14, 2003
[This piece is very nicely done! -rc]
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/opinion/14HERB.html
Ultimate Insiders
By BOB HERBERT
et's go back some 20 years. Ronald Reagan was president.
George Shultz was secretary of state. Lebanon was in
turmoil. And Iraq and Iran were locked in a vicious war that
had sharply curtailed the flow of oil out of Iraq.
In December 1983 Donald Rumsfeld was sent to the Middle East
as a special envoy in an effort to jump-start the peace
process in Lebanon and advance a presidential initiative for
peace between Arabs and Israelis.
One of his stops was Baghdad, where he met with Saddam
Hussein. That was unusual. Mr. Rumsfeld was the
highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Iraq since 1967, when
Iraq and other Arab nations severed relations with the U.S.,
which they blamed for Israel's victory in the Six-Day War.
The primary goal of Mr. Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad was to
improve relations with Iraq. But another matter was also
quietly discussed. The powerful Bechtel Group in San
Francisco, of which Secretary Shultz had been president
before joining the Reagan administration, wanted to build an
oil pipeline from Iraq to the Jordanian port of Aqaba, near
the Red Sea. It was a billion-dollar project and the U.S.
government wanted Saddam to sign off on it.
This remains, two decades later, a touchy subject. When I
brought the matter up last week with James Placke, who in
1983 was a deputy assistant secretary of state for Near
Eastern affairs, he said, "My memory on that is kind of
foggy."
But at the mention of Bechtel, he said: "Ahh, now you've
said the magic word. Now I remember. Bechtel was promoting
it."
Bechtel was promoting it and the Middle East peace envoy,
Donald Rumsfeld, was pushing it with top Iraqi officials. A
previously classified State Department memo that is
contained in a report on the pipeline by the Institute for
Policy Studies in Washington described how Mr. Rumsfeld
broached the subject during a private meeting with Iraq's
foreign minister, Tariq Aziz.
The memo, from Mr. Rumsfeld, said: "I raised the question of
a pipeline through Jordan. He said he was familiar with the
proposal. It apparently was a U.S. company's proposal.
However, he was concerned about the proximity to Israel as
the pipeline would enter the Gulf of Aqaba."
The Iraqis were afraid the Israelis might destroy the
pipeline. "I said I could understand that there would need
to be some sort of arrangement that would give those
involved confidence that it would not be easily vulnerable,"
Mr. Rumsfeld wrote in the memo. He added, parenthetically:
"This may be an issue to raise with Israel at the
appropriate time."
It was known by the fall of 1983 that Iraq had used chemical
weapons against Iran. That did not prevent the U.S. from
pursuing improved relations with Saddam, or curb the
enthusiasm for the Aqaba pipeline =97 a project promoted by a
company that had given the Reagan administration not just
its secretary of state, but also its secretary of defense,
Caspar Weinberger, who had been Bechtel's general counsel.
No one seemed concerned about weaving these obvious
conflicts of interest into the peace process in the most
volatile region of the world.
Mr. Shultz said he recused himself from anything having to
do with the pipeline. But it was his State Department that
had joined with Bechtel to push the project, and everyone
knew that Mr. Shultz had run Bechtel.
Saddam ultimately gave a thumbs down to the pipeline
proposal. "It didn't seem to make very good commercial
sense," said Mr. Placke, "and ultimately I think it failed
on those grounds."
The efforts to promote peace in the Middle East also failed.
Now, 20 years later, Mr. Shultz (who is currently on the
board of Bechtel) and Mr. Rumsfeld are among the fiercest of
the war hawks. They wanted war with Iraq and they got it.
Their philosophical flights in favor of the war would seem
more graceful, and much less unsavory, if they weren't
flying with the baggage of Bechtel and other large
commercial interests that have so much to gain from the
war.
This unilateral war and the ouster of Saddam have given the
hawks and their commercial allies carte blanche in Iraq. And
the company with perhaps the sleekest and most effective of
all the inside tracks, a company that is fairly panting with
anticipation over oil and reconstruction contracts worth
scores of billions of dollars, is of course the Bechtel
Group of San Francisco.
________________
This email may contain copyrighted material, the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. I am making this material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. For more information, see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Tue Apr 22 19:11:01 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Tue Apr 22 18:11:01 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Inqury on USA Freedom Corps
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030422181134.02627710@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH - April 22, 2002 (please forward)
I am wondering if any of you have experience addressing this issue:
Please do not reply to the list, reply directly to Dan@
islandimage.net. Thanks!
-rich cowan
>From: "Dan Schueler" ( dans
islandimage.net )
>Subject: RE: [RWWATCH] Right-wing Plans to Heckle Anti-War Democrats
>Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 13:24:54 -0700
>
>Hi folks,
>I wonder if any of you have run into this situation. At my
>local Community Council, we've been asked to endorse the local fire
>department's effort to form what's called a Citizen Corps Council,
>one of the branches of the USA Freedom Corps, a group run out of the
>White House. I'm quite reluctant to go along with this, because,
>among other things, the Citizen Corps is the sponsoring agency for
>the TIPS program, Bush's plan to get our meter readers to spy on us.
>
>Has anyone else run into an effort like this, and what did you to
>to stop it? For background on our community, we passed both an anti-war
>resolution 71-2 and a motion condemning the USA Patriot Act by 70-0 two
>months ago. Now this.
>
>Dan
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Thu Apr 24 10:03:03 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Thu Apr 24 09:03:03 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Bechtel : Ultimate Insiders
Message-ID: <004501c302d6$a68a3c40$81e1bd42@muse>
putting it together...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/opinion/14HERB.html?ex=105
1323497&ei=1&en=725a943f2ab213b5
Ultimate Insiders
April 14, 2003
By BOB HERBERT
Let's go back some 20 years. Ronald Reagan was president.
George Shultz was secretary of state. Lebanon was in
turmoil. And Iraq and Iran were locked in a vicious war
that had sharply curtailed the flow of oil out of Iraq.
In December 1983 Donald Rumsfeld was sent to the Middle
East as a special envoy in an effort to jump-start the
peace process in Lebanon and advance a presidential
initiative for peace between Arabs and Israelis.
One of his stops was Baghdad, where he met with Saddam
Hussein. That was unusual. Mr. Rumsfeld was the
highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Iraq since 1967,
when Iraq and other Arab nations severed relations with the
U.S., which they blamed for Israel's victory in the Six-Day
War.
The primary goal of Mr. Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad was to
improve relations with Iraq. But another matter was also
quietly discussed. The powerful Bechtel Group in San
Francisco, of which Secretary Shultz had been president
before joining the Reagan administration, wanted to build
an oil pipeline from Iraq to the Jordanian port of Aqaba,
near the Red Sea. It was a billion-dollar project and the
U.S. government wanted Saddam to sign off on it.
This remains, two decades later, a touchy subject. When I
brought the matter up last week with James Placke, who in
1983 was a deputy assistant secretary of state for Near
Eastern affairs, he said, "My memory on that is kind of
foggy."
But at the mention of Bechtel, he said: "Ahh, now you've
said the magic word. Now I remember. Bechtel was promoting
it."
Bechtel was promoting it and the Middle East peace envoy,
Donald Rumsfeld, was pushing it with top Iraqi officials. A
previously classified State Department memo that is
contained in a report on the pipeline by the Institute for
Policy Studies in Washington described how Mr. Rumsfeld
broached the subject during a private meeting with Iraq's
foreign minister, Tariq Aziz.
The memo, from Mr. Rumsfeld, said: "I raised the question
of a pipeline through Jordan. He said he was familiar with
the proposal. It apparently was a U.S. company's proposal.
However, he was concerned about the proximity to Israel as
the pipeline would enter the Gulf of Aqaba."
The Iraqis were afraid the Israelis might destroy the
pipeline. "I said I could understand that there would need
to be some sort of arrangement that would give those
involved confidence that it would not be easily
vulnerable," Mr. Rumsfeld wrote in the memo. He added,
parenthetically: "This may be an issue to raise with Israel
at the appropriate time."
It was known by the fall of 1983 that Iraq had used
chemical weapons against Iran. That did not prevent the
U.S. from pursuing improved relations with Saddam, or curb
the enthusiasm for the Aqaba pipeline - a project promoted
by a company that had given the Reagan administration not
just its secretary of state, but also its secretary of
defense, Caspar Weinberger, who had been Bechtel's general
counsel.
No one seemed concerned about weaving these obvious
conflicts of interest into the peace process in the most
volatile region of the world.
Mr. Shultz said he recused himself from anything having to
do with the pipeline. But it was his State Department that
had joined with Bechtel to push the project, and everyone
knew that Mr. Shultz had run Bechtel.
Saddam ultimately gave a thumbs down to the pipeline
proposal. "It didn't seem to make very good commercial
sense," said Mr. Placke, "and ultimately I think it failed
on those grounds."
