You said you had no problem taking on the Taliban...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-02-13
In Reply to: See my post above - ExMQMT
there is no evidence THEY had anything to do with 9-11 either. Iraq had as much to do with 9-11 as the Taliban did. Both countries had Al Qaeda training camps. Both harbored Al Qaeda operatives. Saddam Hussein funded all kinds of terror operations, including bounties to families of suicide bombers. It was proven that a member of the Sadam Feyadeen met with Mohammed Atta prior to 9-11. Of course, they could have been discussing the weather. Saddam harbored the man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer and his wheelchair off the Achille Lauro...he harbored Al Zarqawi. What more do you need? Him on one of the planes? Your arguments make no sense. Basically, bottom line...you do not care if your protests hurt the effort in Iraq and thereby the soldiers fighting there..and as to soldiers dying for something they did not believe in...the vast majority are not of that mind. If you watched anything but CNN and listened to anything but liberal spin you would see the interview after interview after interview where soldiers do affirm their mission and affirm their disappointment in lack of support of some Americans.
As to Cindy Sheehan's son...other members of her family, her husband included...have said numerous times on the record that Casey Sheehan believed in the effort, and would be appalled at what his mother was doing. We do not make those things up...just because the liberal press does not report it does not mean it does not happen...oh...but I guess in YOUR world, that is true. Because you just pooh-pooh it and say that means nothing to me. Why is it that liberals are so arrogant? Why is it ALL about you? I have tried and tried to wrap my mind around that and just can't. I cannot understand what it is that makes someone disregard the lives and the mission of our military in harm's way just so they can hold a sign and call attention to THEMselves. There is nothing noble about that. The noble ones are the ones in Iraq. How profoundly sad that you cannot see that...in one breath okay to fight the Taliban, in the other just throw Iraq and our boys and girls there to the dogs. How twisted is that...sigh. So...go on about your protesting. Only call a spade a spade. It is about YOU...and making yourself feel good. It is not, nor has it ever been, for anyone else.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
What on earth does the Taliban in Pakistan....
getting stronger have to do with the war in Iraq? That has to do with the war in Afghanistan, which, by the way, Obama never said he would end, in fact, he wants to escalate, which he has. The war in Iraq was the one he vowed to put an end to...you don't remember the speech? "We do not belong there, we never belonged there, and when I am elected I will begin immediate withdrawal." Yeah..uh huh. Then he moved it out to 16 months. And he has moved it out again to 24 months. Your golden idol has clay feet, my friend. You are so blinded by the "light" you just can't see it, and I cannot decide if that is plain old denial or if you really are that naive. :-)
Bush could have snagged 100 Taliban but chose not to.
I wonder if the neocons will make a movie about this, and I wonder how many thank you notes Bush has received from terrorists in the last five years. :-(
U.S. Declines Taliban Funeral Target
Sep 13, 6:29 PM (ET)
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that it considered bombing a group of more than 100 Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan but decided not to after determining they were on the grounds of a cemetery.
The decision came to light after an NBC News correspondent's blog carried a photograph of the insurgents. Defense department officials first tried to block further publication of the photo, then struggled to explain what it depicted.
NBC News claimed U.S. Army officers wanted to attack the ceremony with missiles carried by an unmanned Predator drone but were prevented under rules of battlefield engagement that bar attacks on cemeteries.
In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. military in Afghanistan said the picture - a grainy black-and-white photo taken in July - was given to a journalist to show that Taliban insurgents were congregating in large groups. The statement said U.S. forces considered attacking.
During the observation of the group over a significant period of time, it was determined that the group was located on the grounds of (the) cemetery and were likely conducting a funeral for Taliban insurgents killed in a coalition operation nearby earlier in the day, the statement said. A decision was made not to strike this group of insurgents at that specific location and time.
While not giving a reason for the decision, the military concluded the statement saying that while Taliban forces have killed innocent civilians during a funeral, coalition forces hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than their enemies.
The photo shows what NBC News says are 190 Taliban militants standing in several rows near a vehicle in an open area of land. Gunsight-like brackets were positioned over the group in the photo.
