By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer Paul Haven, Associated Press Writer – 24 mins ago
MADRID, – A Spanish court has agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay, a lawyer in the case said Saturday.
Human rights lawyers brought the case before leading anti-terror judge Baltasar Garzon, who agreed to send it on to prosecutors to decide whether it had merit, Gonzalo Boye, one of the lawyers who brought the charges, told The Associated Press.
The ex-Bush officials are Gonzales; former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington; Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee; and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes.
"The charges as related to me make no sense," Feith said Saturday. "They criticize me for promoting a controverial position that I never advocated."
Yoo declined to comment. A message left at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco where Bybee is now a judge was not immediately returned. A message left at Chevron Corp. in San Ramon, Calif., where Haynes reportedly works as an attorney was not immediately returned.
Spanish law allows courts to reach beyond national borders in cases of torture or war crimes under a doctrine of universal justice, though the government has recently said it hopes to limit the scope of the legal process.
Garzon became famous for bringing charges against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998, and he and other Spanish judges have agreed to investigate alleged abuses everywhere from Tibet to Argentina's "dirty war," El Salvador and Rwanda.
Still, the country's record in prosecuting such cases has been spotty at best, with only one suspect extradited to Spain so far.
When a similar case was brought against Israeli officials earlier this year, Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos assured his Israeli counterpart that the process would be quashed.
Even if indictments are eventually handed down against the U.S. officials, it is far from clear whether arrests would ever take place. The officials would have to travel outside the United States and to a country willing to take them into custody before possible extradition to Spain.
The officials are charged with providing a legal cover for interrogation methods like waterboarding against terrorism suspects at Guantanamo, which the Spanish human rights lawyers say amounted to torture.
Yoo, for instance, wrote a series of secret memos that claimed the president had the legal authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions.
President George W. Bush always denied the U.S. tortured anyone. The U.S. has acknowledged that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described plotter of Sept. 11, and a few other prisoners were waterboarded at secret CIA prisons before being taken to Guantanamo, but the Bush administration insisted that all interrogations were lawful.
Boye said he expected the National Court to take the case forward, and dismissed concerns that it would harm bilateral relations between the two countries.
He said that some of the victims of the alleged torture were Spaniards, strengthening the argument for Spanish jurisdiction.
"When you bring a case like this you can't stop to make political judgments as to how it might affect bilateral relations between countries," he told the AP." It's too important for that."
Boye noted that the case was brought not against interrogators who might have committed crimes but by the lawyers and other high-placed officials who gave cover for their actions.
"Our case is a denunciation of lawyers, by lawyers, because we don't believe our profession should be used to help commit such barbarities," he said.
Another lawyer with detailed knowledge of the case told the AP that Garzon's decision to consider the charges was "a significant first step." The lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
There was no immediate comment from Garzon or the government.
The judge's decision to send the case against the American officials to prosecutors means it will proceed, at least for now. Prosecutors must now decide whether to recommend a full-blown investigation, though Garzon is not bound by their decision.
The proceedings against the Bush Administration officials could be embarrassing for Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who has been keen to improve ties with the United States after frosty relations during the Bush Administration.
Zapatero is scheduled to meet President Barack Obama for the first time on April 5 during a summit in Prague.
___
Associated Press writers Harold Heckle in Madrid and Lisa Leff in San Francisco contributed to this report.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
McConnell national "favorable" rating now 20%
Weekly Tracking Poll: Better Week for The GOP
by DemFromCT
Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:50:04 AM PDT
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 3/23-26. All adults. MoE 2% (3/16-19 results):
FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 65 (67) 29 (28) -3
PELOSI: 37 (39) 43 (41) -4
REID: 34 (34) 48 (47) -1
McCONNELL: 20 (19) 54 (54) +1
by DemFromCT
Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:50:04 AM PDT
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 3/23-26. All adults. MoE 2% (3/16-19 results):
FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 65 (67) 29 (28) -3
PELOSI: 37 (39) 43 (41) -4
REID: 34 (34) 48 (47) -1
McCONNELL: 20 (19) 54 (54) +1
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Another Hal Rogers earmark boondoggle!
"Why secretly funded DEA surveillance planes aren't flying
"By Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers
"WASHINGTON — The first sign of trouble with the Drug Enforcement Administration's new surveillance planes surfaced almost immediately. On the way from the manufacturer to the agency's aviation headquarters, one of them veered off a runway during a fuel stop.