The efforts to promote peace in the Middle East also
failed. Now, 20 years later, Mr. Shultz (who is currently
on the board of Bechtel) and Mr. Rumsfeld are among the
fiercest of the war hawks. They wanted war with Iraq and
they got it.
Their philosophical flights in favor of the war would seem
more graceful, and much less unsavory, if they weren't
flying with the baggage of Bechtel and other large
commercial interests that have so much to gain from the
war.
This unilateral war and the ouster of Saddam have given the
hawks and their commercial allies carte blanche in Iraq.
And the company with perhaps the sleekest and most
effective of all the inside tracks, a company that is
fairly panting with anticipation over oil and
reconstruction contracts worth scores of billions of
dollars, is of course the Bechtel Group of San Francisco.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/14/opinion/14HERB.html?ex=105
1323497&ei=1&en=725a943f2ab213b5
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/international/worldspecial
/29POST.html?tntemail0
Bechtel Top Contender in Bidding Over Iraq
By ELIZABETH BECKER and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
WASHINGTON, March 28 - Bechtel has emerged as one of
the top
two contenders for the major contract to reconstruct
Iraq,
people involved in the bidding said.
Officials with the Agency for International
Development said
today that a final decision had been delayed until
next
week, because "outstanding issues are holding this
up," a
spokeswoman for the agency, Ellen Yount, said.
These people say the chief issue is whether the
government
will insure the winning company against claims for
property
damage, injuries or death while working in Iraq, a
provision
that could save the company millions of dollars.
If that request is granted, the approval would be
another
significant improvement in a contract that would give
the
company a toehold in one of the most lucrative
building
programs in decades, a task that will cost $25 billion
to
$100 billion.
The method of awarding the contracts has angered
allies.
Just American companies were asked to submit bids, a
move
that British officials have protested. They say the
United
States has cut out them out of the contracts even as
their
armed forces fight beside the Americans.
Charges of bias have plagued the administration since
the
competitors were announced. They were among the
largest and
best politically connected companies. There was
disagreement
about the identity of the second competitor.
Halliburton,
where Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive
from
1995 until mid-2000, is no longer in the running, a
fact
first reported today by Newsweek and acknowledged by
an aid
official. A spokeswoman said she could not say whether
Halliburton removed itself or was uncompetitive.
Bechtel is regarded among the world's largest
contractors,
and former Secretary of State George P. Shultz is on
its
board. It was a company that raised the
indemnification
problem. Some people said that problem could be a deal
breaker.
Given the scope of the project, experts said, the
request is
understandable but will require a White House
decision.
John P. Janecek, former deputy general counsel of the
Air
Force, said that such indemnification clauses were
unusual
and that they were typically granted for contractors
involved in obviously hazardous enterprises like
satellite-launching rockets.
"A lot of companies provide the government weapons,
supplies, services that don't get indemnification even
in
wartime," Mr. Janecek said.
The director of the aid agency, Andrew S. Natsios,
said time
constraints and the need to work with classified
information
forced the administration to restrict the candidates
to
American companies. Mr. Natsios has also said there
was no
possibility of influence peddling. His spokeswoman
repeated
today that the administration was following standard
procedures in an emergency.
Experts questioned whether rules were being bent. They
point
out that the procurement agreement of the World Trade
Organization requires all countries to have an open
and
transparent bidding process. Usually, United States
government contracts are posted on a Web site and are
open
to all bidders, foreign or American.
As a result, among the top 50 companies that obtained
federal contracts in the 2001 fiscal year were British
Nuclear Fuels, No. 15; British Aerospace, No. 16; and
Philipp Holzmann, the big German contractor, No. 34.
The government lets more than $200 billion a year in
contracts.
Steven L. Schooner, co-director of the government
procurement law program at George Washington
University,
said he was not convinced by the argument that
companies
needed to be cleared to handle classified material to
build
bridges or lay new roads.
"That defense of a need for speed and security
clearances
will be a classic loser" at the World Trade
Organization,
Mr. Schooner said. "We are sending the message that we
are
insular, we are closed."
Mr. Natsios has said, on the contrary, that he won a
waiver
in January to let all companies, foreign and domestic,
to
bid for subcontracts that could amount to half the
reconstruction money.
Britain and other European nations remain unhappy with
the
arrangements. When the Agency for International
Development
announced this week that Stevedoring Services of
America,
headquartered in Seattle, had the $4.8 million
contract to
run the port of Umm Qasr in Iraq, British officials
and
labor leaders complained. The company, they said, has
an
antiunion history.
Bechtel "landmark project"
http://www.bechtel.com/history.html
Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu (RCJY) was
established
as an autonomous organization of the Saudi Government
http://www.rcjy.gov.sa/
Background: On 21 September 1975, the Royal Commission
for
Jubail and Yanbu (RCJY) was established as an
autonomous
organization of the Saudi Government. The Commission
is
governed by a Board of Directors and its Chairman
reports to
the Council of Ministers. The Chairman's office in
Riyadh
formulates the policies and oversees them besides
implementing the same through the two Directorate
Generals,
one each for the cities of Jubail and Yanbu.
Mission: The mandate of the RCJY is to implement the
physical and social infrastructure required for the
development of Jubail and Yanbu areas as industrial
cities.
Specifically, the RCJY mission is the following:
-To promote, assist, service and otherwise encourage
the
development of basic, downstream and light industries
that
would utilize the Kingdom's natural resources to
produce
value added products for local use and export;
-To plan, develop, construct, operate and maintain the
various infrastructure and services needed for the
above
industries and for the people working in these
industries;
-To encourage the use and enhancement of the skills
and
talents of the Saudi citizens in the above activities;
-To maintain a balance between industrial development
and
environmental safety that is compatible with
sustainable
development;
-To encourage the participation of local and foreign
private
investment;
-To work in liaison with other agencies such as Saudi
Aramco, the Seaports Authority and others to
facilitate the
availability of feedstock and other services needed by
the
industries;
-To function as a City Manager responsible for the
safety
and security of the entire industrial area under its
jurisdiction.
Accomplishments: Pursuant to its Charter, the RCJY has
developed and constructed a number of utility and
other
systems that provide the needed services to the
industry and
the community. These include the Seawater supply
systems,
the Potable and Waste Water systems, transport and
telecommunication network, the community and other
associated services. In the city of Yanbu, the RCJY
generates and supplies electrical power in addition to
the
other services.
The overall development of Jubail and Yanbu
accomplished
with an investment of $20 billion has witnessed the
creation
of over 200 industries that have invested over $42
billion,
providing employment for over 85.000 workers. The
157,000
residents of the two cities enjoy world class
amenities and
security.
>>wasn't this the contractor chosen for the twin
towers
too?>>
Yes. http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/report.php
They've also been in the Soviet Union for the last 11
years
" helping the US Dept of Defense implement its
cooperative
threat reduction program."
http://www.bechtel.com/pdf/brief0800.pdf "Among their
responsibilities: eliminating or safe-storing weapons
of
mass destruction."
The behemoth perpetual handout to oil and auto,
getting the
tax payers to pay for road construction and
maintenance
while rail and trolley etc. had to pay for their own
tracks:
They were in on that too--along with the teamsters and
other
favorites. Here's VP Nixon using scare tactics ala
50's to
sell it: "the appalling inadequacies to meet the
demands of
catastrophe or defense, should an atomic war come."
from Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: CREATING THE
INTERSTATE SYSTEM by Richard F. Weingroff
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm
What was needed, the president believed, was a grand
plan
for a properly articulated system of highways. The
president
wanted a self-liquidating method of financing that
would
avoid debt. He wanted a cooperative alliance between
state
and federal officials to accomplish the federal part
of the
grand plan. And he wanted the federal government to
cooperate with the states to develop a modern state
highway
system. Finally, the vice president read the last
sentence
of the president's notes, in which he asked the
governors to
study the matter and recommend the cooperative action
needed
to meet these goals.
The speech, according to a contemporary observer, had
an
" electrifying effect" on the conference. It had come
as a
complete surprise, without the advance work that
usually
precedes major presidential statements. Furthermore,
the
speech was delivered at a time when the governors were
again
debating how to convince the federal government to
stop
collecting gas taxes so the states could pick up the
revenue. Some governors even argued that the federal
government should get out of the highway business
altogether.
Within the administration, the president placed
primary
responsibility for developing a financing mechanism
for the
grand plan on retired Gen. Lucius D. Clay, an engineer
and a
long-time associate and advisor to the president. At
the
time, Clay was chairman of the board of the
Continental Can
Company. The President's Advisory Committee on a
National
Highway Program, commonly called the "Clay Committee,"
included Steve Bechtel of Bechtel Corporation, Sloan
Colt of
Bankers' Trust Company, Bill Roberts of Allis-Chalmers
Manufacturing Company, and Dave Beck of the
International
Brotherhood of Teamsters ...
