SAY GOOD-BYE TO YOUR DAY IN COURT - PART 1

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

On the day he signed legislation protecting his corporate sponsors from the threat of class action lawsuits to bring their excesses and crimes to account, President Bush went on to say that his next goal is to limit further litigation over the issue of asbestos. He claimed that 70 companies had been forced into bankruptcy with the loss of more than 10,000 jobs, all to pay $70 billion in claims by plaintiffs, "many of whom weren't even sick." In the President's view, the legal system is being misused by these "frivolous asbestos claims," which are holding back the economy.

In the same week, Senate Majority Leader and serial kitten killer Bill Frist made the claim on the Senate floor that one of those 70 companies - the W.R. Grace Company - was "a reputable company driven unfairly into bankruptcy."

As usual, both the President and his Senate Majority Leader are lying about an important issue, one that has severely affected many people who likely voted for George W. Bush.

The case of the W.R. Grace Company is of more than passing interest, since it represents the worst aspects of both the problem of asbestos contamination, and the contamination caused by Republican political intervention in the cases. It is no coincidence that the President and the Majority Leader would mention the company by name, since this case personally involves the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney. In 1995, while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he made an executive decision to acquire the W.R. Grace Company, without doing the due diligence necessary to easily discover the asbestos liability claims the company faced (sort of reminds you of the way he led the charge into Iraq without accurate information, doesn't it?).

While the President and the Senate Majority Leader were claiming W.R. Grace company had been unfairly driven into bankruptcy, the Grand Jury in Missoula, Montana, had two weeks earlier brought felony indictments against seven former and current top W.R. Grace executives for having knowingly put their workers and the public across the entire United States in danger with their mining activities in Libby, Montana, over the past 50 years.

Here's a little background:

W.R. Grace Co. mined asbestos-contaminated vermiculite in Libby, Montana since the late 1940s. For those who don't know what this is, vermiculite is a substance that is widely used in home heating insulation and floor tiles used in kitchens across the country. The result of the contamination was that hundreds of the company's employees have died over the years of asbestos disease, along with many residents of the town of Libby who never worked in the mine but were exposed to asbestos fibers in windswept dust coming from the mine.

The executives of W.R. Grace not only knew from the beginning the hazards of asbestos and did nothing about it, but they also committed outrageous and reckless misconduct in the course of the asbestos litigation over the past twenty years, which resulted in the company receiving punitive damages by the jury hearing the cases. It was this punishment for deliberate, demonstrated, proven illegal, outrageous and reckless behavior that drove the company into bankruptcy and may yet put Halliburton - and Dick Cheney's personal fortune, which stems from his time at the Halliburton helm - at risk of being held corporately responsible for the crimes committed by Grace.

As it happens, the economic ripples of this case extend far beyond Dick Cheney's billfold. Over the years, 700 mills nationwide have processed millions of tons of the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite mined by W.R. Grace, and government experts believe it highly likely that most of these mills have released hazardous levels of asbestos dust into the environment. It is estimated that 35 million American homes have Zonolite insulation in them, a W.R. Grace product manufactured from the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.

When the Environmental Protection Agency wanted to issue a warning about Zonolite in 2001, it was rejected by the Bush Administration's Office of Management and Budget as an "onerous regulation" of the housing industry.

When the World Trade Center towers fell, they released a toxic cloud that included hundreds of tons of asbestos insulation and thousands of tons of asbestos-containing floor tiles, made from the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite mined by W.R. Grace. When the Environmental Protection Agency wanted to alert the residents of lower Manhattan to the health hazard, the agency was overruled by the Council on Environmental Quality, which wished to avoid any action that might slow the reopening of Wall Street. Instead, that good Republican "moderate" Christie Whitman stated publicly that the air in lower Manhattan was "safe to breathe." Her claim was later disputed by the EPA's Inspector General. In the three years since 9/11, medical authorities have found that 60 percent of those who worked at Ground Zero have developed persistent upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms associated with asbestos disease. Many of the firefighters, police, and other first responders who toiled in the ruins have been forced into early retirement for medical reasons as a result of this toxic contamination.

Asbestos disease was first tracked in the early 1960s, when Dr. Irving J. Selikoff's pioneering studies demonstrated the threat of asbestos insulation and the spread of the disease in workers employed in installing such insulation. He then demonstrated that asbestos disease was striking less-exposed workers who worked with the insulators in shipyards and building construction sites. Other investigators discovered the spread of the disease among wives and children of those who worked with asbestos, who were dying as a result of exposure to the asbestos fibers and dust carried home by their husbands and fathers on their clothes.

Beginning in the 1970s and through the 1980s, product liability class action lawsuits were brought against the manufacturers of asbestos insulation. Most of these plaintiffs were able to prove that the asbestos manufacturers had not only known that asbestos could cause fatal lung disease since at least the late 1940s, but had withheld this information from their employees. With that knowledge, thousands of other suits have been brought by construction workers, factory workers, refinery workers, brake mechanics and other workers who have either developed asbestos disease or whose chest X-rays show evidence of lung damage caused by their exposure.

Asbestos diseases include asbestosis, a scarring of the lung tissue, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, which is an always-fatal tumor.

Millions of homes, office buildings and factories throughout the country still contain significant amounts of asbestos insulation. This means that whenever these structures are renovated or demolished, there is a definite possibility of continuing asbestos contamination of the local environment with the release of asbestos fibers. Asbestos disease will be responsible for the disability and death of people for most of the rest of the 21st century. The Environmental Working Group estimates that 10,000 people will die of asbestos disease in the next 20 years.

This isn't some "crisis" brought about by ambulance-chasing tort lawyers who successfully shopped around for jurisdictions where they could win big. Just like his attempt to point to a "crisis" in Social Security, the President's claims that a public health crisis should be seen as a crisis of "frivolous lawsuits" is as big a lie as his claim that he went to war in Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction.

The Republicans and their corporate supporters want to create a $140 billion asbestos compensation fund to satisfy all asbestos claims present and future, in return for those so compensated waiving their right to a jury trial on their claim. The figure of $140 billion was not arrived at through any attempt to quantify how many people might develop asbestos disease and submit claims, or how much compensation they deserved. The figure came from the Republicans in Congress asking the asbestos industry and its insurers how much they would be willing to pay to eliminate their liability. Anyone who has had the slightest experience suing an insurance company for a car accident knows they always settle short. The figure of $140 billion is - at best - perhaps half of what would be fair and just compensation. Since no one knows how many people will bring claims, there is no assurance the trust fund has any hope of remaining solvent.

As usual, Bush wants to cosset the comfortable, extending assistance to companies that behaved with proven criminal negligence in failing to notify their employees and customers of the known dangers of the product they were selling, while selling out the millions of workers and their families - many of whom likely voted him into office.

No wonder the Republicans are worried about "frivolous asbestos claims." In the newspeak of the GOP, "frivolous claims means anything that threatens their bank accounts.