"The malfunction last spring was only the beginning. A month later, the windshield unlatched in mid-flight and smashed into the engine. Then, in a third incident on the same plane, a connection between the propeller and the engine came loose and forced an emergency landing.
"In January, after less than 10 months of operation, the cascade of mechanical problems forced the DEA to ground the planes.
"The planes recently were scheduled to be "cannibalized" so the DEA could sell the parts and recover as much of its money as possible.
"The story behind why the DEA sought out the three planes, only to become the second federal agency to give them up, illustrates the pitfalls of "black," or classified, budgeting in which Congress approves tens of billions of dollars for intelligence agencies outside the public's view.
"The twin-engine planes, manufactured by Schweizer Aircraft, likely came out of an even more shadowy funding provision known as "black earmarks," according to government officials with knowledge of the contract. The officials asked to remain anonymous because the planes, known as "Shadowhawks," received funding secretly.
"Lawmakers often earmark projects to score sought-after contracts for companies back home.
"The idea is to encourage cutting-edge research and development that wouldn't otherwise get approval during the ordinary budgeting process. During the regular and more transparent budgeting process, earmarks can sometimes pay for worthwhile projects, experts said.
"Black earmarks, however, receive almost no scrutiny. Even worse, there's little accountability when the technology doesn't work.
"The lack of transparency has led to some staggering boondoggles. In 1991, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney canceled the troubled A-12 Avenger II after the secret aircraft program consumed nearly $3 billion of taxpayers' money.
"In one of the most notorious cases, former California Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is serving just over eight years in prison for taking bribes in exchange for secretly steering classified contracts to favored companies. A congressional report concluded that the contracts totaled $70 million.
"Despite calls to end it, lawmakers have continued the practice.
"In this case, Schweizer received $13.5 million from Congress for the now-defunct planes and could be paid an additional $1.75 million by the DEA for retrofitting them.
"Where the DEA got the planes is unclear. William Brown, the special agent in charge of the aviation division in Fort Worth, Texas, said he was under the impression that the funding for the planes was earmarked for the State Department, but officials with knowledge of the transaction said the planes had been intended for another agency for intelligence purposes. The officials couldn't be named because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.
"Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of defense conglomerate United Technologies, bought Schweizer in 2004.
"Schweizer officials said they didn't know where the original funding came from because Schweizer got the contract before Sikorsky bought the family-owned company. Schweizer, founded in 1937 and based in Elmira, N.Y., specializes in light helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
* * *
"Schweizer has no plans to give up on the planes anytime soon. Congress, led by Kentucky Republican Rep. Hal Rogers, appropriated $48 million for the company to manufacture the next generation of the planes for the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection. Company officials said the new version would have a more powerful engine than the planes the DEA rejected. "We've learned a lot," Horton said.
"Coast Guard officials said they planned extensive testing before they fly the planes on missions.
"The Coast Guard has had its own bad experience with earmark projects, including a $4.65 million patrol boat. The Coast Guard couldn't use the 85-foot craft, manufactured by Guardian Marine of Edmonds, Wash., for several reasons, including the vessel's fiberglass hull. Usually, Coast Guard boats are made of sturdier aluminum or steel, but the agency hadn't requested the funding for the fiberglass boat.
"At a loss over what to do with it, the Coast Guard allowed other law-enforcement agencies to bid on it. The Alameda County Sheriff's Department in California bought it for $1.
"Meanwhile, the Schweizer planes, originally scheduled to be completed this year, have been delayed until 2012. Asked whether such delays were common with such projects, Capt. Michael Emerson, the chief of the Coast Guard's office of Aviation Forces, responded, "It seems to be."
"Unfortunately, with developmental projects like this, it's not unusual for them to 'slip to the right' as they say," he said. "It's not desirable but there is an acknowledgement that you don't want them to turn out badly."
(Halimah Abdullah and Tish Wells contributed to this article.)"
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY
Next election, let's replace Hal Rogers with a Democrat!
"By Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers
"WASHINGTON — The first sign of trouble with the Drug Enforcement Administration's new surveillance planes surfaced almost immediately. On the way from the manufacturer to the agency's aviation headquarters, one of them veered off a runway during a fuel stop.
"The malfunction last spring was only the beginning. A month later, the windshield unlatched in mid-flight and smashed into the engine. Then, in a third incident on the same plane, a connection between the propeller and the engine came loose and forced an emergency landing.