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Fri May 2 20:10:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Fri May 2 19:10:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] US unveils TV news shows for Iraq produced by fundamentalist
Christians
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030502110556.033698d0@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- May 2, 2003
[A PR Disaster brewing? Then again, I guess Iraq is not the only
country in which entire TV networks are controlled by conservatives
from foreign countries... what about the USA? -rc]
Grace News
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
The U.S. government this week launched its Arabic language satellite TV
news station for Muslim Iraq.
It is being produced in a studio -- Grace Digital Media -- controlled by
fundamentalist Christians who are rabidly pro-Israel.
That's Grace as in "by the Grace of God."
Grace Digital Media is controlled by a fundamentalist Christian
millionaire, Cheryl Reagan, who last year wrested control of Federal
News Service, a transcription news service, from its former owner,
Cortes Randell.
Randell says he met Reagan at a prayer meeting, brought her in as an
investor in Federal News Service, and then she forced him out of his own
company.
Grace Digital Media and Federal News Service are housed in a downtown
Washington, D.C. office building, along with Grace News Network.
When you call the number for Grace News Network, you get a person
answering "Grace Digital Media/Federal News Service."
According to its web site, Grace News Network is "dedicated to
transmitting the evidence of God's presence in the world today."
"Grace News Network will be reporting the current secular news, along
with aggressive proclamations that will 'change the news' to reflect the
Kingdom of God and its purposes," GNN proclaims.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. government agency
producing the television news broadcasts for Iraq, likes to say it is
the BBC of the USA.
BBG runs Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, and Radio Sawa -- Arabic
language radio for the Middle East.
"Our mission is clear," BBG's Joan Mower told us. "To broadcast accurate
and objective news about the United States and the world. We don't do
propaganda, leafleting -- we are like the BBC in that respect."
Well, then why hook up with Grace?
BBG's Joan Mower said that Grace Digital Media is a mainstream
production house used by all kinds of mainstream news organizations.
"Grace will have nothing to do with the editorial side of the news
broadcast," she said. "They are renting us equipment, space, studio. The
Grace personnel we use include technicians, production people but no
editorial people."
But Mower said she couldn't get us a copy of the contract between BBG
and Grace Digital media. Nor could she say how Grace Digital was chosen
as the production studio.
Grace News Network proclaims that it will be a "unique tool in the
Lord's ministry plan for the world."
"Grace News Network provides networking links and portals to various
ministries and news services that will be of benefit to every Christian
believer and seeker of truth," according to the company's mission
statement.
The CEO of Grace News Network is Thorne Auchter.
The same Thorne Auchter who began the dismantling of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under Presidents Reagan and
George Bush I.
Auchter did not return our calls seeking comment for this story.
While it's unclear whether Grace News Network actually produces any
news, it has produced a documentary movie titled "Israel: Divine
Destiny" which it showed at the National Press Club in September 2002.
The film is about "Israel's destiny and the United States' role in that
destiny," according to Grace News Network.
Grace News said that it could not make a copy of the film available to
us at this time, since it is now undergoing post-production editing. Nor
could it provide a transcript.
The mainstream media has documented strong and growing ties between
right-wing Republican Christian fundamentalists and right-wing Sharonist
Israeli expansionists.
This alliance is personified in Ralph Reed's Stand Up for Israel, a
group formed to "mobilize Christians and other people of faith to
support the State of Israel."
President Bush has very strong ties to fundamentalist Christians, most
notably Franklin Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham.
Last week, Franklin Graham delivered a Good Friday message at the
Pentagon, despite an uproar over his previous slander of Islam as "a
very evil and wicked religion."
Don Wagner, a professor of religion and director of the Center for
Middle Eastern Studies at North Park University, an evangelical
Christian college in Chicago, has written extensively about what he
calls Christian Zionism, whose leaders he identifies as, among others,
Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and Franklin
Graham.
"Christian Zionists have historically pointed to Genesis 12:3 - I will
bless those who bless you. And the one who curses you, I will curse,"
Dr. Wagner said. "They have interpreted this to mean that individuals
and nations who support the state of Israel will be blessed by God. It
has come to mean political, economic, and moral support, often
uncritically rendered to the state of Israel."
Grace News Network seems to fit the mold.
Joan Mower says that BBG is currently producing and transmitting six
hours of news into Iraq including a dubbed version of the daily evening
news from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and PBS, plus three hours of original news
programming from BBG.
BBG says it sees no problem in having Grace produce the evening news
broadcast for Iraq.
Given the brewing anti-American revolt through all sectors of Iraqi
society, maybe it should reconsider.
We called Grace Digital Media to speak with Cheryl Reagan.
Her secretary told us that she has been away in extended vacation for
more than a month -- in Israel.
When will she back? we asked.
No one knows, the secretary said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org. They are
co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the
Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press;
http://www.corporatepredators.org).
(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Wed May 14 11:35:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Wed May 14 10:35:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Berkowitz - Bremer of Iraq
Message-ID: <003f01c3177e$4d4c4cb0$0400a8c0@MarcFast>
[Wow. The US's new overseer of Iraqi reconstruction has on his resume
.... 11 years at Kissinger Associates .... was co-chair of
the Operations Sub-Group of the National Security Council under
Reagan (the other co-chair was Ollie North) ... and co-chaired a
Heritage Foundation Task Force on Homeland Security with former
Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese. What does he know about Iraq
or the Middle East, not a thing!]
This Article can be found at
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14966&CFID=71
9519&CFTOKEN=59181093
(you may need to recombine the long string, or find the column
in the archive below)
The Bill Berkowitz Archive can be found at
http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=1
Bill Berkowitz
05.09.03
Bremer of Iraq
Counter-terrorism and corporate crisis management specialist heads Iraq's
reconstruction
When L. Paul Bremer III sets down in Iraq as the U.S.'s new
overseer of reconstruction, he'll be bringing a lot of baggage
along with him. Chosen by President Bush for his expertise in
counter-terrorism, crisis management and diplomacy, Bremer has a
resume that includes extended service in the Reagan
Administration, an eleven-year stint at Kissinger & Associates,
and the co-chairmanship of the Heritage Foundation's Homeland
Security Task Force.
That President Bush has turned to a civilian and a skilled
negotiator -- the president called Bremer a "can-do-type person''
-- is indicative of the administration's fear that events in
post-war Iraq are in danger of spinning out of control. Bremer,
the current Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Marsh Crisis
Consulting, a subsidiary of the Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC),
will take the reins of the multi-billion dollar reconstruction
project from retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the administration's
first civil administrator, and assume command over the Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs.
Early commentary on this leadership change focused on whether
Bremer's appointment was a victory for a beleaguered State
Department. While Secretary of State Colin Powell may be in need
of victories, the Washington Post pointed out that Bremer is "a
hard-nosed hawk who is... supported by Rumsfeld and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz." Furthermore, "White House
aides said the appointment affirms Bush's satisfaction with
Pentagon control over Iraq until a new government is in place."
Bremer's appointment indicates that there continues to be
substantial support for the Iraqi National Congress, headed by Dr
Ahmad Chalabi.
Robert Gelbard, a retired career diplomat who led post-conflict
efforts in Haiti, Bosnia and East Timor, told Newsday that "In
terms of finding someone to manage this process, which has not
started out well, I do not believe that [the White House] could
have done better" than to select Bremer. According to Gelbard,
administration sources believed that Garner "was not
sophisticated enough to supervise the transition."
Who is L. Paul Bremer and why is the White House counting on
him?
Bremer is a consummate insider with roots in several presidential
administrations: During his twenty-three year diplomatic service
career, he was stationed in Afghanistan, Malawi, Norway, and also
served as Ambassador to the Netherlands. In 1989 he joined the
powerful New York-based Kissinger Associates, and in late 2001,
along with former Attorney General Edwin Meese he co-chaired the
Heritage Foundation's Homeland Security Task Force, which created
a blueprint for the White House's Dept. of Homeland Security. For
two decades Bremer has been a regular at Congressional hearings
and is recognized as an expert on terrorism and homeland
security.
According to the Web site of Financial Executive International,
Bremer currently sits on the board of directors of Air Products
and Chemicals, Inc., Akzo Nobel NV, the Harvard Business School
Club of New York and The Netherland-America Foundation. He is
also a Trustee of the Economic Club of New York, and is a member
of The International Institute for Strategic Studies and The
Council on Foreign Relations.
Bremer's bread and butter issue is terrorism. According to the
World Socialist Web Site, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan's
Secretary of State Alexander Haig appointed him as his special
assistant in charge of the department's "crisis management"
center. From there he became Reagan's ambassador-at-large for
counter-terrorism -- a tenure that coincided with Reagan
Administration-sponsored "low intensity" wars in Central America
and Africa. Although Bremer co-chaired the Operations Sub-Group
at the National Security Council along with Oliver North,
according to Malcolm Byrne of the National Security Archive,
Bremer was on the "periphery" of the Iran/Contra Scandal.