Note: This is Part I in a two piece series, you can find Part II in next weeks edition of "This Week's Mess"

A CALL TO ACTION

By: Jake Gates

During his recent trip to Auschwitz, Vice President Dick Cheney said "...evil is real and must be called by its name and must be confronted."

He couldn't be more right.

And if liberty, democracy and peace are the measure of what is good, then the greatest evil our country faces right now waits not in the sun-fried desert of the Middle East, but behind a desk in the Oval Office. There is no need to waste ink on listing the president's abuses. They are plain enough.

We are in the midst not of a secret conspiracy, but an open one, in which we are all complicit if we do not act.

In light of the brazen nature of these unending assaults on our civil liberties, the rights of sovereign nations, the health of our world, and the moral fabric of our great country, we would be wise to examine not only what we have suffered, but how we have allowed the administration to perpetrate these evils.

First, we relinquished the free press. Our forefathers, in their extraordinary wisdom, built our government on a system of checks and balances. Likewise, they gave us the freedom of press, so that the media might act as a check on the power of the government and the rich and powerful. With the unprecedented consolidation of media outlets in the hands of a few huge corporations, that "check" has disappeared.

The media, being owned by huge companies, have the interests of those companies in mind. The big companies, needing the favor of the government, have the interest of their favorite politicians in mind. The media will defend themselves by saying "we are still fair and unbiased. There's no proof that we have suppressed any conspiracies." Which is true, to a point.

They may not have suppressed anything. But they have certainly manipulated Americans into accepting the conspiracy as prudent policy - FOX news, anyone? And in this "instant gratification" media age, they also slice, dice and omit information until even the hardest news story goes down as easy as a fruit smoothie. If we are to take back America, we must break up the huge media conglomerates.

Like our forefathers before us, fate has called upon us to overcome the abuses of a tyrant.
We won't have much help, either. The big-business media conglomerates aren't very interested in "calling a spade a spade" when it comes to the Bush administration. The simple explanation is that Bush is for big business. And for anyone who's thinking of doing it in the future, there's always Dan Rather's the majority of Americans don't have time to seek out the truth

DEMOCRACY'S PARTY AND AMERICAN VALUES

By: Xaivier Martin


As a writer, I often read the words and opinions of my contemporaries in magazines like The New Republic, National Review, GQ and Rolling Stone to name a few, but a publication I rarely miss is Esquire. In February's issue, Esquire had a section that focused on the next four years for President Bush. After skipping over any talk of Bush the first couple of go 'rounds with the issue, I decided for amusement's sake, I'd check it out. Minutes into Tom Junod's piece, "52 True Things About the Future of American Culture", I was reminded what I love about writing. Simply, it is the belief that the words you write will be read and - with each reader - has a chance to move someone.

In his short piece, Junod cuts to the core of the relationship between politics and American Culture. Junod makes his sharpest points with nos. 50 and 51 on the list,

"The future is being formed, right now, by the conversation between the culture and its conservative antagonists. The question is not whether conservatives can win. They can't. The question is whether liberals can inject their values into that conversation."

Democrats lost the "cultural war" as soon as they began apologizing for being called "academics". Since Clinton's departure in 2000, Democrats have slowly backed away from the table of "academic" debate and strategy, not wanting to alienate those who haven't been fortunate enough to enjoy a good education. Instead, we ask good men to march out and do their best imitation of a G.I. Joe, so all of the "other" people can see that we care about protecting our country (sorry Mr. Kerry). As outgoing DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe departed, he declared loudly that the Democratic Party was back to being the party of "the plain people", just as it was when it began under Andrew Jackson.

The Democrats work so hard to walk below their higher education that it's no wonder Republicans walk all over them. Yet, after the smoke clears and the people have decided they didn't want to buy what the Democrats were selling, many of them pointed their fingers at those "others" that allowed themselves to be duped. Many sons and daughters of the donkey are still shaking their heads and asking how the people of America could turn their back on four years of economic decline, pin the tail on the terrorist foreign policy and an almost non-existent domestic policy. The answer may elude even the best political pundits, but for Democrats, it may start with that narrow, bushy face w/ long ears starting back at them in the mirror.

The American people may be many things: simple, hard to please, flighty, emotional and proud, but one thing they are not is stupid. Anyone that believes the American people chose to forget the much-maligned first term of President Bush is not looking at the big picture. The American people didn't turn their backs on the Democrats - they turned their faces towards the most sincere voices in the election. There's a reason that most Democrats cringed as they cheered at John Kerry's opening line of the Democratic National Convention, "John Kerry, reporting for duty." As happy as most of them were at seeing one of their own with the kind of military background and integrity that the Republicans have trademarked, they still weren't completely comfortable with the image. Many of us were sitting there watching Kerry at the national convention and wondering what this feeling was deep in our collective guts.

Many Democrats felt at that moment that the party had just sold their soul to the devil of compromise. After spending many decades creating our identity as the party that looks out and speaks for those who go unseen and unheard, we'd decided to fall in line with values that weren't our own. In all honesty, the American people didn't turn their backs on the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party turned its back on the American people and in turn itself. The American people need balance, and when the Democrats chose to turn in their blue jacket for a purple one, understandably, the people were attracted to the folks who stood proudly by the colors they came in with. The Democratic leadership had the Republican message for the 2004 election in a file drawer labeled "2001- 2002", and still could not craft a strong message of opposition that would have given the public an honest choice. They chose instead to try and blur the lines between "us", "them" and "the people".

Somewhere along the line, Democrats decided that "Anybody But Bush" could stand alone as a party message. People don't want to rally around a quip or witty phrase, they want to rally around a message that speaks to more of what affects them then what doesn't. Despite popular opinion, the Republicans are not the masters of manipulation - they have mastered the art of the single-minded message. It's effectiveness could probably be seen as dumb luck, with all of the advancements in information gathering one would think that political consumers would become more discriminating. Not so - the information age has served to numb the general public, resulting in an over-stimulation backlash. All of this makes the poly-prioritized party message as useful as a iPod to a five-year old.

The Democratic Party is seen as a group of know-it-all, academic social workers that care more about protecting a person's right to do what's "wrong" than making sure people do what's "right". I for one have no problem with that and neither should anyone who associates with the Democratic Party. This country was founded by people who resented not being able to choose for themselves which religion was best suited for them, yet the party of "traditional values" is doing everything in its power to undo what was done in 1620. It is now that the country needs a party with plans for this country's future beyond the next nation it plans to colonize.

It is time that Democrats take a long hard look at ourselves and remember that we are the party of hopes and dreams. We are the party of peace, Camelot and Civil Rights. We are the party of Jackson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton - and far more the Party of Lincoln than is his own party, which is now the personal property of unreconstructed Confederates masquerading as Republicans. Former President Jimmy Carter made more of a positive difference in the world during the last four years than President Bush can ever hope to make in his eight years. Under Democratic Administrations, the economic rights of the common people were protected, we defeated international fascism, set the stage for the defeat of international communism, reached the moon, established both the right to vote for African Americans and the right of women to full participation in society, integrated schools and - under Bill Clinton - enjoyed the most prosperous decade in the nation's history.