"In January, after less than 10 months of operation, the cascade of mechanical problems forced the DEA to ground the planes.
"The planes recently were scheduled to be "cannibalized" so the DEA could sell the parts and recover as much of its money as possible.
"The story behind why the DEA sought out the three planes, only to become the second federal agency to give them up, illustrates the pitfalls of "black," or classified, budgeting in which Congress approves tens of billions of dollars for intelligence agencies outside the public's view.
"The twin-engine planes, manufactured by Schweizer Aircraft, likely came out of an even more shadowy funding provision known as "black earmarks," according to government officials with knowledge of the contract. The officials asked to remain anonymous because the planes, known as "Shadowhawks," received funding secretly.
"Lawmakers often earmark projects to score sought-after contracts for companies back home.
"The idea is to encourage cutting-edge research and development that wouldn't otherwise get approval during the ordinary budgeting process. During the regular and more transparent budgeting process, earmarks can sometimes pay for worthwhile projects, experts said.
"Black earmarks, however, receive almost no scrutiny. Even worse, there's little accountability when the technology doesn't work.
"The lack of transparency has led to some staggering boondoggles. In 1991, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney canceled the troubled A-12 Avenger II after the secret aircraft program consumed nearly $3 billion of taxpayers' money.
"In one of the most notorious cases, former California Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham is serving just over eight years in prison for taking bribes in exchange for secretly steering classified contracts to favored companies. A congressional report concluded that the contracts totaled $70 million.
"Despite calls to end it, lawmakers have continued the practice.
"In this case, Schweizer received $13.5 million from Congress for the now-defunct planes and could be paid an additional $1.75 million by the DEA for retrofitting them.
"Where the DEA got the planes is unclear. William Brown, the special agent in charge of the aviation division in Fort Worth, Texas, said he was under the impression that the funding for the planes was earmarked for the State Department, but officials with knowledge of the transaction said the planes had been intended for another agency for intelligence purposes. The officials couldn't be named because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.
"Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of defense conglomerate United Technologies, bought Schweizer in 2004.
"Schweizer officials said they didn't know where the original funding came from because Schweizer got the contract before Sikorsky bought the family-owned company. Schweizer, founded in 1937 and based in Elmira, N.Y., specializes in light helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles.
* * *
"Schweizer has no plans to give up on the planes anytime soon. Congress, led by Kentucky Republican Rep. Hal Rogers, appropriated $48 million for the company to manufacture the next generation of the planes for the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection. Company officials said the new version would have a more powerful engine than the planes the DEA rejected. "We've learned a lot," Horton said.
"Coast Guard officials said they planned extensive testing before they fly the planes on missions.
"The Coast Guard has had its own bad experience with earmark projects, including a $4.65 million patrol boat. The Coast Guard couldn't use the 85-foot craft, manufactured by Guardian Marine of Edmonds, Wash., for several reasons, including the vessel's fiberglass hull. Usually, Coast Guard boats are made of sturdier aluminum or steel, but the agency hadn't requested the funding for the fiberglass boat.
"At a loss over what to do with it, the Coast Guard allowed other law-enforcement agencies to bid on it. The Alameda County Sheriff's Department in California bought it for $1.
"Meanwhile, the Schweizer planes, originally scheduled to be completed this year, have been delayed until 2012. Asked whether such delays were common with such projects, Capt. Michael Emerson, the chief of the Coast Guard's office of Aviation Forces, responded, "It seems to be."
"Unfortunately, with developmental projects like this, it's not unusual for them to 'slip to the right' as they say," he said. "It's not desirable but there is an acknowledgement that you don't want them to turn out badly."
(Halimah Abdullah and Tish Wells contributed to this article.)"
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY
Next election, let's replace Hal Rogers with a Democrat!
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Republican G.W. Bush Presidential Administration did the AIG Bailout!
Let's get one thing straight, the AIG Bailout is a product of the Republican George W. bush Administration. The dates of passage of the key bills of it were during the George W. Bush Presidential Administration, while Barak Obama was a mere U.S. Senator--like Mitch McConnell.
Wikipedia explains:
"American International Group, Inc. (AIG) (NYSE: AIG) is a major American insurance corporation based at the American International Building in New York City. The British headquarters are located on Fenchurch Street in London, continental Europe operations are based in La Défense, Paris, and its Asian HQ is in Hong Kong. According to the 2008 Forbes Global 2000 list, AIG was the 18th-largest public company in the world. It was on the Dow Jones Industrial Average from April 8, 2004 to September 22, 2008.