Bremer has consistently espoused a get-tough stance towards
terrorists. In an August 5, 1996, Wall Street Journal opinion
piece titled "Terrorists' Friends Must Pay a Price" Bremer called
on the Clinton administration to "get serious about the fight
against terrorism." Bremer advised Clinton to deliver ultimatums
to Libya, Syria, Iran and Sudan telling them to close down
terrorist bases or they will "receive the full weight of American
might." Ironically, Iraq was not mentioned in the piece.
In September 1999, Speaker of the House of Representatives Dennis
Hastert named Bremer Chairman of the National Commission on
Terrorism. This commission reviewed America's counter-terrorism
policies and, in June 2000, it reported its recommendations to
the President of the United States and to the Speaker.
Two days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, Bremer wrote: "Our retribution must move beyond the
limp-wristed attacks of the past decade, actions that seemed
designed to "signal" our seriousness to the terrorists without
inflicting real damage. Naturally, their feebleness demonstrated
the opposite. This time the terrorists and their supporters must
be crushed. But," he added, "we must avoid a mindless search for
an international 'consensus' for our actions. Tomorrow, we will
know who our true friends are."
In October 2001, the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation
named Bremer and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III as
co-chairs of its Homeland Security Task Force. The Task Force's
January 2002 report titled "Defending the American Homeland"
claimed the U.S. was "dangerously vulnerable" to terrorist
attacks. It made a number of recommendations including:
increasing security at U.S. borders, encouraging greater sharing
of information among various federal law enforcement agencies and
with local law enforcers, changing federal law to allow greater
monitoring of foreigners in the United States, securing federal
computer networks and information systems better, moving ahead
with the plan to bury nuclear waste beneath Yucca Mountain in
Nevada, improving communications with the public in the event of
attack or increasing threats and "unleash[ing] market forces to
mobilize the private sector to promote infrastructure security."
A number of these recommendations have already been put in
place.
The Homeland Security Task Force fused the war against terrorism
to the mission of the Heritage Foundation -- privatization,
de-regulation and smaller government -- maintaining that "many
government initiatives, such as the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), antitrust legislation, liability concerns, and current
tax policies, inhibit the development of a true partnership for
security between the private sector and the government."
In June 2002, President Bush appointed Bremer to the President's
Homeland Security Advisory Council. Composed of American
businessmen, academics and political leaders, the Council
ostensibly provides the President with independent advice on the
defense of the American homeland.
Bremer is also listed as a senior advisor to William J. Bennett's
Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT). A few months back he
was a featured speaker at the AVOT-sponsored "teach-in" at UCLA.
At that event, former CIA chief R. James Woolsey described the
war against terrorism as a "fourth world war."
A month after 9/11, Jeffrey W. Greenberg, Marsh & McLennan
Companies' chairman and chief executive, recognized that the
terrorist attacks, which killed 295 of its employees, was also a
new business opportunity. "Within days of the twin towers'
destruction," the Wall Street Journal reported, Greenberg and top
company officials "began planning to form a new subsidiary to
sell insurance to corporate customers at sharply higher rates
than were common before Sept. 11." The company also "accelerated
plans to launch a new consulting unit to capitalize on heightened
corporate fears of terrorism." On October 11, Marsh Crisis
Consulting was launched with Bremer at its head. Bremer told the
Journal that the unit would concentrate on catastrophic risks,
those that in some cases could put a company out of business.
In addition to retaining retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, Bremer's
team in Iraq is being peopled with former Iraqi exiles and
assorted Reagan and Bush I retreads. Doug Henwood, editor of the
Left Business Observer, told Inter Press Service's Emad Mekay in
late April that the selection process is "very much like the Bush
administration itself -- a bunch of private sector alumni called
upon to perform the task in government they were performing in
the private sector."
Mekay noted that recent appointees included "agricultural
industrialist" Dan Amstutz, who will "lead the US government's
agriculture reconstruction efforts in Iraq" and Peter McPherson,
a long-time Washington insider and deputy US treasurer in the
Ronald Reagan administration, who will be "financial coordinator"
for the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance
(ORHA). His deputy in Iraq will be George Wolfe, a senior US
Treasury Department lawyer.
Bremer's greatest challenge will be to create the trappings of a
democracy while ensuring that a fundamentalist Islamic government
does not win control over the country. If the Shiite majority
prevails in democratic elections, post-war Iraq could take on a
decidedly anti-American cast. Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace told WBAI Radio's Doug Henwood
in late April that such a government would not want the U.S. to
control its oil or establish military bases on its soil -- and
would not be likely to recognize Israel.
What special expertise about Iraq or the Middle East is Bremer
bringing to Iraq? None, says a former senior State Department
official who has worked with Bremer. He is a "voracious
opportunist with voracious ambitions," the official told Newsday.
"What he knows about Iraq could not quite fill a thimble. What he
knows about any part of the world would not fill a thimble. But
what he knows about Washington infighting could fill three or
four bushel baskets." For more please see the Bill Berkowitz
archive.
Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative
movement. His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch
documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and
defeats of the American Right.
________________
This email may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
I am making this material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social issues. I believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information, see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Thu May 15 21:19:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Thu May 15 20:19:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Abuse of 501-C4 Status by Conservative Organizations
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030515190723.0306b7c0@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH - May 15, 2003 (please forward)
[Several nonprofit organizations designated by the IRS as "501-C4"
advocacy organizations are apparently using this status to wage
attacks on presidential candidates who oppose the
weakening of certain laws that regulate corporations.
Today, on www.ndol.org, the Democratic Leadership Council, a
501-c-4 organization, attacked VT Governor Howard Dean, accusing him
of following the failed liberal policies of the past. And yesterday, a
Durham, NC newspaper reported that another C4, the Americans for
Job Security, has begin a series of attack ads against U.S. Senator
John Edwards (article reprinted below).
The purpose of these activities, quite clearly, is to influence the
outcome of the nomination process of the Democratic party by
lowering the popularity of the more liberal candidates.
If these activities were undertaken as part of a political campaign,
the money invested would be subject to disclosure, and also
subject to contribution limits under the campaign finance laws.
Since the money is going into 501-C4 organizations, the contributions
are completely anonymous (but not tax-deductible).
There was debate in 2000 in congress as to whether C4 organizations
should be required to disclose lists of contributors or expenses. People
in the
"nonprofit sector" and in some unions united to oppose these disclosures,
thinking that keeping private the identities of donors or the details of
campaign expenditures was important. For example, see the following:
http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/Statement_on_Disclosure.PDF
However, if you actually do the math and analyze the sheer volume
of money that is spent on these activities, it makes you wonder
whether allowing this subtle influence on the political process
to occur without any possibility of public scrutiny is not an
even greater danger.
-rich cowan ]
http://heraldsun.com/state/6-352186.html
Pro-Republican group launches anti-Edwards campaign
The Associated Press May 14, 2003 : 11:14 am ET
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Eight months before the first 2004
presidential primary, a pro-Republican group has unveiled attack
ads targeting U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
On Tuesday, Americans for Job Security unveiled two
billboard-like ads destined for display in Iowa and New Hampshire
and a TV ad the group hopes to air in Charlotte and Raleigh. All
of them skewer Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, for
his ties to trial lawyers and his opposition to placing caps on
jury awards.
The group was founded by the American Insurance Association. Its
chief executive officer is Republican consultant David Carney of
Hancock, N.H. His group spent about $1 million dollars on ads
against New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen last year when she ran
for the U.S. Senate.
Carney was traveling and was not immediately available to
comment, his office said Wednesday.
Edwards campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said Edwards is
being targeted because he "has stood in the way of Republicans
passing the insurance industry's wish list. Frankly we are
flattered by their assessment that Sen. Edwards is the Democrat
to attack in Iowa and New Hampshire."
The TV ad, a print version of which ran in Tuesday's edition of
the News & Observer of Raleigh, also criticizes Edwards for
buying a $3.8 million house in Georgetown, voting with liberal
Sens. Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, and opposing President
Bush's proposed tax cuts.
"This is who John Edwards promised he'd fight for," reads the
caption below a picture of "Ordinary People."
"This is who he fought for instead and what they gave him in
return," reads the caption under a picture of "Wealthy Trial
Lawyers" and cash representing $4.1 million in campaign funds.
The billboard-like ads will show up next month in the airports in
Manchester, N.H., and Des Moines, Iowa, and will remain there for
six months, said Michael Dubke, the group's president.
"It's not surprising that the special interests and the White
House have singled out John Edwards for the first attack ads of
the campaign," said Colin Van Ostern, Edwards' spokesman in New
Hampshire.
