The Bush hypocrisy and deceit knows no bounds

May 19, 2004

White House Is Trumpeting Programs It Tried to Cut
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, May 18 — Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.

For example, Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.

The administration has been particularly energetic in publicizing health programs, even ones that had been scheduled for cuts or elimination.

Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years.

The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.

Whether they involve programs Mr. Bush supported or not, the grant announcements illustrate how the administration blends politics and policy, blurring the distinction between official business and campaign-related activities.

In recent weeks, administration officials have fanned out around the country. Within a 48-hour period this month, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow was in Wisconsin and Illinois, doling out federal aid to poor neighborhoods. Anthony J. Principi, the secretary of veterans affairs, was in Las Vegas to announce plans for a new veterans hospital. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was in South Carolina to announce a new national research laboratory. And a top transportation official was in Portland, Me., awarding a $13 million grant to the city's airport.

In some cases, overtly political appearances are piggybacked onto such trips. Earlier this month, Mr. Principi was in Florida announcing plans for another veterans hospital, in Orlando, with a side trip to Tampa to kick off a national coalition of veterans supporting the re-election of Mr. Bush.

A few days earlier, while traveling to Marco Island, Fla., on official business, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans stopped in Daytona Beach to attend a large prayer meeting, where he praised Mr. Bush as "a leader you can trust 100 percent of the time."

The combination of official business and politics is neither illegal nor unusual in an election year, though Bush administration officials were reluctant to provide details. In fact, the Bush administration is using techniques refined by President Bill Clinton. The difference is that in the Clinton years the White House was often trying to add and expand domestic programs, not cut them.

The government has byzantine rules for documenting mixed official and political travel. The goal is to ensure that the campaign or some other political group pays for parts of a trip that are purely political.

But as the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, has said, "it is often impossible to neatly categorize travel as either purely business or purely political."

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Mr. Evans, said the Republican National Committee paid for the commerce secretary's stop in Daytona Beach on May 6. A local newspaper, The News-Journal, said the prayer meeting there "evolved into a rousing Republican political rally."

The contrast between politics and policy is particularly striking when the administration takes credit for spending money appropriated by Congress against the president's wishes.

In April, Secretary Thompson announced that the administration was awarding $3.1 million in grants to improve health care in rural areas of Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico and New York. He did not mention that the administration was trying to cut the same rural health program by 72 percent, to $11.1 million next year, from $39.6 million.

Mr. Thompson likewise recently boasted that the administration was awarding $16 million to 11 universities to train blacks and Hispanic Americans as doctors, dentists and pharmacists. But at the same time, the administration was urging Congress to abolish the program, on the ground that "private and corporate entities" could pay for training.

Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, has sent a memorandum to Cabinet officers saying they must carefully allocate travel costs between the government and the campaign.

"There is considerable room for discretion in determining whether an event giving rise to an expense is political or official," Mr. Gonzales wrote. Ultimately, he said, the decision depends on the facts of each case.

Interior Department lawyers said that Secretary Gale A. Norton had made eight entirely political trips and 17 trips combining official business with political activity, for which the government was reimbursed. The political sponsor typically pays a share of the costs, based on the amount of time spent on political activity, said Timothy S. Elliott, a lawyer at the department.

Last month, on a trip to Alaska, Ms. Norton attended two fund-raisers, in Juneau and Anchorage. "It's always beneficial to have members of the cabinet at these events," said Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Republican Party of Alaska.

A trip to Minneapolis by Education Secretary Rod Paige shows a similar mix. John M. Gibbons, a spokesman for the secretary, said Mr. Paige went to a Republican fund-raiser there on Feb. 17, then visited schools the next day.

On March 13, Mr. Paige made a political trip to Orlando for a Republican dinner. He was back in Florida for a Bush-Cheney fund-raiser in Fort Lauderdale on March 26 and for the annual conference of the National School Boards Association, in Orlando, on March 28-29.

Likewise, Anthony T. Jewell, a spokesman for Mr. Thompson, said the health secretary attended a Republican fund-raiser on April 22 while visiting Detroit to promote organ donation.

The precedents for such activity run deep. Phillip M. Caplan, who was a special assistant to President Clinton, said the Clinton White House had a weekly conference call with chiefs of staff at Cabinet departments.

"We would tell officials, for example, that the president will be in Ohio on the 27th of this month, so you should scour the agency, and if you have something coming up in Ohio, let us know," Mr. Caplan recalled. "The announcement of grants was timed to coincide with the president's visit. The goal was to maximize the credit and visibility for the president."