The message that should go forward in the Democratic Party's message is right under its nose and in its name, simply put, the Democratic Party is "Democracy's Party". Whereas Republicans want to treat everything from education to social security like a business and therefore are primarily capitalists, our party fights for the rights of the people, protected by law, which is driven by democracy - which therefore makes us democrats. If the Democratic Party returns to the roots laid down by Andrew Jackson, that being a party of the people for the people, it won't have to follow Mr. Junod's advice of interjecting its values into the conversation of American culture. The values of democracy, inalienable rights and full opportunity, have been a part of the conversation all along.

IT'S ALL ABOUT VALUES
by Ryan Oddey


If you were asked to go to the Wal-Mart closest to your home, could you? Myself, as well as many others could certainly do that with no problem. Wal-Mart is such a part of the American landscape on many different levels, and that is the problem. One of the social levels that Wal-Mart participates in is the political arena. For some time now, Wal-Mart has been one of the largest corporate donors to the Republican Party and recently, was able to reap the rewards of that close relationship at the expense of the American people. After examining the deal between the Department of Labor and Wal-Mart, it appears the only thing lower then the prices at these mega stores, is the morals of the executives and officials who reached this agreement. The Democrats needs to seize this opportunity and win back some of the ground for middle America.

The Department of Labor had been investigating Wal-Mart after allegations of violations of Child Labor Law arose in Connecticut, Arkansas, and New Hampshire. These accusations involved people under the age of 18 operating certain machinery such as chain saws. The total fine for these violations was $135,540. Obviously the government was not looking to send a message to Wal-Mart, because this low fine would be the equivalent of the common American being fined a couple of pennies. To put this fine in further perspective, Maine fined Wal-Mart $205,650 for similar labor law violations.

The situation becomes worse from here as the Department of Labor agreed to give Wal-Mart fifteen days notice prior to any investigations involving wage and hour grievances, such as overtime or minimum wage. In contrast, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) does not allow their investigators to notify companies of upcoming investigations.

If Wal-Mart did not have a record of mistreating its workforce, then the agreement with the Department of Labor would not seem as bad. However, history shows us that Wal-Mart has consistently taken action that is detrimental to employees.

In January 2004, the New York Times printed a story about Wal-Mart's policy of locking overnight employees in the store, often times with no access to a key so that they could be let out in the case of emergency. One such emergency did happen in Texas, when a man shattered his ankle on the job, but had to wait over an hour for medical attention because no one at the store had a key. Other cases of negligence exist involving employees having heart attacks, as well as an inability to leave when a family emergency occurs. Wal-Mart claims that the lock-in policy is only done in areas of high crime and violence. Augustine Herrera, a former Wal-Mart employee in Colorado Springs, claims his store was in lock down in spite of being in a very safe neighborhood.

The lock-ins are one example of how Wal-Mart treats its employees, there are others.

A Wal-Mart in Quebec opted to close down instead of reaching a labor agreement with its recently unionized employees. Although Wal-Mart claims that there was no way the store could have been profitable had they met the demands of the union, the union claims that Wal-Mart closed the store to discourage others from forming a union. It's not the first time Wal-Mart took drastic actions to teach a lesson.

In 2000, eleven meat cutters at a Wal-Mart in Texas unionized only to see Wal-Mart eliminate the meat cutter position in its stores across the nation. Although Wal-Mart claims the move was for cost reasons, the coincidence can not be ignored.

All of this information is in the public domain, and the government knew about it when they reached an agreement with Wal-Mart. The Republican Party, the alleged party of values, gave Wal-Mart a soft deal so they can continue their unjust labor policies. Fortunately for America, in the wake of a Republican agenda that is hopeless, the Democrats have offered some promise.

Representative George Miller (D-Ca) called for an immediate inspection by the Department of Labor's Inspector General into the agreement reached with Wal-Mart. Miller called for the investigation because the current agreement with Wal-Mart sets up a system where employees of Wal-Mart have no confidentiality when reporting grievances to the Department of Labor. This lack of confidentiality would discourage people from coming forward, and thus allow Wal-Mart to continue mistreating employees.

Although Representative Miller's call for an investigation is a positive step, it is not a means towards resolving the ongoing problem of the special treatment some companies get when it comes to labor violations. The best way to ensure the fair treatment of employees by there employers is the passing of a Safe Workplace Act. When Americans suffered due to the intentional financial mismanagement of companies like Enron, the government responded with imposing prison terms on executives who knowingly mislead the public about financial information. A Safe Workplace Act would punish the executives of companies that continually break labor laws with prison terms. Perhaps with prison time looking over their heads, the executives at Wal-Mart would be a little friendlier to their employees.

A Safe Workplace Act proposed by the Democrats would force the Republicans to show their true colors. If the Republicans backed this bill, the Democrats can claim they reached across the aisle for the sake of progress. If the Republicans rejected this bill, then the public will see that all those GOP claims about being the party of values were hog wash. Situations like these are a virtual win-win for the Democrats and must be taken advantage of for two reasons. One, programs like this will help the Democrats gain seats in 2006. Two, America needs a party that is looking out for its values.

2006 is not so far away, and when you step up to the polls, ask yourself. Are you going to vote for a party that allows businesses to exploit its workers or are you going to vote for the Democrats, who have a track record of supporting worker rights and will continue to do so in the future?

It is all about values, what are yours?

REPUBLICAN VALUES: THE NEXT GENERATION
by Ryan Oddey

Many people have accused my generation of many things. We have been called lazy, unoriginal, and worse. Some people think that the future of civilization may be in jeopardy once my generation comes into power. Myself and many other young Americans are working hard to dispel the negative stereotypes that have plagued us, but when I read about the actions of Nathan Taylor, the Chair of the upcoming Young Republican National Convention (YRNC) set to be held in Las Vegas, I felt a variety of emotions. At first, I was outraged, as I am sure you will be when I get into the allegations facing Mr. Taylor. However, this outrage soon turned into something else, as I began to realize that Nathan Taylor was just following in the footsteps of other Republican leaders.

Nathan Taylor managed to raise almost $25,000 for the Young Republican National Convention, however, he used almost all of this money for personal expenses. Apparently someone else on the planning committee became suspicions of Taylor when he asked that a check be made out to him to cover his birthday expenses at a bar. Shortly after his, a complaint was filed against Nathan Taylor with the Reno Police Department. Included in this complaint was a Bank Statement that indicates Taylor used funds to pay bills at Bully's Bar in Carson City Nevada, PF Chang's (Chinese Restaurant), Shell Oil, Mandalay Bay, and two cash withdrawals each in the amount of $200 within a 30 day period of each other.