Van Ostern added, "The special interests paying for these ads
know that it was John Edwards who co-wrote the Patients' Bill of
Rights, John Edwards who has spent his life protecting regular
Americans from big corporate interests, and John Edwards who will
throw them out of power in Washington when this election is
over."
One of the ads decrying frivolous lawsuits features a picture of
Edwards next to a picture of two donkeys.
"A Montana man named Jack Ass sued the MTV show 'Jackass' for $10
million," the caption says. "Next time you see him, tell John
Edwards lawsuits like this are asinine."
Americans for Job Security is the second business group that has
begun an anti-Edwards campaign. The American Tort Reform
Association, co-founded by the American Medical Association,
plans to launch an anti-Edwards Web site later this month.
In 2000, Americans for Job Security spent almost $1.8 million on
ads attacking Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
________________
This email may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
I am making this material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social issues. I believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information, see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to
use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Fri May 23 18:25:04 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Fri May 23 17:25:04 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Bush Appointee has a Covert History
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030523171532.02f509d0@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH - May 23, 2003
[Anyone notice -- it seems like various people in the Bush administration
keep resigning, only to be replaced by people who are even more
loyal to Bush than their predecessors? It's bad enough that the
government has had $30 -$50 billion in "black" programs that Congress
doesn't disclose, in violation of the US Constitution.
It gets even worse when the director comes out of a culture that sees it
as "normal" to pull the wool over eyes of the taxpaying public.
Bev Tallion is a professional publicist whose work is usually of
very high quaility. See http://www.blackboxvoting.com. ]
-rich cowan
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003
From: talion@ix.netcom.com
Web version: http://www.talion.com/052203.html
IF YOU=92RE IN FAVOR OF BUTTONED-DOWN SECRECY IN THE BUDGET
OFFICE YOU=92LL LOVE THE NEW OMB DIRECTOR
President Bush announced Thursday that Josh Bolten would
become the next director of the Office of Management and
Budget, taking over from the outgoing Mitch Daniels.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov )
He=92s genetically predisposed to silence. Bolten, 48, is the
son of a Seymour Bolton, a CIA agent who worked in covert
espionage. Both Josh and his father were cozy with George
H.W. Bush. Though Bolten is one of the most powerful
policymakers in the world, he has said he likes his own life
undercover and prefers not to do interviews.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/national/06LETT.html)
He is one of the closed-lips defendants named in the Dick
Cheney secret energy task force lawsuit, filed by Judicial
Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/67/ac2final.htm).
The Bush administration refused to hand over documents that
relate specifically to Cheney and Bolten, among others.
(http://www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/10/10182002/reu_
8741.asp)
Bolten already has experience doling out money, at least to
corporate interests. He chaired the =93Domestic Consequence
Group,=94 a blandly worded euphemism for the quiet economic
crisis group in the White House which helped co-ordinate the
$15 billion airline bailout in 2001.
(http://financialtimes.com/aoa/FT31X0OK0SC.html)
Not everyone is comfortable with him. An aide to Rep.
Charlie Norwood (R-GA), who, under tremendous pressure from
Bush, sold out the patients' bill of rights, claims that
Bolten =93screwed us over.=94 According to the New Republic, the
man who muscled Norwood into bashing patient=92s rights was
none other than the hush-hush Joshua Bolten.
According to the New Republic article (August 2001), Bolten
is involved in almost every aspect of policy in the White
House, and to some extent has superseded Mr. Bush's longtime
adviser from Texas, Karl Rove. "The anonymous fourth man in
the inner circle of Bush's staff, Bolten is far less
well-known than [Chief of Staff] Andy Card, Karl Rove=85but
inside the White House, few doubt his importance," the
magazine's Ryan Lizza writes. "The three spheres of White
House policy-making - Margaret La Montagne's Domestic Policy
Council, Larry Lindsey's National Economic Council, and
Condoleezza Rice's National Security Council -- all report
to him. Technically, Bolten is even Karl Rove's immediate
superior. Since Bolten is the traffic cop for Bush's
briefings, no policy matter comes before the president
without his blessing.
According to White House congressional lobbyist Nick Calio,
`He's got his hands in virtually everything at the White
House, though. All policy matters report to him
eventually.'"
A QUESTION FOR GEORGE W: Will Bolten change his secretive
style to one of greater transparency, access, and openness
when he runs the budget office? (http://www.questionw.com)
Bolten was one of the quiet strategists who created the
Office of Homeland Security, along with White House Chief of
Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Tom Ridge.
(http://slate.msn.com/id/2066989/)
=93He is very secretive, but has his fingerprints all over
President Bush's new $600 billion economic plan, the
legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security and
just about every other domestic policy concocted in his
powerful little corner deep in the West Wing,=94 wrote the New
York Times.
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=3DF1091EF73C5
0C758CDDA80894DB404482)
IF YOU LIKE THE ECONOMY, IF YOU THINK THE TAX CUT PLAN IS A
DANDY IDEA YOU=92LL LOVE JOSH BOLTEN
Josh Bolten is a key architect of the Bush economic plan.
(http://www.stern.nyu.edu/News/news/2002/december/1213nytns
html) "The president continues these crazy economic
policies, not based on anything but the president=92s whim,"
said Rep. Bob Matsui (D-CA) California, in a May 2003
Democratic press conference aired on C-Span.
Well, Representative Matsui, meet your new budget director.
He developed the whim.
"But there is a method to their madness, and that is to
change the social structure of this country,=94 said Rep.
Charles Rangel (D-NY) =93=85They want to roll back the social
programs that are the safety net for this country.
Memo to Josh Bolten: Putting a trillion dollars into the
hands of the wealthiest people in America will not buy
washing machines and cars. The president's stubborn and
failed approach to reviving this economy is turning into a
nightmare.
"I've heard so many times that Josh Bolten is effectively
the Secretary of the Treasury in absentia, because of the
power that he wields on economic policy," said one senior
Senate Republican leadership aide, reported by Sun National,
May 9 2003.
(http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.econteam09m
y09,0,293488.story?coll=3Dbal-news-nation)
HATCHET MAN: According to the Washington Post (Dec. 7, 2002)
Bolten was involved in pushing Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill and National Economic Council director Lawrence
Lindsey to resign, after Bush decided he needed stronger
messengers to communicate with voters. "Bush reached the
final decision after a meeting Wednesday with political
adviser Karl Rove, Chief of Staff Andrew Card and deputy
chief of staff Joshua Bolten."
(http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2002/1207_treasu
y_2002.shtml)
PROTECTING U.S. DRUG MANUFACTURERS: =93Paragraph 6=94 -- Josh
Bolten is believed to have been heavily involved in the Doha
para 6 negotiations, on behalf of PhRMA (Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturing of America.) In the USA, the big
PhRMA fire power came from the White House, and US
negotiators had almost no real negotiating freedom. Though
Bolten was, characteristically, silent, there was plenty of
evidence that Bush's own economic team (Gary Edson and Josh
Bolten) was deeply involved in the negotiations.
What exactly is =93Paragraph 6?=94 Think of it this way:
Prescriptions for World's Poorest Will Stay Unwritten
According to Guardian Newspapers, 2/19/2003: The
pharmaceutical lobby provided nearly $60m in funding in the
recent mid-term US elections, helping the Republicans win
key seats=85Now, as one official puts it, "it's pay-back time;
the industry is calling in its favours." At issue was how
the rules should be interpreted to allow manufacturers to
export copycat drugs to countries too poor to make their
own, such as most within sub-Saharan Africa, which is in the
grip of the Aids pandemic.
BOLTEN AND THE BUSH CAMPAIGN PROMISES:
He was a key architect of George W. Bush campaign, according
to E.J. Dionne, of the Brookings Institution.
(http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript747.html) During the
campaign, even Republicans became offended by what some
considered =93doubletalk,=94 following a meeting with Bolton.
According to =93National Politics=94 (Oct 2 1999) a senior
House Republican aide said staff members who talked to
Bolten, who was at that time Bush=92s Policy Director, about
the Republican plan for the earned-income tax credit, Bolten
indicated no opposition to it. But during the campaign, Bush
turned on them, accusing House Republicans of trying to
"balance their budget on the backs of the poor." Bush
campaigned on the assertion that he was an inclusive,
peacemaking, compassionate conservative. Even before he was
elected, some disagreed. "We were double-crossed," the aide
said, after the meeting with Josh Bolten.
(http://www.courses.psu.edu/hd_fs/hd_fs597_rxj9/gop-bush.ht
l)
According to CNN AllPolitics.com September 4, 2000 =94Quietly
running Bush=92s campaign policy meeting was Josh Bolten, the
Bush campaign's 45-year-old policy director.=94
Bolten and his staff were cagey about the prescription drugs
plan. =93Gore plans to give an economic speech that's sure to
hammer home his charge that Bush's tax cut is so big it
doesn't leave room for the drugs plan. Bolten's forces will
send out spreadsheets saying that isn't so.=94
During the campaign, Bolten=92s policy plan became so
comprehensive that the Democrat Leadership Council (DLC)
complained that Bush had poached ideas from their plan.