It suffered from a liquidity crisis after its credit ratings were downgraded below "AA" levels, and the Federal Reserve Bank on September 16, 2008, created an $85 billion credit facility to enable the company to meet collateral and other cash obligations, at the cost to AIG of the issuance of a stock warrant to the Federal Reserve Bank for 79.9% of the equity of AIG. In November 2008 the U.S. government revised its loan package to the company, increasing the total amount to $152 billion. AIG is attempting to sell assets to repay the loans. So far the U.S. government has given the company over $170 billion.
AIG became a target of criticism from the media, Congress, President Obama, and the public following its allocation of about 165 million USD as bonuses to its executives. AIG CEO was grilled in both Congress chambers about the bonuses. This matter, and the large stake US taxpayers own in the company make the limits of US Government involvement in the daily management of the failing company a dilemma yet to be resolved. See AIG bonus payments controversy"
So, it is the Republicans to blame for the AIG outrage!
Wikipedia explains:
"American International Group, Inc. (AIG) (NYSE: AIG) is a major American insurance corporation based at the American International Building in New York City. The British headquarters are located on Fenchurch Street in London, continental Europe operations are based in La Défense, Paris, and its Asian HQ is in Hong Kong. According to the 2008 Forbes Global 2000 list, AIG was the 18th-largest public company in the world. It was on the Dow Jones Industrial Average from April 8, 2004 to September 22, 2008.
It suffered from a liquidity crisis after its credit ratings were downgraded below "AA" levels, and the Federal Reserve Bank on September 16, 2008, created an $85 billion credit facility to enable the company to meet collateral and other cash obligations, at the cost to AIG of the issuance of a stock warrant to the Federal Reserve Bank for 79.9% of the equity of AIG. In November 2008 the U.S. government revised its loan package to the company, increasing the total amount to $152 billion. AIG is attempting to sell assets to repay the loans. So far the U.S. government has given the company over $170 billion.
AIG became a target of criticism from the media, Congress, President Obama, and the public following its allocation of about 165 million USD as bonuses to its executives. AIG CEO was grilled in both Congress chambers about the bonuses. This matter, and the large stake US taxpayers own in the company make the limits of US Government involvement in the daily management of the failing company a dilemma yet to be resolved. See AIG bonus payments controversy"
So, it is the Republicans to blame for the AIG outrage!
AIG BONUSES!
AIG bonuses - between idiocy and the U.S. Constitution
Everyone is outraged over the AIG "bail out" mess. $45 BILLION of the loot has gone to banks overseas. Grand larceny of the people's empty purse. In order to deflect their own culpability in this monstrous mess, high profile members of Congress are attempting to distract you with bills over the bonuses that will ultimately result in nothing but endless lawsuits. First, these bonuses are employment contracts, some entered into years ago. The House has passed legislation in an attempt to get back these bonuses. These buffoons are also trying to pass a bill that would tax those bonuses at a 90% rate. Take that! However, law experts are already saying the Supreme Court will uphold such a tax! Another mess created by Congress! If you voted for Mitch and Hal Rogers and the George W. Bush gang, then that AIG bailout is what you voted for. Next time vote for a Rural Democrat!
Everyone is outraged over the AIG "bail out" mess. $45 BILLION of the loot has gone to banks overseas. Grand larceny of the people's empty purse. In order to deflect their own culpability in this monstrous mess, high profile members of Congress are attempting to distract you with bills over the bonuses that will ultimately result in nothing but endless lawsuits. First, these bonuses are employment contracts, some entered into years ago. The House has passed legislation in an attempt to get back these bonuses. These buffoons are also trying to pass a bill that would tax those bonuses at a 90% rate. Take that! However, law experts are already saying the Supreme Court will uphold such a tax! Another mess created by Congress! If you voted for Mitch and Hal Rogers and the George W. Bush gang, then that AIG bailout is what you voted for. Next time vote for a Rural Democrat!
Friday, March 20, 2009
AIG and Kentucky Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association.
What happens if AIG insurance company goes under? Do we all die? Probably not.
I'm a lawyer, and I have some familiarity with insolvent insurance companies. If an insurer in Kentucky goes under, we have the Kentucky Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association that will pay you up to $300,000 (approx.) of your money. It is a State agency that insures insurance companies. All fifty states have state guaranty associations. They change the law from time to time, for the amounts, but if you have a catastrophe and your insurance company goes bankrupt, then the State will pay approx. the first $300,000 of your insured losses or damages. So Mitch McConnell and Hal Rogers giving billions of U.S. taxpayer money to AIG did not help you very much. Kenneth Stepp.