Rather then show some accountability to these accusations, Taylor decided to follow the traditional Republican route. Taylor claims that these charges have been brought against him in response to his failure to endorse a specific candidate for Chairman of the Upcoming Young Republican National Convention. It would appear that Taylor is taking a page from the play book of Republican Congressman Tom Delay. Representative Delay is being investigated for the mismanagement of funds and he too has claimed that he is the victim of a political witch hunt.

It appears though, that Nathan Taylor has other political role models as well. Kriston Whiteside worked for Taylor, assisting him in planning the upcoming convention. During this time, she grew suspicious that Taylor was mismanaging the donations. Apparently Whiteside was concerned with the high bar tabs and other bills Taylor was paying with convention money. Whiteside says "I felt that Nathan was mismanaging funds and when I brought it to his attention, I was fired." Firing associates who bring attention to the mismanagement of money is a policy practiced by President Bush. You may recall that Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil was asked to resign when he told President Bush that the tax cuts he proposed were going harm the economic stability of our nation.

If these allegations against Nathan Taylor are true, then his actions were northing short of unacceptable and illegal. As unfortunate as the events are for Taylor, what is more unfortunate is that the leaders of the party he is a member have shown that they are no stranger to similar tactics. I believe we can learn a lot from older generations, but sometimes we must be careful in choosing whose footsteps we want to follow.

The members of the Young Republican National convention claim that the event is in jeopardy of not happening because of Taylor's alleged actions. Although Taylor is no longer allowed to plan or solicit funds for the upcoming convention, the website promoting the event still has a picture of him. What kind of message are the Young Republicans sending when they still use the picture of a man to promote an event that he may have single handedly brought to the brink of collapse through illegal activity? Republicans, you call yourselves the party of values, and it looks like those values have been passed on to the next generation of the GOP.

THE FY 2006 SPEND LIKE YOU STOLE IT PLAN - AKA THE PRESIDENTIAL BUDGET FOR FY 2006.

By: Dallas Foster

If you haven't heard about, seen it on TV, or perused it online at the budget's website, you are missing out on one of the greatest wastes of paper to hit the congressional floor since the proposal to declare an Act of War on Iraq due to its involvement in terrorism and their possible interest in having WMDs or a possible stock pile of WMDs, depending on whose information you went by.

To sum it up, the Department of Defense and many other government agencies received "much-needed budget increases" so they may prepare for another attack by the terrorists of the world, which makes me wonder which terrorist group is going to attack next since the only threats we get are from Al Qaeda or Iraqi militants who want us out of their country. So why all the expense on this? Because the scared little men running our country are afraid to get caught in the same investigations they dealt with after 9/11. But supposedly we took care of those insurgents, so either the government is lying on the actual progress of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, or we are receiving threats from other countries that the government is not telling the general public about. Or - better yet - they are covering their rears with their constituents who pay to get them elected.

These increases include but are not limited to biological threat research, moving troops from one part of the world to another so as to better "police the world's terrorists who wish to attack democracy and the American way." This means we are moving troops out of the Republic of Korea to a permanent home nearer Iraq and Iran. In light of the news that North Korea has admitted to having nukes and also to having the ability to create more whenever they may need them - not to mention they walked out on disarmament talks recently - I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling on that idea. But that's what the highest paid military minds think is best in the long run for our defense against terrorist nations like Iran and Korea. Of course, these are the geniuses who gave us the war in Iraq that has no foreseeable pullout strategy, which some of the greatest (now retired involuntarily) military minds tried to inform the President of, as they did his father and President Clinton.

The budget also increases funding for faith-based programs like teaching abstinence-only to young adults, instead of teaching birth control and abstinence like they did only a few years ago when I was in high school. This budget also has many cuts to programs that were under-funded as it is, like programs for the poor or the homeless. Certain types of shelters will receive less grant money, and this is money that they need desperately to keep running. As a result, they are cutting much-need programs in our public schools like music, drama, and art, but increasing the failed programs of "No Child Left Behind." They say they're trimming fat, that these programs are antiquated and not needed. But the Congress and the President will never need nor use the programs that they are "trimming the fat" from - these programs help people get off the streets and make kids smarter and more well-rounded.

This budget does not include money for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it include the money that we are using to rebuild the country we just spent billions to blow up. Only in America could we spend billions to blow something up then turn around and rebuild it better than it was before and even better than said country that is paying for the destruction and rebuilding of the "ex-terrorist nation" we invaded twice in the span of 10 years, under the leadership of one family. The one thing this budget doesn't cut is Congress' paycheck - in fact it increases their pay more then they increased the men and women of the armed forces pay.

Even with the pay raise the military received this year, they are paid less than 85% of non-third world countries. What kills me is my wife - who is a cop in the Air Force - is paid less than the Iraqi National Guard even though she helps train these guardsmen and helps protect $80 million aircraft on a daily basis.

My opinion of this budget is that if you, a Congressman, can afford to raise your pay and not pay taxes on that pay (while all the while military men and women are taxed), then you can afford to keep all the programs fully funded and operational, have all necessary gear for the military, and have no deficit at the end of the year - and if we have a deficit then your pay should be docked for your irresponsibility and stupidity. Why not ask the accountants of Bill Gates or Oprah to help out? I'm pretty sure they could offer a better insight on the budget. For the sake of the country get someone who knows money to create the budget and then actually stick to it! And then just maybe - after we don't owe any money to anyone - then you can decide on a pay raise for you and your colleagues and you can buy a new helicopter for the President or a new fighter jet or a new whatever you think we need for our defense. That's what a budget should be - not an excuse to protect your friends and spend money like it was going out of style.

MEETING THEM WHERE THEY'RE AT

By: Scott Isebrand

Democrats will continue to lose political power unless we start framing our core convictions in the language of morality in general and evangelical Christianity in particular.

With the mantra of, "Meet them where they're at," Americans of faith - mainly conservative evangelicals - have for more than 20 years been perfecting the use of the language and modes of popular culture to frame conservatism in palpable and ultimately compelling terms. It has worked well. Conservative evangelical culture - its worldview, its songs, its nomenclature, its literature - inform popular culture like never before, and shape the milieu in which even "non-believers" happily live...and increasingly vote Republican.

In today's America, the conservative evangelical Left Behind novels have sold 62,000,000 copies. Beginning this year, the publishing industry's annual BookExpo America will have a Religion Day. The theme song of Star Trek: Enterprise - a sci-fi show born of the buoyant humanist vision of secularist Gene Roddenbery - is "Faith of the Heart." From Mel Gibson's The Passion to pretty much any movie Keanu Reeves appears in, explicit or vaguely-Christian supernaturalism, however naturalistically or grittily rendered, comprises the very fabric of reality. It is no surprise then that a 2000 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 70 percent of Americans want their President to be a person of faith.

For Democrats to ignore this reality and not enter into an understanding of and use of the language of morals, values, religion - and even evangelical Christianity - would be as patently self-destructive as rejecting the use of Internet-based fundraising or voter registration drives. It would be to forego the use of a practical, effective messaging strategy.