(http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/09/11/serious.htm
)
JOSH BOLTEN=92S OFFICIAL BIO
>From 1999 to 2000, Josh Bolten was Policy Director of the
Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential campaign and the Bush-Cheney
Presidential Transition. From 1994-1999, he was Executive
Director, Legal & Government Affairs for Goldman Sachs
International in London. In the previous Bush
administration, Josh was General Counsel to the U.S. Trade
Representative and Deputy Assistant to the President for
Legislative Affairs. Previously, he was International Trade
Counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee.
CONCERNS ABOUT JOSH BOLTEN
Mitch Daniels, who he will replace, was not an ideologue; he
did his job as a number cruncher and a fiscal conservative.
He made enemies on the hill when he was snippy about their
pork habits. But, in the end, he overcame his fiscal
conservativeness to serve the Bush team in their quest for
more money for their cronies (ala tax cuts). He didn't look
too comfortable in that part of the job.
Now the picture of Bolten: Ideologue and agenda
pusher/manhandler. There will be a huge conflict in this
particular position between the job (reporting budget
projections, transparent management of government funds) and
the political role he has been playing. This means he is a
perfect fit for the Rove political machine -- but perhaps
not such a great fit for the rest of the country who deserve
to actually have an office of budget and management, not an
office of Enron accounting to make our economy "appear
healthy." Secrecy has no place when he is handling OUR
money.
AND A WORD ABOUT BOLTEN=92S FATHER, CIA ESPIONAGE AGENT
"When Bush (George H.W. Bush) saw the AP story in the
Washington Star, he asked for an internal CIA review to
verify the story (it was true), and if it would 'cause
problems for Helms.' Helms lied to a Senate committee about
the CIA's role in subverting Chilean democracy and would
later be convicted for contempt of Congress.
"After investigating, Bush assistant Seymour Bolten reported
the exposure of Helms' false testimony to the Warren
Commission would probably cause Helms 'some anxious
moments,' though not 'any additional legal problems.' But
Bush was assured that a 'slightly better' story had resulted
from an Agency phone call to AP 'protesting that Martin's
story was sloppy.' Additionally, Bush was told that an
unnamed journalist had 'advised his editors...not to run the
AP story.'
"Bolten complained to Bush: =91 This is another example where
material provided to the press and public in response to
FOIA requests is exploited mischievously and is distorted to
make headlines.' One might more accurately describe it as an
occasion where Bush=92s CIA pressured one news outlet to back
away from an accurate story while using a connection in the
press corps to suppress it in another (Bowen 55-6)."
(http://home.att.net/~m.standridge/dayshot.htm and
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/cia-bush.html)
Aaah, secrecy, and the New American Century.
# # # # #
To remove: Hit reply and type remove anywhere This news
release prepared by ProTalion.com
(http://www.talion.com/protalion.html) in conjunction with
citizen researchers at Democratic Underground Other sites of
interest: http://www.questionw.com
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Sun Jun 1 01:50:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Sun Jun 1 00:50:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Abuse of 501-C4 Status by Conservative
Organizations
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030531222804.01d4e1b0@organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- May 31, 2003
[Below is an excellent response by Anitra Freeman to my article questioning
whether the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) might be abusing
its tax status by waging a low-intensity media campaign critical of
more liberal presidential candidates, such as Howard Dean.
In case you wonder why it took so long to post this, that is because
our office got four new interns on May 20... keeping me VERY busy.
Thus, I want to repeat my periodic call for additional volunteers to
help with RightWATCH during the time while I will be preoccupied
with OC's main projects: ODB and democracygroups.org.
The areas of need are:
-- someone who is interested in ensuring that people who have
a need for RightWATCH know that it exists
-- a web page designer to redo the RightWATCH.org home page
-- Linux experts to the archives and the email list setup
-- "stringers" to watch specific sources for relevant articles
Serious inquiries only please!!!
-rich cowan ]
Anitra Freeman, from Seattle, wrote:
> RightWATCH - May 15, 2003 (please forward)
>
> [Several nonprofit organizations designated by the IRS as "501-C4"
> advocacy organizations are apparently using this status to wage
> attacks on presidential candidates who oppose the
> weakening of certain laws that regulate corporations.
I work with a 510(c)4 organization, Real Change, a newspaper covering
homeless issues (and sold by homeless/low-income vendors) that also
supports a number of projects including a free computer lab, a writer's
group, a speaker's group, and an activist campaign group. We have had
training in what we can, and cannot, do as a 501(c)4. We *can*
campaign on issues, and endorse legislation in the paper. We *cannot*
endorse candidates, and if we report either positively or negatively on
one candidate it has to be part of regular coverage on all candidates.
If we say that candidate A stands so-and-so on X issue, for instance,
it has to be in the context of a report on how *all* the candidates
stand on that issue.
If a 501(c)4 organization is running an attack campaign against a
candidate for public office, that is as much a violation of IRS rules
is if they ran a campaign for a particular candidate. However the
campaign is financed, running such a campaign is, in itself, illegal.
I recommend making an official report to the IRS, and print the results
of that.
--
Write On!
Anitra
See http://anitra.net/ for information about all my projects and
websites and groups and causes and books and friends... because if I
list them all here you will be SO mad at me...
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Tue Jun 3 13:56:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Tue Jun 3 12:56:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Krugman on Bush Admin Lies
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030603125407.01b86dd0@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- June 3, 2003 (please forward)
Standard Operating Procedure By PAUL KRUGMAN
he mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has
become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major
British newspapers and three major American news magazines,
based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up
the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the
Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about
W.M.D.'s.
And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is
missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence
professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations.
They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their
case, while dismissing contrary evidence.
In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing
the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been
limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently
pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline
"Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the
selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The
government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's
weapons just as it spins everything else."
Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even
though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush
administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the
public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain
credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and
deception are standard operating procedure for this
administration, which =97 to an extent never before seen in
U.S. history =97 systematically and brazenly distorts the
facts.
Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by
declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass
destruction," the Republican National Committee declared
that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes."
That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million
children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo.
In total, 50 million American households =97 including a
majority of those with members over 65 =97 get nothing;
another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great
majority of those left behind do pay taxes.
And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut
offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the
latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading
the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team
on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform
to energy and the environment. So why should we give the
administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?
It's long past time for this administration to be held
accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed
to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with
another whopper, partisan supporters =97 a group that includes
a large segment of the news media =97 obediently insist that
black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media
report only that some people say that black is black and up
is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the
administration invaluable cover by making excuses and
playing down the extent of the lies.
If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of
war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem
to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war
correspondent =97 who supported Britain's participation in the
war =97 writes that "the prime minister committed British
troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a
deceit, and it stinks."
It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I
could point out that many of the neoconservatives who
fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass
murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But
the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's
about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent
threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war
is arguably the worst scandal in American political history
=97 worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the
idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators
so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the
possibility.
But here's the thought that should make those commentators
really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did
con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable
for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings
calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our
political system has become utterly, and perhaps
irrevocably, corrupted.
________________
This email may contain copyrighted material, the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. I am making this material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. For more information, see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Mon Jun 16 18:22:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Mon Jun 16 17:22:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Right-Wing Organizes Against SRI Movement
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616172115.03e60e18@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- June 15, 2003 (please forward)
[A very interesting background story on what the Right is now
paying attention to. The "Socially Responsible Investment"
movement is becoming a successful force influencing corporate
leaders, so the Right has set their sights against it. Of course,
saying that the movement is "undermining US sovereignty" seems
a bit far-fetched. When corporations agree to take steps to reduce
their output of greenhouse gases or improve working conditions,
that is "undermining sovereignty" to the Right. But when
governments are forced by corporate-run WTO or NAFTA panels
to weaken or repeal US laws protecting the environment, the Right never
seems to take issue with that. To read about how NAFTA may
actually increase cancer rates in the U.S. by protecting the interests
of a Canadian-based corporation, read this brief by Gregory Palast:
http://www.newint.org/issue347/eyes.htm
-rich cowan ]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=655&u=/oneworld/20030612/wl_oneworld/1181
U.S. Conservatives Take Aim at NGOs
Jim Lobe,OneWorld U.S.
OneWorld.net
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 12 (OneWorld) - While non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty
International, Greenpeace, and Oxfam have made
significant contributions to human rights, the
environment, and development, they are using their
growing prominence and power to pursue a "liberal"
agenda at the international level that threatens U.S.
sovereignty and free-market capitalism.