I'm a lawyer, and I have some familiarity with insolvent insurance companies. If an insurer in Kentucky goes under, we have the Kentucky Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Association that will pay you up to $300,000 (approx.) of your money. It is a State agency that insures insurance companies. All fifty states have state guaranty associations. They change the law from time to time, for the amounts, but if you have a catastrophe and your insurance company goes bankrupt, then the State will pay approx. the first $300,000 of your insured losses or damages. So Mitch McConnell and Hal Rogers giving billions of U.S. taxpayer money to AIG did not help you very much. Kenneth Stepp.
Timeline to Wage Peace!
Here's Obama's Timeline for U.S. Withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
This week, we mark the end of the sixth year of war in Iraq.
The continued conflict has left its mark on Iraq and its citizens, and its reverberations will be felt for generations.
That’s why I'm glad President Obama has made a pledge to end the war, but sad that the deadlines mean nearly two more years of conflict.
There is an opportunity for the Obama administration to gather U.S. congressional support for ending the Iraq war by allowing greater legislative oversight of the development of a bilateral plan for complete withdrawal.
But what will a complete withdrawal look like? How will we know if we're moving ahead — or falling behind?
Call your senators and representative today and ask:
What does the removal of "all" troops actually mean?
What measures will we use to chart our progress?
What will we leave behind?
President Obama made the pledge. We're counting on you to help him do it — and hold him to it.
Wage peace,
Kenneth S. Stepp
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
AIG OUTRAGE!
I couldn't believe our tax money was going to pay $165 million in bonuses to the top executives of insurance giant AIG!
Everyone from President Obama on down has expressed their outrage at the $165 million in bonuses insurance giant AIG just paid.
Congressional leaders have introduced priority bills to get back the bonuses.
And, in the last 36 hours, thousands of you joined that chorus by signing our petition demanding that AIG withhold these bonuses until they've paid back every dime of their $170 billion taxpayer bailout.
Click here to take action.
You would think that with the near-unanimous condemnation of their actions, and the hot media spotlight focused on them, AIG bigwigs would give back their ill-gotten gains.
Right? Not so fast.
Now, some officials are saying that AIG contracts might require that the bonuses be paid. And, in The New York Times, Andrew Sorkin wrote: "Maybe we have to swallow hard and pay up . . . "[1]
I'm not ready to pay up! And you're not either !
If you're not ready to pay up either, please click here to sign our petition to AIG.
If you've already signed, please forward this e-mail to your family and friends.
I'm convinced that we can win, but we have to make sure that our leaders in Washington, D.C., know that we're not going to back down.
That's why we're sending copies of our petition to President Obama and Congress as well, to keep them focused on the task at hand -- stopping these bonuses.
How can it make sense to give multi-million dollar rewards to executives whose business decisions bankrupted a company and destabilized our economy? Under what moral code is it acceptable to reward these executives with tax dollars from hard working folks who are struggling in a bad economy?
These bonuses are an outrage, but they're also symbolic of the twisted incentives and priorities that continue to plague Wall Street.
We have to make sure that President Obama and Congress know that we won't back down until the AIG bonuses are returned.
Please sign our petition and forward to your friends. With your support, we will win this one.
http://www.FloridaPIRG.org/action/financial-privacy/stop-aig-bonuses?id4=ES
Sincerely,
Kenneth S. Stepp
Everyone from President Obama on down has expressed their outrage at the $165 million in bonuses insurance giant AIG just paid.
Congressional leaders have introduced priority bills to get back the bonuses.
And, in the last 36 hours, thousands of you joined that chorus by signing our petition demanding that AIG withhold these bonuses until they've paid back every dime of their $170 billion taxpayer bailout.
Click here to take action.
You would think that with the near-unanimous condemnation of their actions, and the hot media spotlight focused on them, AIG bigwigs would give back their ill-gotten gains.
Right? Not so fast.
Now, some officials are saying that AIG contracts might require that the bonuses be paid. And, in The New York Times, Andrew Sorkin wrote: "Maybe we have to swallow hard and pay up . . . "[1]
I'm not ready to pay up! And you're not either !
If you're not ready to pay up either, please click here to sign our petition to AIG.
If you've already signed, please forward this e-mail to your family and friends.