Scott M. Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said: "The law sets forth clear guidelines as to how costs should be allocated. We adhere to the guidelines. We pay travel and other costs for government officials participating in political events."

[alankin]

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a
light bulb??

The Answer is SEVEN:
1. one to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced

2. one to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has
questions about the light bulb,

3. one to blame the previous administration for the need of a new
light bulb,

4. one to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret
stockpile of light bulbs,

5. one to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how
to pay Halliburton Industries one million dollars for a light bulb,

6. one to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the light
bulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag,

7. and finally one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing
a light bulb and screwing the country.

Lol :d

[patricia]

Originally Posted by alankin

How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a
light bulb??

The Answer is SEVEN:
1. one to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced

2. one to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has
questions about the light bulb,

3. one to blame the previous administration for the need of a new
light bulb,

4. one to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret
stockpile of light bulbs,

5. one to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how
to pay Halliburton Industries one million dollars for a light bulb,

6. one to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the light
bulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag,

7. and finally one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing
a light bulb and screwing the country.

Love it!!! There's so little to smile about, I thank you.

June 2, 2004

Bush Gives Contract to Tax Traitor/Campaign Donor

President Bush has said he wants to “make sure that the system is fair for those of us who do pay taxes” and that “we want everybody paying their fair share.” 1 But yesterday, the president went out of his way to lavish a massive government contract on a major campaign contributor,2 even though it specifically moved operations offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

According to news reports, the Bush administration yesterday gave a $10 billion contract3 for the Department of Homeland Security to Accenture (formerly Arthur Andersen), despite the company having recently moved its official headquarters to Bermuda to avoid U.S. taxes.4 The contract was awarded less than two years after the White House and its allies in Congress gutted a House-passed provision that would have banned awarding homeland security contracts to corporations who exploit tax loopholes, move offshore, and avoid U.S. taxes.5 At the time, Accenture lobbied to eliminate the provision,6 hiring GOP political consultant “and Bush family confidant” Charlie Black to lobby on its behalf.7 Accenture executives have given President Bush more than $68,000 in campaign contributions8 since 2000.

Of course, the president has made a practice of paying lip service to the problem of corporate tax evasion, while actively opposing solutions behind the scenes. ABC News reported that when Congress was considering bills to curb the practice in 2002, Bush “said the Bermuda loophole should be closed” but refused to support “any of the bills that would do so” 9 and then allowed his allies to kill the legislation.

Sources:

1. Presidential Speech, WhiteHouse.gov,[i] 04/15/04.
2. "Donors to George W. Bush between 2000-2004 who work for Accenture," Opensecrets.org.
3. "Homeland Security awards $10 billion border security contract," WVEC-TV, 6/02/04.
4. "GAO concludes Accenture, others, use tax havens," Washington Technology, 10/3/02.
5. Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 12/6/02.
6. Baltimore Sun, 6/9/02.
7. "The Taxonomist: Standing up Against America," The American Prospect, 11/4/02.
8. "Donors to George W. Bush between 2000-2004 who work for Accenture," Opensecrets.org.
9. ABC News, 07/12/02.

[lynn]

That was on CNN this morning too. They mentioned it was his latest contribution to outsourcing.

[BFrank]

June 3, 2004
Fiscal Shenanigans

President Bush appears to be planning to run for re-election as a tax cutter without discussing what federal programs will be sacrificed to make up for the lost revenue. That can't be allowed to happen. Voters have the right to see the whole picture, including the downside. Chances are they won't like the view.

While Mr. Bush has been out crowing about spending increases in some popular programs, his Office of Management and Budget was instructing federal departments to prepare to pare them down. In a May 19 memo that was first reported in The Washington Post, departments were told to trim domestic discretionary spending in 2006, the first complete fiscal year after the November election. And the administration recently submitted legislation to impose caps that would result in further reductions in every year after that through 2009.

According to estimates by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Office of Management and Budget guidelines translate into inflation-adjusted reductions in 2006 alone of about $925 million for Head Start and childhood education. That would come at a time when schools are already struggling to meet the demands of Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative without adequate resources. College financial aid, mainly Pell Grants, would take a $550 million hit — at a time when lower-income students are dropping out of school because they cannot meet rapidly rising costs.