That was the message delivered by a series of speakers
at an all-day conference, "Nongovernmental
Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few,"
Wednesday sponsored by the American Enterprise (news -
web sites) Institute (AEI), a Washington think tank
that has been particularly influential with the Bush
administration.
"NGOs have created their own rules and regulations and
demanded that governments and corporations abide by
those rules," according to AEI and the conference co-
sponsor, the rightist Institute of Public Affairs of
Australia. "Politicians and corporate leaders are often
forced to respond to the NGO media machine, and the
resources of taxpayers and shareholders are used in
support of ends they did not sanction."
"The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal
democracies has the potential to undermine the
sovereignty of constitutional democracies, as well as
the effectiveness of credible NGOs," they warned.
To shed more light on NGOs, AEI announced the launch of
a new website, NGOWatch.org (www.ngowatch.org), that
will provide information about their operations,
funding sources and political agendas. Brian Hook of
the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Studies, which is co-sponsoring the site, said it will
cover those NGOs "with the most influence in
international affairs."
NGOs, which have proliferated at the local level since
the 1980s--particularly in developing countries--have
become major players at the United Nations (news - web
sites) and other multilateral agencies, such as the
World Bank (news - web sites), which had traditionally
dealt only with governments. Several thousand NGOs now
enjoy "consultative status" at the UN, which entitles
them to participate in some debates, while their image
as representatives of "global civil society" has
endowed them with a moral and political legitimacy,
which they have used as leverage in dealing with the
other major global actors, governments and
corporations.
But, unlike corporations and governments, they are
largely unregulated, and their internal processes often
lack transparency and accountability, according to
their critics and even to many NGOs themselves. Indeed,
a UN commission on civil society chaired by former
Brazilian (news - web sites) President Henrique Cardoso
is expected to recommend the adoption of guidelines or
other mechanisms to ensure that NGOs recognized by the
UN are transparent and accountable.
To the groups who gathered at AEI Wednesday, however,
international NGOs raise concerns that go far beyond
transparency and accountability. To them, the
international NGOs are pursuing a leftist or "liberal"
agenda that favors "global governance" and other
notions that are also promoted by the United Nations
and other multilateral agencies.
"This is inherently a project that is tilted to the
left," according to Cornell University government
professor Jeremy Rabkin, who argued that NGOs are using
the multilateral system to try to regulate corporations
and governments.
"NGOs want to be players. They want to be regulators,"
agreed IPA's Gary Johns. He cited NGO lobbying for the
adoption of codes of conduct for multinational
corporations. "Before long, you have a degree of
regulation that no one thought was possible."
In fact, according to George Washington University
political science professor Jarol Manheim,
international NGOs are pursuing "a new and pervasive
form of conflict" against corporations which he calls
"Biz-war," the title of his forthcoming book. NGOs, for
example, work with sympathetic institutional investors,
such as union and church-based pension funds, to
sponsor shareholder resolutions demanding that
corporations adopt more environment- or human-rights-
friendly policies. Such efforts, he said, should be
seen as "part of a larger, anti-corporate campaign."
This was echoed by John Entine, an AEI adjunct fellow,
who called the "social investing" movement, as it is
called, a "wolf in sheep's clothing. "Anti-free market
NGOs under the guise of corporate reform are extending
their reach into the boardrooms of corporations," he
said. "In many cases, naive corporate reformers, within
corporations and in government, are welcoming them."
Moreover, the strategy is working. "Big shareholders
are getting embarrassed to be associated with some
companies," said Manheim, who noted that companies are
increasingly using NGOs as consultants or even hiring
former NGO officials to protect themselves against
negative publicity or consumer boycotts.
On the global political front, international NGOs,
which led the fight for the global ban on anti-
personnel mines, the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites)
to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, and the treaty
establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC),
are pursuing a "liberal internationalist" vision that
is very much at odds with that of the Bush
administration, according to American University law
professor Kenneth Anderson.
These efforts are intended in part to further a world
order based on "global governance" and the rule of
international law, rather than one based on the
sovereignty of democratic nation states. The leaders of
international NGOs are part of a culture that "wants to
constrain the United States" and whose ideas about
world order "are not congenial to the ideas of this
administration," according to Anderson.
Several speakers praised the work of NGOs in providing
services and humanitarian aid to needy people in
developing countries but stressed that, at the
international policy level, much of what they did
actually hurt the intended beneficiaries. Roger Bate,
director of Africa Fighting Malaria, cited NGOs'
opposition to the use of DDT to fight malaria and to
the delivery of genetically-modified maize in southern
Africa as examples of policies which amounted to "eco-
imperialism" and showed a "callous disregard for human
life."
"NGOs definitely provide benefits in the short run, but
in the long run, their influence is almost always
malign," he said.
Mike Nahan, IPA's executive director, charged that
international NGOs supported secession movements in
East Timor (news - web sites) and Aceh, Indonesia; put
Papua New Guinea "on the road to bankruptcy" by forcing
out the mining industry; and is "destroying civil
society in many of these countries."
-----------------------------------
This email may contain copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. I am making such such material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Mon Jun 16 19:48:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Mon Jun 16 18:48:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Congress Terminates Right to File Most Class Action Suits
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616183946.03e68a30@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- June 15, 2003
[This is very disturbing. The idea that class-action suits would be
moved to the federal courts, the same courts that have been packed
with thousands of right-wing judges, means that many of these
suits will no longer be able to be heard.
Of course, the Senate still has to approve this. To see if your
representative voted for or against this bill, please see this:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/164/wash/The_253_170_roll_call_Thursday:.shtml
To see a list of Democrats who are already in favor of this bill in the
Senate,
which includes Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Blanche Lincoln of
Arkansas, Herb Kohl
of Wisconsin, Zell Miller of Georgia and Thomas Carper of Delaware, see this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20030613/ap_on_go_co/class_action
-rich cowan
]
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977761,00.html
Goodbye, Erin Brockovich, as class actions end
Ed Vulliamy in Washington Sunday June 15, 2003 The
Observer
It was the kind of legal action that made a heroine out of
beauty-queen-turned-crusader Erin Brockovich, pitting the
little people against the might of corporate America. But
now the US Congress is set to hand business chiefs the
greatest gift since the advent of the Bush administration:
an end to so-called 'class action' suits. In 1996 Brockovich
won damages of $333 million from the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company for the people of Hinkley, California, over
pollution of the water supply.
Brockovich - played by Julia Roberts in the film - is suing
again: this time against district and oil companies who have
drilled beneath a school, allegedly causing Hodgkin's
disease and cancer. If measures now being pushed through
Congress succeed, her career as a champion of local people
against big industry is over.
In the past, most class action suits were filed through
state courts. In some of the better-known cases, against
cigarette and later gun manufacturers, actions swept across
states to become a tidal wave of litigation.
A case has recently been won in Madison, Illinois, against
Philip Morris, where a judge awarded plaintiffs $12 billion
after finding that the cigarette-maker failed to inform
consumers that 'light' brands were no less harmful than
full-tar cigarettes.
But the House of Representatives has voted by 253 to 170 to
thwart the vast majority of class action suits in state
courthouses, limiting all but the smallest claims to federal
courts, where the big companies, say citizens' groups, find
it easier to delay the progress of suits and 'shop' for
courts more favourable to their interests.
'It's the biggest thing for years,' said a jubilant Lawrence
Fineran, vice-president at the Association of Manufacturers.
'Just about every industry group is on this bandwagon,
because every industry is affected.'
The battle over the future of class actions, in which
consumer and environmental groups face some of the Bush
administration's most powerful financial backers, now goes
to the Senate, where Republicans won a powerful majority
during last winter's mid-term elections.
Big firms and their lobbying groups in Washington - led by
the insurance, energy and private health giants - have been
pushing for years to achieve a shift away from state
benches, to which judges are usually elected, to the
politically appointed federal judiciary.
In Texas, Bush's political home, business interests - mostly
oil and chemical companies, under pressure from
environmental groups for wholesale polluting - poured money
into Bush campaigns.
________________
This email may contain copyrighted material, the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. I am making this material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. For more information, see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Mon Jun 16 21:14:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Mon Jun 16 20:14:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] Congress Terminates Right to File Most Class Action Suits
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030616183946.03e68a30@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- June 15, 2003
[This is very disturbing. The idea that class-action suits would be
moved to the federal courts, the same courts that have been packed
with thousands of right-wing judges, means that many of these
suits will no longer be able to be heard.