When complaints come from within the Party - and they will - about using such language at all, our queasy comrades need to be patiently called on their fallacious reasoning, which is akin to bypassing television advertising on a premise that since Republicans dreamed up the brutally effective Fox News behemoth, we Democrats oughtn't have anything to do with such a form of media. Yes, by all means: since Fox is a television company, let's avoid TV and use smoke signals instead.

On the contrary: As periodically occurs in American history, religious language has become the bedrock of the current national language. Simply to cede that language to the Republicans is ludicrous. Or to put it another way: as conservative evangelicals have used popular culture's language to make their religion and values more acceptable in a secular nation, progressives and the Democratic Party need to use the language of religion and values to make progressive ideals more acceptable in an increasingly religious climate.

The DNC's new Chair, Gov. Howard Dean, M.D., seems to understand this. He recognizes the problem Democrats have communicating to huge sections of the electorate, including the religious, and in response has called on Democrats to articulate our issues as the moral issues they are. In a recent MoveOn.org question-and-answer forum, Gov. Dean proclaimed:

"A livable wage is a moral value. Affordable health care is a moral value. A decent education is a moral value. A common sense foreign policy is a moral value. A healthy environment is a moral value. The feeling of community that comes from full participation in our democracy is a moral value. It is a moral value to make sure that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with our debt."

With convictions like this inspiring our Democratic message, I have hope that Democrats can reconnect with America, especially those who agree with us on many issues, but consistently vote Republican because Democrats literally haven't been speaking their language.

Nonetheless, successful outreach will call for more strident liberals within the Democratic Party to support the new moral framing of our issues - and not to mistake moral and religious language with moralistic or religious agendas, something they're prone to do. It will also call for Democratic centrists to support a reassertion of core progressive values - and to not equate progressive values with moral relativism, something they're prone to do. In recent years more arch liberals rightly cried against compromising centrists, "We mustn't be 'Republican-lite!'" and the centrists have been right to cry against the arch liberals, "We mustn't be religion-and-values-illiterates." The arch liberals sometimes miss the need for moral and religious framing to connect with voters; the centrists sometimes fail to see that moral and religious framing attracts voters to Republican candidates as much or more than the candidate's conservatism itself.

Howard Dean would probably never attempt to frame a key Democratic issue within a biblical allusion, because he's too smart and intellectually honest to even try. He realizes he would come across as authentically as Pat Robertson demonstrating yoga - or John Kerry pheasant hunting. After all, this is the man who said in a November 2003 Democratic debate, "[I] don't go to church very often. My religion doesn't inform my public policy." But he is giving the Party a chance to rediscover its populist roots and embrace popular values-laden language, to move forward secure in the knowledge that it is not necessarily core Democratic values that voters are rejecting, but our wonkish and sterile messaging that puts policy in place of vision.

When I attended a DNC forum in Manhattan recently, I heard a favorite story of Dean's that illustrates my point. The story, to the best of my memory, is this: At a fundraiser for Dean for America, hosted by a couple in their Virginia home, Dean and his supporters regaled each other about civil and reproductive rights, the separation of Church and State, and other core progressive values. But the room fell silent when a female supporter professed that, as an evangelical Christian, she opposed the "homosexual lifestyle" and was "pro-life." Dean asked her how she could support him - a candidate who supports civil unions for gay Americans and has strong convictions about women's reproductive rights. "Because Evangelical Christians are people of deep convictions," she explained, and Dean demonstrated the courage of his convictions, even if she disagreed with some of them. She said that as an evangelical, she would support for President only someone who, if crisis befell the nation, "will stand up and do what they think is right."

Conviction. Moral values. Such things are not popularly associated with Democrats. In part it is because rightwing vandals of radio, TV, and print misrepresent our Party and disfigure our candidates' records. But, it is also because we let them get away with it! As Gore Vidal once said, "It takes two to make an accident," and Democrats have themselves to blame as much as rightwing fat cats or conservative evangelicals for the GOP coming as close as it has to political hegemony. It didn't happen overnight, but only after years of sweat and tears on the part of conservatives, only after hundreds of millions of dollars and many years of investment in conservatism itself - think tanks, campus leadership training, communications research, and grassroots programs.

Dean is reminding us that Democrats can do the same. We can invest in progressivism itself and meet Americans at their point of need, at points of resonance, to take progressivism to their dinner tables and reintroduce them to the Democratic Party, to speak their language, to "meet them where they're at" for the sake of improving our shared destinies as Americans.

REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIONISTS?

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

Republicans like to point out that the first great conservationist to put his views about the environment and our will to save it into political action was Theodore Roosevelt. They neglect to mention that T.R. was detested by Mark Hanna, the Republican strategist most admired by Karl Rove. The Republican Right fought Roosevelt tooth and nail and breathed a sigh of relief when he chose not to run for re-election in 1908. They so detested him that my grandfather, a loyal Republican operative in Johnstown, Pennsylvania - was cast out for supporting T.R.'s 1912 comeback attempt. "The more things change, the more they remain the same," - today's GOP enforces ideological party loyalty against moderate and progressive Republicans and policies.

I recently ran across a textbook from 30 years ago, when I was working on an MPA degree in Environmental Management. It was the infamous "The Limits to Growth," published by the Club of Rome. The book was fiercely attacked for forecasting that global climate change would have an adverse impact on civilization, an end to limitless oil reserves and perhaps the end of oil itself, long-term problems associated with the storage of nuclear waste, and over-population. The funny thing is, all those problems are still problems, each more obvious than it was then.

Global warming is now considered a demonstrated fact by most scientists armed with the facts, yet the United States refuses to take part in any multi-national initiatives to fight this.

It is mainstream news that within a few decades, we will pump more oil than we discover replacements for. India and China - which didn't figure in the consumption statistics 30 years ago - exacerbate those figures as they compete for oil and China produces nearly as many SUVs as does the United States.

When the trans-Alaska pipeline was built, it was predicted by those defending the use of tankers to transport oil that there would be one accident in 20 years. The Exxon Valdez oil spill came almost 20 years to the day after that prediction. Prince William Sound has still not recovered, and our "national energy plan" is to increase production on the Alaskan North Slope.

We still have no storage for nuclear waste that will be dangerous for a half-life longer than recorded human history.

Last November, the head of the EPA said Bush's re-election was a mandate to implement the president's environmental policies. These include:

Revision of the Clean Air Act to rely on "voluntary" cleanup by industry, relaxing pollution limits on ozone, elimination of vehicle tailpipe inspections, lowering pollution standards for cars, SUVs and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment, end all new-source review suits against coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.

Revision of the Clean Water Act to increase allowable pollution including a complete end to monitoring mercury.

Revision of the Endangered Species Act to make economic impacts on human activities a higher priority, making it more difficult to list a species and easier to de-list a species.

Revision of the National Environmental Policy Act to limit challenges to Environmental Impact Statements, and limiting the cases in which an EIS is required.