The same projections show that veterans' medical care would be cut by $1.5 billion (after a planned $380 million cut in 2005). All told, under the proposed cuts, total funds for these and other affected programs — like environmental protection, housing programs and nutrition aid for poor pregnant women and children — would be $21 billion less in 2006 than today. By 2009, domestic discretionary spending, not counting homeland security, would be $45 billion below its current level and would be a smaller portion of the economy than it has been at any time since 1963.

The budget-cutting exercise is undoubtedly inspired, at least in part, by complaints from conservatives about the enormous deficits being created by the White House's fiscal recklessness. They like the tax cuts, but want to match them with spending reductions. They have been demanding that the president start paring the budget, or at least demonstrate that he will be ready to do so after November.

It's hard to imagine any realistic approach that would have the nation achieve fiscal responsibility with the tax cuts in place. First of all, even all of the proposed cuts in the memo would barely begin to make a dent in the annual deficits, which are likely to range from $300 billion to $400 billion for the rest of the decade. Second, although the fate of specific programs has not been decided, there is no way the administration can take a multibillion-dollar whack out of the relatively small budget for domestic discretionary programs — a mere one-sixth of federal spending — without hurting services that are both popular and desperately needed.

Some of the staunchest tax-cut supporters in Congress are perfectly aware that the math doesn't work. They hope the accumulating pressure of the deficits will eventually force the federal government to go further and cut entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Very few of them, however, are prepared to run for re-election on that plan.

Currently, tax cuts since 2001 account for 17 times as much of the swing from surplus to deficit as do increases in domestic discretionary spending. No one who refuses to face up to the root cause of our fiscal problems should be permitted to seek public office without saying where the money will come from. Candidates who insist on keeping the Bush tax cuts — whether they're running for Congress or the presidency itself — have to show us the math.

June 10, 2004

In Pivotal Case, Bush Backs Off Rule
That Eased Phone Line Fees

By STEPHEN LABATON

WASHINGTON, June 9 — In a move that critics say could lead to higher telephone rates, the Bush administration on Wednesday sided with the four regional Bell companies in a court case over the fees they charge their rivals for access to their networks.

The administration's decision, which could affect the phone bills of nearly 50 million customers across the country, was a significant policy reversal in a case making its way to the Supreme Court.

Justices are being asked to review an appeals court decision that struck down a set of regulations requiring the Bell companies — Verizon, SBC Communications, BellSouth and Qwest Communications — to make their networks available to rivals at heavy discounts. The appeals court decision will take effect next week unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

The solicitor general, on instructions from the White House, dropped out of the case on Wednesday after unsuccessfully trying to defend the regulations in the appeals court. The decision substantially reduces the chances that the Supreme Court will accept the appeal, particularly because the Federal Communications Commission, which had been pressured by the administration, also reversed course and said it had decided not to pursue an appeal either.

Both sides in the matter agree that if the Supreme Court does not alter the appeals decision, a central element of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996 will effectively be repealed. The act requires the Bell companies, which have long been criticized for holding near-monopoly positions in local markets, to make valuable pieces of their networks available at low rates to both small and large rivals, enabling them to offer cheaper service than they otherwise might.

It is a matter of debate how much the decision will affect phone rates in a rapidly changing market where prices have fallen sharply in recent years, in part because of increased competition but also because of new technology that allows cheaper phone service.

Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America, said that the elimination of the regulations could ultimately lead to higher rates for 19 million consumers who get phone service from competitors to the Bells and an additional 30 million who have discounts from the Bells in response to competition.

The rivals of the Bells — notably AT&T and MCI — joined in denouncing Wednesday's decision. They said that if the Supreme Court did not extend the regulations and hear the appeal, there would be higher telephone rates in local markets beginning later this year or in 2005.

"The results of this decision will be especially harmful," said James W. Cicconi, general counsel at AT&T. "Failure to appeal this case could do lasting damage to the entire competitive telecom industry — and will lead inevitably to higher prices and fewer choices for Americans."

MCI issued a similar statement and indicated that the decision might ultimately force it to pull out of some markets.

The Bell companies counter that the local markets are significantly more competitive than when the regulations were adopted and that the plans by many different companies to offer telephone service over the Internet will help keep costs low.

Although the Bells said they had no intention of immediately raising the wholesale rates they charge other telephone companies for access to networks, they indicated they could impose increases by the end of the year. They maintained, however, that their largest competitors in the local marketplace — AT&T and MCI — could easily absorb such increases.