I'm convinced that we can win, but we have to make sure that our leaders in Washington, D.C., know that we're not going to back down.
That's why we're sending copies of our petition to President Obama and Congress as well, to keep them focused on the task at hand -- stopping these bonuses.
How can it make sense to give multi-million dollar rewards to executives whose business decisions bankrupted a company and destabilized our economy? Under what moral code is it acceptable to reward these executives with tax dollars from hard working folks who are struggling in a bad economy?
These bonuses are an outrage, but they're also symbolic of the twisted incentives and priorities that continue to plague Wall Street.
We have to make sure that President Obama and Congress know that we won't back down until the AIG bonuses are returned.
Please sign our petition and forward to your friends. With your support, we will win this one.
http://www.FloridaPIRG.org/action/financial-privacy/stop-aig-bonuses?id4=ES
Sincerely,
Kenneth S. Stepp
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Democrat U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh calls for fiscal restraint.
Barak Obama was elected because he was different from George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitch McConnell. Just because the Republicans added a trillion dollars to the national debt does not mean that we Democrats need to add another trillion dollars to the national debt. Kenneth Stepp.
Two wars to end!
I appreciate the words "end the war in Iraq" coming from a US president. But the U.S. troop departure from Iraq in the Obama plan, the end of 2011, is exactly the same as the deadline set in the Status of Forces agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration. And, while a slow, gradual troop withdrawal will begin, there will continue to be 35,000 to 50,000 troops and 140,000 civilian mercenary contractors conducting counterinsurgency military operations for the next three years - longer than all of World War I. I urge withdrawal of all US military forces and all U.S. contractors from Iraq by the end of 2009 or sooner.
Iraq and Afghanistan are bleeding the human and financial resources of the United States to no positive ends. The wars, began by Bush, are controlling the direction of U.S. foreign policy. It is time for the new administration to take control of these wars by rapidly ending them.
Please urge the President and Congress to end the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Thank you for taking action. Kenneth Stepp.
Iraq and Afghanistan are bleeding the human and financial resources of the United States to no positive ends. The wars, began by Bush, are controlling the direction of U.S. foreign policy. It is time for the new administration to take control of these wars by rapidly ending them.
Please urge the President and Congress to end the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Thank you for taking action. Kenneth Stepp.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Republicans run up big deficits.
GOP late to the party in condemning deficit spending
By Edward LottermanSt. Paul Pioneer Press
Updated: 02/18/2009 10:00:49 PM CST
Republicans opposed to the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus bill fretted noisily about 'spending money we don't have' and 'passing a burden on to our grandchildren.'
Their concern for fiscal prudence is laudable, but not credible, given the past 60 years. While Republicans had a deserved reputation for fiscal probity from Lincoln through Nixon, their contempt for balanced budgets since 1981 is at the root of our national debt problems.
In response to questions from readers about the size and history of the national debt, I made some simple tabulations. I took the gross federal debt listed in the 2009 Economic Report of the President, the last one prepared by the George W. Bush administration. To its data for 1940 through 2008, I added the Bureau of Public Debt's estimate of the debt as of Feb. 15.
I then adjusted it for inflation, using the consumer price index. (Using a different, broader index, the GDP deflator, would be slightly better, but it does not go back to 1940.) To make comparisons with current legislation simple, I converted all the figures to December 2008 dollar equivalents.
Plotted against time, it shows the national debt increased five times during World War II. Immediately after the war, austere budgets reduced it somewhat. But then there was a remarkable period, fiscal years 1948 through 1981, during which the inflation-adjusted national debt remained nearly constant. It was $2.2 trillion (in 2009 dollars) in 1948 and $2.3 trillion in 1981, 33 years later.
This spanned the administrations of four Democratic presidents - Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter - and three Republicans - Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 29 of these years and Republicans for four. During this time, Congress was never split between the two parties, as it has been for 16 of the 28 years since then.
People commonly believe a free-spending Lyndon Johnson ballooned the national debt with new social programs while fighting a war in Vietnam.
Kennedy-Johnson deficits were large compared to those of Truman and Eisenhower, who had both reduced the debt in real terms. But these deficits were small enough that with prevailing price increases, the inflation-adjusted debt remained about constant.
Only four-tenths of 1 percent of our 2009 debt comes from Kennedy-Johnson era deficits. Together, Nixon and Ford contributed 3.3 percent, while Carter reduced the real debt slightly.