Changes to international audit law to allow corporations to keep information about environmental problems secret. Restriction of class-action lawsuits for asbestos claims, even as Halliburton is shown to know its W.R. Grace subsidiary hid facts about pollution from asbestos mining in Montana that had an adverse effect their workers and families, and the surrounding community.
A national energy policy opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increased drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America, as well as changes to wilderness protection regulations of the BLM which will result in the last clean air in America - in northeastern Wyoming - being dirtier than the air I breathe in Los Angeles as drilling is increased by 1,000 percent.

One has to ask, why?

Bill Moyers recently described what he sees as the major problem we face at present: "One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington... Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts."

Writing at Grist magazine online in October 2004, reporter Glenn Scherer states:

"Forty-five senators and 186 representatives in 2003 earned 80- to 100-percent approval ratings from the nation's three most influential Christian right advocacy groups -- the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, and Family Resource Council. Many of those same lawmakers also got flunking grades -- less than 10 percent, on average -- from the League of Conservation Voters last year."

"Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time, when the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire. They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse."

"We are not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. The 231 legislators (all but five of them Republicans) who received an average 80 percent approval rating or higher from the leading religious-right organizations make up more than 40 percent of the U.S. Congress. These politicians include some of the most powerful figures in the U.S. government, as well as key environmental decision makers: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Senate Republican Policy Chair Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, and quite possibly President Bush."

A 2002 Time/CNN poll found 59 percent of Americans believe the prophecies in the Book of Revelation are going to come true. Nearly 25 percent think the Bible predicted 9/11. Belief in the Apocalypse is a powerful driving force in American politics.

There are two groups to look at. The traditional dispensationalists are well-known, led by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They believe in the End Times and that salvation is all that matters, but they see this taking place in "God's time." The Dominionists put responsibility for the return of Jesus Christ not in biblical prophesy but political activism. They believe Christ will only make his Second Coming when the world has prepared a place for Him, that the first step in readying His arrival is to "Christianize" America.

The Dominionists believe that - until Jesus' return - "the Lord will provide." A popular dominionist high-school history textbook - America's Providential History - states: "The secular or socialist has a limited resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's Earth. The resources are waiting to be tapped." In another passage, the writers explain: "While many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

Individuals with the power to set national priorities with regard to conservation of the environment hold these views. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has called for "march[ing] forward with a Biblical worldview" in U.S. politics, to convert America into a "God centered" nation whose government promotes prayer, worship, and the teaching of Christian values. James Inhofe, the Senate's most outspoken environmental critic, is also unwavering in his wish to remake America as a Christian state. Both oppose the EPA, calling it "the Gestapo." DeLay has put forward legislation to gut the Clean Air and Endangered Species acts. In 2003, Inhofe invited a stacked-deck of fossil fuel-funded climate-change skeptics to testify at a Senate hearing that climaxed with him calling global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Inhofe makes major decisions based on heavy corporate and theological influences, flawed science, and an apocalyptic worldview. "I trust God with my legislative goals and the issues that are important to my constituents," Inhofe has told Pentecostal Evangel magazine. He chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the single most important congressional committee dealing with environmental legislation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Inhofe received more than $588,000 from the fossil-fuel industry, electric utilities, mining, and other natural-resource interests from 1999 to 2004. Eight of the nine Republican members of the committee received an average of $408,000 per senator from the energy and natural resource sector in the same period. In 2003, Inhofe received a perfect 100 percent rating from all three major Christian-Right groups. By contrast, the eight Democrats and one Independent on the committee received an average of $132,000 per senator from that same sector.

It might be well here to consult the Patron Saint of Right Wing Revolution - Adolf Hitler had it figured out 80 years ago:

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods."

This is how the Noise Machine of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy works, folks. Peer-reviewed environmental science that contradicts an End-Timer's interpretation of Holy Writ is automatically wrong, which explains the disregard for science among Christian fundamentalist lawmakers - the denial of global warming, of the damaged ozone layer, and of the poisoning caused by industrial arsenic and mercury. When God is going to take care of all things and The End Is Near, who needs to worry about such things, especially when they prove The Second Coming?

I have painted a dark picture here. When it comes to proposing an alternative, I'll let my favorite Southern Baptist, Bill Moyers, provide the necessary guidance at the conclusion of the sermon: "The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism...What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma, the science of the heart, the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you. Believe me, it does."

THE COMING "NUCLEAR WAR" IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

Recently, the Republicans have been cranking up The Mighty Wurlitzer, portraying Democrats as "obstructionists" bent on preventing the Republicans in the House and Senate from enacting the President's mandate. This is particularly true with regard to judicial nominations, as can be seen in the fact that the President has recently renominated all 20 of his judicial nominees who were filibustered in the Senate during the last Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has made public threats to exercise "the nuclear option" if the Democrats attempt to mount a filibuster against any of the nominees this time around. For those who have been living on Mars during the past year, the "nuclear option" involves the Majority Leader requesting a parliamentary ruling from the Senate President Pro-Tem (Vice-President Cheney)regarding the traditional rule that 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture and cut off a filibuster and changing that to a simple majority of 51. With a Republican majority in the Senate of 55 members, this would effectively end any power by the minority to effect policy and completely solidify total Republican domination of the government.

Senate Democrats have threatened that if this comes to pass they will bring business in the Senate to a halt, with demands for roll call votes on every item coming before the Senate and other parliamentary maneuvers to end collaboration between the parties and any progress on legislation.

On Sunday, February 7, Senator Frist invoked the threat of "going nuclear" when questioned about the President's coming submission of judicial nominees. This was followed by the re-submission of the 20 whose nominations had been blocked in the last Congress, with Senate Judiciary Chairman Alan Spector demonstrating his newfound lapdog status with an announcement that he would schedule the nominees for committee votes at the earliest opportunity, without additional hearings.

It appears now that the Republican leadership has reconsidered their strategy. At present, it appears they have decided to spend the month they have before the Senate takes its two week Spring Recess on March 18 pushing through their prize legislation revising tort law, class action lawsuits regarding asbestos, and bankruptcy law, thus waiting until they return at the end of March to proceed with the possibility of nuclear warfare.

The nominee who it still seems will be the first to have his re-nomination brought before the committee is William G. Myers III, formerly Solicitor - the top lawyer - at the Interior Department, for a seat on the 9th District Court of Appeals. Myers saw his nomination filibustered in 2004 after 180 environmental, Native American and civil rights organizations came out against his record as a private lawyer representing mining, grazing and development interests in the west, and his actions as Solicitor at Interior between 2001-03 demonstrated his hostility to environmental and tribal concerns were sufficient to make it clear he would not be an impartial judge. These concerns are particularly important because the 9th Circuit considers more environmental cases than any other appeals court.

It now appears that Mr. Myers was "less than forthcoming" during the hearings on his nomination last year, when he was questioned by Senator Durbin about an event known as The Robbins Settlement and replied, "I was not involved in the negotiations or discussions of that settlement, other than to tell a subordinate attorney that he had authority to try to settle that case."