"I read the AT&T press release and it is completely unfounded," said James D. Ellis, general counsel at SBC Communications. "You talk about crying wolf and inciting people. What they said is completely unfounded."

Mr. Ellis said that AT&T had been able to reap high profit margins by making use of the Bell networks cheaply, and thus could handle what he called modest increases in the wholesale rates it would be charged by SBC and the other Bell companies. AT&T executives disputed his contention.

The administration's announcement followed fierce lobbying and aggressive tactics; each side has raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions for the president and the Republican Party. Before the decision, rivals of the Bells said they had told the administration that if it did not side with them in the dispute they intended to run television advertisements in swing political states accusing the White House of being responsible for higher telephone rates. For their part, the Bell companies pledged not to raise rates before the election in November.

Government officials and industry executives with close ties to the administration said that President Bush received sharply conflicting advice from his aides on the issue. They said that senior White House economic advisers had urged Mr. Bush to drop the case because the local markets were adequately competitive, while the political advisers, including Karl Rove, had recommended that the administration file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

A few hours after the announcement, the F.C.C. indicated that it would not appeal the decision either. In March, three of its five commissioners said that they would vote to instruct the agency's general counsel to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

But the lone Republican in the majority, Kevin J. Martin, issued a statement late Wednesday afternoon saying he had changed his mind.

"Because the solicitor general decided not to support the F.C.C.'s appeal, I no longer support appealing the D.C. Circuit's decision," Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Martin, a Republican who is a former White House official and whose wife works for Vice President Dick Cheney, did not return a telephone call Wednesday seeking comment. Last year, he broke ranks with the agency's chairman, Michael K. Powell, and its other Republican commissioner, Kathleen Q. Abernathy, over the phone rate regulations, supporting the rivals of the Bells.

The companies and state regulators that lost the case at the appeals court have until the end of June to file their appeal with the Supreme Court. They have indicated their intention to petition Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist this week to block the order that strikes down the regulations next Tuesday.

The regional Bell companies, which for years have fought in the courts and Congress to repeal the rules, said that the elimination of what they consider an onerous pricing structure will prompt them to pour additional capital investments into their networks, which could improve service and extend it to underserved areas.

"In addition, we have offered our wholesale customers an opportunity to lock in today's rates until the end of the year and set stable rates through 2007 by negotiating and signing a new long-term agreement with us," said Herschel Abbott, a top lobbyist at BellSouth.

But some senior Republicans and Democrats in Congress attacked the announcement, as did Michael J. Copps, a Democratic member of the F.C.C.

[jesus marion joseph]

I, for one, appreciate the irony of your last post, Chris. You've spent months, maybe even years, intimating that the current administration has taken positions that are antithetical to the US Constitution. Now an appeals court has ruled regulations unconstitutional, and you bash the administration for not trying to enforce the regulations anyway.

Perhaps we should re-name this thread "Chris A's scorn knows no bounds"?

July 7, 2004

Bush Tries to Keep Half Million Vets In the Dark

President Bush celebrated the July 4th holiday by praising veterans, saying "we're proud of your service, we're grateful for the example you have set for America."1 But a new report shows that more than half a million veterans are going without health care benefits owed to them - and the Bush administration has tried to keep those veterans in the dark.

According to Knight-Ridder newspapers, 572,000 veterans nationwide "are missing out on disability payments from the Veterans Administration"2 even though they are owed those payments from their service. A large portion of these veterans are not receiving their payments because they do not know about them - a situation the White House has tried to perpetuate. In 2002, VA officials were ordered by the Bush administration "to cease efforts to enroll new patients into its health care system." The directive said it was "inappropriate" for local VA workers to attend health fairs, open houses and community meetings to educate veterans about what their eligibility and to enroll them in health care programs.3

The President's efforts to prevent veterans from getting the benefits they are owed came at the same time the White House was squeezing veterans programs overall. Specifically, the President has drastically underfunded veterans health care programs, leading to major veterans groups calling his policies a "disgrace" and noting his most recent budget falls $2.6 billion short of what is needed this year alone.4 The President also raised premiums that veterans pay for their prescription drugs.5

Sources:

1. Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 7/04/04.
   
2. "Thousands of disabled vets lack disability payments due to poor agency outreach, stigma," Knight-Ridder, 7/01/2004.
   
3. "VA says `no' to new patients - Service," VFW Magazine, 9/02.
   
4. "VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief," VFW.org, 2/02/2004.
   
5. "Bush calls for electronic medical records," CNN.com, 4/28/2004.