Of course, the Senate still has to approve this. To see if your
representative voted for or against this bill, please see this:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/164/wash/The_253_170_roll_call_Thursday:.shtml
To see a list of Democrats who are already in favor of this bill in the
Senate,
which includes Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Blanche Lincoln of
Arkansas, Herb Kohl
of Wisconsin, Zell Miller of Georgia and Thomas Carper of Delaware, see this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=7&u=/ap/20030613/ap_on_go_co/class_action
-rich cowan
]
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977761,00.html
Goodbye, Erin Brockovich, as class actions end
Ed Vulliamy in Washington Sunday June 15, 2003 The
Observer
It was the kind of legal action that made a heroine out of
beauty-queen-turned-crusader Erin Brockovich, pitting the
little people against the might of corporate America. But
now the US Congress is set to hand business chiefs the
greatest gift since the advent of the Bush administration:
an end to so-called 'class action' suits. In 1996 Brockovich
won damages of $333 million from the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company for the people of Hinkley, California, over
pollution of the water supply.
Brockovich - played by Julia Roberts in the film - is suing
again: this time against district and oil companies who have
drilled beneath a school, allegedly causing Hodgkin's
disease and cancer. If measures now being pushed through
Congress succeed, her career as a champion of local people
against big industry is over.
In the past, most class action suits were filed through
state courts. In some of the better-known cases, against
cigarette and later gun manufacturers, actions swept across
states to become a tidal wave of litigation.
A case has recently been won in Madison, Illinois, against
Philip Morris, where a judge awarded plaintiffs $12 billion
after finding that the cigarette-maker failed to inform
consumers that 'light' brands were no less harmful than
full-tar cigarettes.
But the House of Representatives has voted by 253 to 170 to
thwart the vast majority of class action suits in state
courthouses, limiting all but the smallest claims to federal
courts, where the big companies, say citizens' groups, find
it easier to delay the progress of suits and 'shop' for
courts more favourable to their interests.
'It's the biggest thing for years,' said a jubilant Lawrence
Fineran, vice-president at the Association of Manufacturers.
'Just about every industry group is on this bandwagon,
because every industry is affected.'
The battle over the future of class actions, in which
consumer and environmental groups face some of the Bush
administration's most powerful financial backers, now goes
to the Senate, where Republicans won a powerful majority
during last winter's mid-term elections.
Big firms and their lobbying groups in Washington - led by
the insurance, energy and private health giants - have been
pushing for years to achieve a shift away from state
benches, to which judges are usually elected, to the
politically appointed federal judiciary.
In Texas, Bush's political home, business interests - mostly
oil and chemical companies, under pressure from
environmental groups for wholesale polluting - poured money
into Bush campaigns.
________________
This email may contain copyrighted material, the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. I am making this material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. For more information, see:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Wed Jun 18 09:35:03 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Wed Jun 18 08:35:03 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] New Supreme Court Case Threatens Church/State Separation
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030618082609.02c025e0@organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- June 18, 2003 (please forward)
[There have been a number of important Supreme court
cases decided by close margins that are opening the
to the use of public funds for religious purposes. A well
known case of the mid 90s was the Rosenberger case,
that forced a state university to use student activities
funds to fund a right-wing Christian campus publication,
at the University of Virginia.
The article below describes two more recent cases, one
already decided and another pending, that are gradually
chipping away at the historical separations.
-rc]
Church and state against the wall in voucher case
By ROBYN E. BLUMNER
Times Perspective Columnist
=A9 St. Petersburg Times published June 15, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vouchers are back before the U.S. Supreme Court, and this
time the court has the opportunity to demolish whatever it
left standing of the wall separating church and state.
Last year, by a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a
punch in the stomach to anyone who cares about keeping
taxpayers from paying for proselytizing, by upholding a
school voucher program in Cleveland. The program gave tax
money to parents who chose to send their children to private
sectarian schools, among other options. Now the court has
taken a second voucher case, Locke vs. Davey, to be heard
next term, and the stakes are even higher - much higher.
As Rob Boston, a spokesman at the public interest group
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,
told me, the Davey case flew under the radar until making it
to the high court docket. But the case has the potential to
shift the legal ground on church-state separation so
tectonically that what was once patently prohibited may now
be required.
While the court in the Cleveland school voucher case said
the Constitution wasn't violated when vouchers were used for
religious schooling, the Davey case asks the court to
consider whether states have a constitutional obligation to
provide scholarships for religious training when offering
similar aid for other types of educational pursuits.
The case arose after Joshua Davey, a student at the
sectarian Northwest College in Kirkland, Wash., won a
state-sponsored "Promise Scholarship" in 1999. He was told
he could use the $1,125 at any accredited college in the
state and for any course of study except theology.
Davey, however, was pursuing a major in pastoral ministries.
So, with the help of the American Center for Law and
Justice, Pat Robertson's legal arm, Davey challenged the
stricture as a violation of the First Amendment guarantees
of religious freedom.
Astoundingly, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals bought
it. In a 2-to-1 decision, the court sided with Davey, saying
the Promise Scholarship was a "fiscal forum" and Washington
could not constitutionally discriminate against religion in
distributing the largess.
The Supreme Court has been inching toward this view of
"government neutrality toward religion" for years now. If
the court upholds the lower court it could create a new
imperative, directing the states to open all programs and
benefits to religious groups. For Bush, this would be manna
from heaven. His vision where all welfare mothers and drug
addicts are led to Jesus at government expense could come
into full flower. States could now be required to invite
religiously driven social service programs into all
contracting bids, even if the programs discriminate in
hiring on the basis of religion - precisely what Bush has
been trying to push through executive order.
The ruling in Davey could spell the end of state
constitutional provisions known as Blaine Amendments. These
amendments exist in 37 states, including Florida, and they
go far beyond the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in
explicitly barring the use of state funds to assist
religious schools and institutions. Though many of these
provisions were born of a disturbing history - James Blaine
was a member of Congress after the Civil War and an
anti-Catholic crusader with the purpose to keep state funds
from flowing into Catholic parochial schools - his handiwork
has ironically, over time, been a boon to tolerance and
pluralism.
Our nation has avoided the violent fissures of places like
Lebanon and Ireland precisely because we have kept the
government from becoming an instrument of extortion for the
benefit of religion. Blaine's purpose may have been to
exploit anti-Catholic feelings for his own political gain
(he ran for president three times), but the results have
been a wildly successful social experiment in peaceful
coexistence. (One has to wonder just how sincere Blaine was
in his anti-Catholic biases. Apparently, his mother was
Catholic and his daughters went to a Catholic boarding
school.)
Some might say that allowing Davey to pursue a ministerial
degree with public funds is really no different than Pell
grants that can be used to study theology. Putting aside
whether the government at any level should be helping to
fill the minister corps, the issue in Davey case is whether
states can adopt more explicit and far-reaching restrictions
on church-state entanglement than that found in the federal
Constitution.
As Boston of Americans United says, the fight over vouchers
now is joined at the state level, relying on the stricter
language of the state Constitutions. If the Davey case is
upheld, then those provisions in 37 states will be swept
aside and a new constitutional order will be adopted - one
where state governments are required to underwrite religion
to the same degree they do other entities in the private
sector.
It would be a sea change that would wash away many more
bricks from our enlightened and valuable wall.
________________________________
This email may contain copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. I am making such such material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner.
This messaged wrapped with eWrapper 1.0, a free utility for
Windows. See http://organizenow.net/ewrapper.
From rightwatch@democracygroups.org Mon Jun 23 20:11:02 2003
From: rightwatch@democracygroups.org (rightwatch@democracygroups.org)
Date: Mon Jun 23 19:11:02 2003
Subject: [RightWATCH] How Flawed Media Coverage Sunk Cynthia McKinney (and Al Gore)
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030623191029.01bacc68@mail.organizenow.net>
RightWATCH -- June 24, 2003 (please forward)
[It is scary how someone who is elected, and who is politically
effective and articulate, can be "taken out" by the regurgitation
of false stories in the media. Remember when the media said
that Al Gore claimed that he had "invented the internet"? In fact
GORE NEVER SAID THAT. He actually said: "During my service
in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the=20
Internet."
And this statement was 100% true. Vincent Cerf, who's been called
the Father of the Internet, said "The Internet would not be where it
is in the United States without the strong support given to it and
related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and
in his earlier role as Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credited Gore
with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through
Gore's High Performance Computing Act.
The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber said that without Gore
the Internet "would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University,
said that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the
importance of networking the country.?"
Details here: http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm .
So it was a said day indeed when two years later, media stories
about another effective political figure, Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney of Atlanta, ended up ruining her political career.
Journalist Greg Palast published an excellent story on this
last week, which is reprinted below.
-rc ]
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0619-12.htm
Published on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 by GregPalast.com
The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney by Greg Palast
Have you heard about Cynthia McKinney, former U.S.
Congresswoman?
According to those quoted on National Public Radio,
McKinney=92s =93a loose cannon=94 (media expert) who =93the people
of Atlanta are embarrassed and disgusted=94 (politician) by,
and she is also =93loony=94 and =93dangerous=94 (senator from her
own party).
Yow! And why is McKinney dangerous/loony/disgusting?
According to NPR, =93McKinney implied that the [Bush]
Administration knew in advance about September 11 and
deliber