The big increases began with Ronald Reagan who, like Franklin Roosevelt, was elected on a platform of stopping his predecessor's reckless spending. Nearly 24 percent of our current debt comes from his presidency. George H.W. Bush contributed another 13.6 percent and Bill Clinton added 4.8 percent.
George W. Bush is the champ, however. More than 36 percent of the total came from deficits between his first budget year, fiscal 2002, and February 2009.
Remember that presidents are not dictators. They don't control taxing and spending. They can only propose legislation and then sign or veto whatever bills Congress passes.
So while the three most recent Republican presidents oversaw deficits equal to nearly 74 percent of our debt, they should not bear all the blame alone.
The larger irony is that many of the congressional Republicans most vocal in recent weeks about the perils of deficit spending were among the most enthusiastic supporters of lower taxes and higher spending since 1981. Their sudden conversion to fiscal rectitude is dramatic, but not very convincing.
St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at elotterman@pioneerpress.com.
Stand up for America! Be a Democrat!
By Edward LottermanSt. Paul Pioneer Press
Updated: 02/18/2009 10:00:49 PM CST
Republicans opposed to the Obama administration's fiscal stimulus bill fretted noisily about 'spending money we don't have' and 'passing a burden on to our grandchildren.'
Their concern for fiscal prudence is laudable, but not credible, given the past 60 years. While Republicans had a deserved reputation for fiscal probity from Lincoln through Nixon, their contempt for balanced budgets since 1981 is at the root of our national debt problems.
In response to questions from readers about the size and history of the national debt, I made some simple tabulations. I took the gross federal debt listed in the 2009 Economic Report of the President, the last one prepared by the George W. Bush administration. To its data for 1940 through 2008, I added the Bureau of Public Debt's estimate of the debt as of Feb. 15.
I then adjusted it for inflation, using the consumer price index. (Using a different, broader index, the GDP deflator, would be slightly better, but it does not go back to 1940.) To make comparisons with current legislation simple, I converted all the figures to December 2008 dollar equivalents.
Plotted against time, it shows the national debt increased five times during World War II. Immediately after the war, austere budgets reduced it somewhat. But then there was a remarkable period, fiscal years 1948 through 1981, during which the inflation-adjusted national debt remained nearly constant. It was $2.2 trillion (in 2009 dollars) in 1948 and $2.3 trillion in 1981, 33 years later.
This spanned the administrations of four Democratic presidents - Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter - and three Republicans - Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 29 of these years and Republicans for four. During this time, Congress was never split between the two parties, as it has been for 16 of the 28 years since then.
People commonly believe a free-spending Lyndon Johnson ballooned the national debt with new social programs while fighting a war in Vietnam.
Kennedy-Johnson deficits were large compared to those of Truman and Eisenhower, who had both reduced the debt in real terms. But these deficits were small enough that with prevailing price increases, the inflation-adjusted debt remained about constant.
Only four-tenths of 1 percent of our 2009 debt comes from Kennedy-Johnson era deficits. Together, Nixon and Ford contributed 3.3 percent, while Carter reduced the real debt slightly.
The big increases began with Ronald Reagan who, like Franklin Roosevelt, was elected on a platform of stopping his predecessor's reckless spending. Nearly 24 percent of our current debt comes from his presidency. George H.W. Bush contributed another 13.6 percent and Bill Clinton added 4.8 percent.
George W. Bush is the champ, however. More than 36 percent of the total came from deficits between his first budget year, fiscal 2002, and February 2009.
Remember that presidents are not dictators. They don't control taxing and spending. They can only propose legislation and then sign or veto whatever bills Congress passes.
So while the three most recent Republican presidents oversaw deficits equal to nearly 74 percent of our debt, they should not bear all the blame alone.
The larger irony is that many of the congressional Republicans most vocal in recent weeks about the perils of deficit spending were among the most enthusiastic supporters of lower taxes and higher spending since 1981. Their sudden conversion to fiscal rectitude is dramatic, but not very convincing.
St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at elotterman@pioneerpress.com.
Stand up for America! Be a Democrat!
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Young voters prefer the Democrats.
The future looks bleak for the Republicans as the 18 to 29 year olds are shifting to the Democratic Party from the Republican Party in droves.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Let's Reinstate Federal Parole Now!
Federal Parole Should Be Reinstated While There Are Federal Parole Officers.