In fact, in light of a new report by Earl Devaney, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior, it appears that William G. Myers III could be open to indictment on a charge of lying to Congress, given that the report specifically states that Myers was in fact personally briefed on the Robbins settlement and directed the attorneys who handled the final negotiation. The report charges that as Solicitor, Myers circumvented normal negotiation processes, kept the Bureau of Land Management out of the negotiations, ignored concerns about the settlement raised by the Justice Department, and engaged in "an inappropriate level of programmatic involvement" in the settlement talks.

For those unfamiliar with The Robbins Settlement, allow me to educate you.

Harvey Frank Robbins is a Wyoming rancher accused of violating a number of federal grazing laws. Specifically, Robbins was accused by the Bureau of Land Management in 2000 of sixteen repeated cases of trespassing his cattle on federal land, resulting in overgrazing. In the arid west, this is a Big Problem, because over-grazing results in increased soil erosion which cannot easily be abated or repaired.

Robbins responded with a RICO lawsuit against the BLM employees who brought the charges against him, alleging they had violated federal racketeering law in their dealings with him. These kinds of lawsuits are called SLAPP suits, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Policy, in which environmentalists or other interested parties or government employees, are individually sued for large sums, forcing them to obtain legal counsel at personal expense and exposing them to a horrendous judgement. The defendants so sued soon learn that if they drop whatever action it is they have taken against the plaintiff that the suit against them will be dropped. These have been increasingly used by developers against government employees who have to approve their proposed development plans, and one such suit is currently in the news here in California with an Irvine developer who wants to destroy eagle habitat at Big Bear Lake to build vacation homes accusing the Fish and Wildlife employees who reviewed his Environmental Impact Report negatively of attempting to destroy his project in order to increase the value of their own homes in the area. Mr. Robbins' suit against the BLM employees alleged a conspiracy on their part to drive him out of business by denying him access to grazing land.

In 2001, with the SLAPP suit in federal court in Wyoming and the BLM attempting to negotiate a settlement with Robbins, he made a trip to Washington to complain to senior Interior Department officials about the unfair treatment he was receiving from the local BLM office.

According to the Inspector General's report, after that Myers assumed authority in the negotiations. The local BLM office - the people who were familiar with the facts of the case - were cut out of the negotiations, which were concluded in 2002. In that settlement, Robbins was excused from the 16 trespassing violations, and it was further specified that only the Director of the Bureau of Land Management could cite him for future violations, not the local BLM office in Worland or the state office in Cheyenne, as would be the normal situation.

Robbins was additionally given a new grazing allotment, "additional flexibility" over certain federal lands, rights of way across federal lands, and a special recreational permit to run a dude ranch.

The settlement that Myers negotiated was opposed by the United States Attorney's office for Wyoming and the regional managers of the Bureau of Land Management, who said it was inappropriate for an individual repeatedly accused of these violations to not only be let off but given additional rights, since this would undermine enforcement of federal range management laws.

Thomas B. Roberts, the Assistant United States Attorney who was representing the BLM employees sued by Robbins under the RICO Act advised attorneys working for Myers that any settlement with Robbins should include a requirement that he drop his suit. Roberts' advice was rejected and he refused to sign off on the settlement.

In January 2004, the Department of the Interior voided the settlement, stating that Robbins had violated its terms. Robbins responded with another suit against the agency, which is also now in the federal court in Cheyenne along with the original RICO suit.

When Senator Spector was informed of the President's plan to renominate the filibustered appointments, he told Human Events that he did not plan any hearings for the renominated candidates on the grounds they had already undergone examination by the Judiciary Committee. He did leave himself an out with the statement that "there would have to be an exceptional circumstance that would require an additional hearing."

Following the initial news of the Inspector General's report, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), EarthJustice and Community Rights Counsel have asked Spector to hold further hearings on Myers because of the information in the report. An aide to Spector has announced there would be additional hearings in early March in an effort "to improve the atmosphere" on the committee.

With the Senate Republican Leadership having now made the strategic determination that "pushing the button" prior to Spring Recess is a bad choice, it appears that these hearings on Myers will not happen at the earliest until the first week in April.

The Democrats and their allies have a month to see if they can't make the Republicans take reality into consideration in the judicial approval process. Even the Far Right has to consider being caught out lying to Congress as a bar to further public service. But never doubt the Right‛s ability to delude themselves that the report is just another "liberal plot" to keep good honest judges who will only interpret the law, not make the law, off the nation's courts.

On Thursday, February 24, Senator Arlen Spector attempted to demonstrate he has regained his independence as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee by publicly stating his opposition to conservative attempts to use "the nuclear option," stating that "I'm going to exercise every last ounce of my energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option." He then offered as his strategy to break the logjam and promote cooperation a plan to hold hearings on William G. Myers III, saying he believed that Myers has more support among Democrats than the other 20 nominees, noting that he was adopting an argument promoted by Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who has stated there should be a variety of political viewpoints among federal judges on the same bench. He concluded by saying, "The Ninth Circuit is a very liberal circuit. I think that William Myers would give some balance to the Ninth Circuit."

So tell me, Senator Spector, does consenting to the appointment of a perjurer provide "diversity" on a Federal Appeals Court?

If the Senate Democrats are willing to support the appointment of a perjurer to the federal courts, then it doesn't matter whether the Republicans exercise the "nuclear option" or not.

There is perhaps a month before any vote will be held on the appointment of William G. Myers III. It is time for the Democratic grass roots to let the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee know that this idea is completely, totally, and absolutely unacceptable.

En garde.

THE IRONY OF COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM
By Ryan Oddey


I have always been a fan of irony, especially in the political arena. The Republican Party has long been a source of irony, and I would probably find it funnier if this behavior did not have such a negative effect on our nation. For me, the two biggest Republican ideals that reek of hypocrisy and irony are the GOP claims of "fiscal responsibility" and "compassionate conservatism." Although President Bush and other claim to be compassionate and fiscally responsible, the actions of the Republican Party show that nothing is further from the truth.

Although it is looking less likely that the Bush plan for Social Security will ever be passed, America is still in danger of the White House deceiving the public in order to get what they want. For example, President Bush plans on asking congress for an addition $80 Billion dollars that will be used to conduct more military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes on top of the $25 billion dollars of emergency funding that is already approved for the current fiscal year.

Asking congress for an additional $80 Billion dollars in funding is just the tip of the iceberg. It is no secret that Bush and his advisors totally underestimated the cost of going to war with Iraq. The worst part of this lack of planning comes down on the soldiers, who have to look through landfills and scrap yards searching for any additional body armor. American men and women have died because President Bush and his administration failed to give our soldiers enough armor to protect themselves and the vehicles they use. We will never know how many soldiers died as a direct result of a lack of protective gear but one thing is for certain, even one death caused by a lack of preparation and/or honesty by the Bush administration is one to many. Is this Bush's idea of "compassionate conservatism"?

Now, the Republican majority in congress will have to decide if they should approve Bush's request for additional spending in the Middle East. Those who are against the additional funding will be looked upon as anti-soldier, because they are denying money that would be used, hopefully, to make our military operations safer. Those who approve the funding will have to justify why other programs are losing money in order to cover up for President Bush's lack of preparedness. We have already learned that Bush plans on reducing the amount of money Medicare will receive this year. With the current administrations stance against raising taxes, more programs will face budget cuts. Education, homeland defense, and other health care programs will continue to suffer under the Bush administration. Maybe this is Bush's idea of "compassionate conservatism".

The recent inauguration cost the city of Washington DC over $17 million dollars in security costs alone. In spite of the soldiers who are fighting a war overseas, the President still managed to have a clear enough conscious to celebrate his reelection with fancy parties, music superstars, and candlelight dinners. Ironically, it's the taxpayer who paid for a good portion of this inaugural ball, one that was called the "least public" inauguration on record. I remember when all these Right Wingers questioned Bill Clinton's moral integrity, where are all these people now when Bush is throwing an extravagant party paid for by the public while the sons and daughters of America are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? . Where is the moral responsibility, as well as the fiscal responsibility, of planning a multi-million dollar inauguration while our soldiers die because they do not have enough protective equipment? Where are the people who praised Bush as being the "people's president" when his inauguration was less public then Richard Nixon's second inauguration? The hypocrisy of people on the right who blasted Bill Clinton for his moral being yet refuse to question the ideology of President Bush is enough to induce nausea. Ironically, its these same hypocrites that call the Republican Party the party of fiscal responsibility.

A fiscally responsible president would have had an inauguration that was not the most expensive in history. The $17 million dollars that Washington DC had to spend on the Bush victory party could have gone to much better things. An additional $17 million dollars would mean more money for education, more money for health and fire services, and more for the upkeep of necessary programs such as public transportation. President Bush and the organizers of the inaugural ball felt that their party was worth taking $17 million dollars from other programs and projects. This decision is not just a lapse in fiscal judgement, it is a loss of moral judgement as well as a fine example of "compassionate conservatism" at its best.

We saw how fiscally irresponsible Bush was during his first four years in office. Bush promised Tax cuts upon his "election" in 2000 and he did so in his first year in office. What Bush failed to point out was that although he cut taxes, he did not cut government spending to the same degree. The result of this was an increase in the budget deficit. Now, someone who was fiscally responsible would solve this problem by cutting the amount of funding programs received, or raising taxes. The Bush Administration decided it would be better to make the budget deficit larger, and cut taxes even further. Paul O'Neill, Bush's Treasury Secretary during part of his first term, advised the administration against the tax cuts. When O'Neill suggested the administration be fiscally responsible by not cutting taxes Vice President Cheney said "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections, this is our due." Shortly after this exchange President Bush called Paul O'Neill and asked for his resignation. The irony here, is that the supposed party of fiscal responsibility fired one of its own for attempting to get Bush to practice what he preached. I wonder what Paul O'Neill thinks about "compassionate conservatism."

"Compassionate conservatism" was born as an idea to help George W. Bush win the Republican Nomination, and then the presidency, in 2000. Karl Rove, the power-that-is in the Bush Administration, who planned the 2000 campaign decided to learn from the failures of George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, and others

In theory, "compassionate conservatism"involves promoting an agenda that stresses values such as education, healthcare, and other programs that help Americans lead a better life. In reality, the Bush policies have resulted budget cuts that have crippled or outright eliminated the programs many Americans depend on.

The evidence of Bush's lack of compassion can be seen when we take a look into the recent past. In 2000, when Bush accepted the GOP nomination for President, he gave a speech about a juvenile delinquent Johnny Demon. He spoke about how Johnny asked if there was any hope for him once he completed his sentence, and talked about how our nation is responsible for confronting the problems people like Johnny Demon faced. Candidate Bush spoke of tearing down the wall that stands between the rich and the poor, and develop a nation that gives everyone a fair chance. The crowd at the GOP convention applauded wildly as Bush laid out his example of "compassionate conservatism."

As President George W. Bush begins his second term, the story of Johnny Demon exemplifies much of the Bush presidency. National Public Radio recently reported that Johnny Demon had turned 21 in April, 2004, and was without a job or a permanent home. Furthermore, he had no idea that Bush had even used his name in the acceptance speech back in 2000. I wonder if the audience at that GOP convention back in 2000 would still applaud as wildly, now that the world knows how the last few years have gone for Johnny Demon. This story goes beyond irony, and dips into the pool of despair.

Unfortunately, Johnny Demon isn't the only person who "compassionate conservatism" forgot. Although some would say that the Bush tax cuts during his first term offered some compassion, we should not forget that because of those tax cuts, numerous domestic programs saw their government funding reduced. Furthermore, the deficit is larger than it has ever been and many crucial programs are in trouble. If this is Bush's idea of compassion I would hate to see what he would do if he got angry.

If there is one group that has reaped the rewards of "compassionate conservatism", it is the upper class - the top one percent of tax payers. They were the ones who benefitted most from the Bush tax cuts. Furthermore, these wealthy people do not need or use programs like Medicare and thus they do not feel the effects when our domestic programs go to hell. The wealthy will never depend on a Social Security check to pay the bills. The wealthy will never need the government to help provide food for their children.

The nation has elected a leader who talks a good game, but when it comes the time to back up his words, he fails the American people.

Many Bush supporters are from rural America. One would think, that Bush would at least show compassion to his own voting constituency. Yet, in the latest budget proposal, the president has suggested that we reduce the amount of money the government gives to assist farmers. That's not how I would say thank you.

Rather than show compassion to the working people who re-elected him, Bush would rather give the wealthy more advantages.

The current Social Security payroll tax only taxes the first $90,000 of income. Anything you make over that is not taxed for Social Security. That means - if you made $90,000 last year, you are going to put the same amount into Social Security as people like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and others who have more money than they would ever need. That isn't even fair, let alone compassionate.

Everyone should pay their far share of taxes, based on the concept of a graduated tax that takes into consideration the ability to pay. We can go back and forth on if there is a Social Security crisis or not, but what cannot be disputed is the fact that Social Security would be much better off if everyone paid their fair share of Social Security tax. Rather than propose a plan to eliminate the $90,000 dollar limit for Social Security tax, the President would rather roll the dice on a chance at privatization. Every nation that has tried a plan similar to this has seen results that range from bad to disastrous.

Other groups to feel the brunt of compassionate conservatism include the Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, and the Veterans Administration. It is nothing less than appalling that a person who has no problem sending men and women to Iraq under false pretenses also has no shame when it comes to cutting veteran programs.

The Republican Party claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility, yet the Bush Administration has a history of financial mismanagement. The Republican Party claims to practice "compassionate conservatism" yet they continue to cut the programs many Americans depend on to survive. In spite of all this, the Republican Party still claims to be the party of values.

I guess the GOP likes irony a lot more than I do.