This is my editorial on Federal Parole. Kentucky has parole. Most states has parole. The Federal Government does not have parole for new prisoners added to the Federal Prison System since 1987. Once a person is adjudicated guilty of a crime, a judge, or a judge and a jury, or a jury sentences the person. If the person is sentenced to prison, normally it is for a term of months for misdemeanors, or a term of years for felonies (more serious crimes). For pre-1987 Federal prisoners, and for most State felony prisoners, a parole board of that unit of government meets from time to time to determine if certain prisoners will be granted a degree of mercy and let out of prison on parole prior to the time their trial court had determined they would be released. Letting people out of prison early is an act of mercy, within a government's discretion, and has been a common practice for over a hundred years. Kentucky has a parole board and lets Kentucky state prisoners out of prison on parole earlier than the release date stated by the trial court; and I bet your State does, too. Under the Kentucky system, many people are denied parole, and the parole board orders a "serve-out" or for them to serve out their original sentence. Under many State systems, when the person is released from prison on parole, they report to a parole officer--an employee of the State Department of Parole and Probation. That same person keeps tabs on, and supervises, inmates on parole and inmates on probation. Probation is similar to parole, except it is a conditional release ordered by the trial court, instead of by a parole board. They both have the person reporting to a State officer once a month or more for monitoring, and requirements such as no firearms, no alcohol, no illegal drugs, no association with known felons, attend job interviews, and get a job. Generally, parole and probation are good for society, and they give people with criminal histories more suprevision than the ordinary citizen. Kentucky, the home of Jim Bunning, "Mitch" McConnell, and Hal Rogers has parole. The Federal government should have parole, also. Parole is good for society and good for the prisoner. We should act quickly on this because there are still Federal Parole Officers supervising paroled prisoners. The pre-1987 prisoners are a dwindling number of Federal incarcerated inmates, and will soon be all gone. Once they are all gone, there will be no Federal Parole Officers, nor supervisors, nor reporting system. Enacting Federal Parole after that date would require massive creation of a new Federal bureaucracy. Enacting Federal Parole now would merely shift new cases onto the existing Federal Parole officers, and require the appointment by the new President of hundreds of Federal Parole Board members to determine who gets out of prison early. Let's do it, and reinstate Federal Parole now. Kenneth Stepp.
This is my editorial on Federal Parole. Kentucky has parole. Most states has parole. The Federal Government does not have parole for new prisoners added to the Federal Prison System since 1987. Once a person is adjudicated guilty of a crime, a judge, or a judge and a jury, or a jury sentences the person. If the person is sentenced to prison, normally it is for a term of months for misdemeanors, or a term of years for felonies (more serious crimes). For pre-1987 Federal prisoners, and for most State felony prisoners, a parole board of that unit of government meets from time to time to determine if certain prisoners will be granted a degree of mercy and let out of prison on parole prior to the time their trial court had determined they would be released. Letting people out of prison early is an act of mercy, within a government's discretion, and has been a common practice for over a hundred years. Kentucky has a parole board and lets Kentucky state prisoners out of prison on parole earlier than the release date stated by the trial court; and I bet your State does, too. Under the Kentucky system, many people are denied parole, and the parole board orders a "serve-out" or for them to serve out their original sentence. Under many State systems, when the person is released from prison on parole, they report to a parole officer--an employee of the State Department of Parole and Probation. That same person keeps tabs on, and supervises, inmates on parole and inmates on probation. Probation is similar to parole, except it is a conditional release ordered by the trial court, instead of by a parole board. They both have the person reporting to a State officer once a month or more for monitoring, and requirements such as no firearms, no alcohol, no illegal drugs, no association with known felons, attend job interviews, and get a job. Generally, parole and probation are good for society, and they give people with criminal histories more suprevision than the ordinary citizen. Kentucky, the home of Jim Bunning, "Mitch" McConnell, and Hal Rogers has parole. The Federal government should have parole, also. Parole is good for society and good for the prisoner. We should act quickly on this because there are still Federal Parole Officers supervising paroled prisoners. The pre-1987 prisoners are a dwindling number of Federal incarcerated inmates, and will soon be all gone. Once they are all gone, there will be no Federal Parole Officers, nor supervisors, nor reporting system. Enacting Federal Parole after that date would require massive creation of a new Federal bureaucracy. Enacting Federal Parole now would merely shift new cases onto the existing Federal Parole officers, and require the appointment by the new President of hundreds of Federal Parole Board members to determine who gets out of prison early. Let's do it, and reinstate Federal Parole now. Kenneth Stepp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