The photo appeared on NBC News correspondent Kerry Sanders' blog. Initially military officials called it an unauthorized release, but they later said it was given to the journalist.
NBC News had quoted one Army officer who was involved with the spy mission as saying we were so excited that the group had been spotted and was in the sights of a U.S. drone. But the network quoted the officer, who was not identified, as saying that frustration soon set in after the officers realized they couldn't bomb the funeral under the military's rules of engagement.
Defense Department officials have said repeatedly that while they try to be mindful of religious and cultural sensitivities, they make no promises that such sites can always be avoided in battle because militants often seek cover in those and other civilian sites.
Mosques and similar locations have become frequent sites of violence in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have often been targets of insurgents and sectarian fighting in Iraq.
Gitmo contains Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.
nm
Exposed: Prop. 8 part of 'Christian Taliban's' move to make Bible the law
The Protect Marriage Coalition, which led the fight to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative in California, is now suing to shield its financial records from public scrutiny.
The lawsuit claims that donors to Protect Marriage and a second group involved in the suit have received threatening phone calls and emails. It asks for existing donation lists to be removed from the California secretary of state's website and also seeks to have both plaintiffs and all similar groups be exempted in the future from ever having to file donation disclosure reports on this or any similar campaigns.
Although public access advocates believe this sweeping demand for donor anonymity has little chance of success, it does point up the secretive and even conspiratorial nature of much right-wing political activity in California.
Howard Ahmanson and Wayne C. Johnson
The man who more than any other has been associated with this kind of semi-covert activity over the past 25 years is reclusive billionaire Howard Ahmanson.
Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist, a devout follower of the late R.J. Rushdoony, who advocated the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with the most extreme precepts of the Old Testament, including the execution -- preferably by stoning -- of homosexuals, adulterers, witches, blasphemers, and disobedient children.
Ahmanson himself has stated, "My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
As absurd as this Reconstructionist agenda may seem, the success of Proposition 8 demonstrates the ability of what is sometimes called the "Christian Taliban" to pursue its covert objectives behind the screen of seemingly mainstream initiatives and candidates.
Ahmanson's role in promoting Proposition 8 has drawn a lot of attention, but he appears to serve primarily as the money man, leaving his associates to carry out the practical details. One name in particular stands out as Ahmanson's chief lieutenant: political consultant Wayne C. Johnson, whose Johnson Clark Associates (formerly Johnson & Associates) coordinated the Proposition 8 campaign.
Johnson has spent many years working for Ahmanson-funded causes -- such as the battle against a 2004 initiative to promote stem cell research -- and organizations, like the anti-spending California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Johnson Clark has also operated PACs for many candidates supported by Ahmanson. It ran Rep. John Doolittle's leadership PAC, which became notorious for sending a 15% commission to Doolittle's wife out of every donation received. It currently runs the PAC for Rep. Tom McClintock, a strong Proposition 8 supporter who was narrowly elected last fall to succeed the scandal-plagued Doolittle.
Proposition 8
The series of events leading to the approval of Proposition 8 began in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 22, which defined marriage in California as being solely between one man and one woman -- but did so only as a matter of law and not as a constitutional amendment.
Proposition 22 was quickly challenged in court, leading to the creation by its supporters of the the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund. In 2003, Johnson Clark Associates registered the domain ProtectMarriage.com on behalf of that fund.
ProtectMarriage.com began campaigning in early 2005 for an initiative that would add its restrictive definition of marriage to the California constitution, but it failed to gather sufficient signatures and was terminated in September 2006.
In 2008, however, a reborn ProtectMarriage.com, flush with nearly a million dollars in funding from Howard Ahmanson and tens of millions from other doners, succeeding in getting Proposition 8 placed on the ballot and approved by 52% of the voters.
Proposition 8 is now California law -- at least for the moment, pending challenges to its constitutionality -- and ProtectMarriage.com has turned its attention to demanding that all 18,000 existing same-sex marriages be declared invalid.
The Ahmanson-Johnson Strategy
The partnership between Ahmanson and Johnson, however, did not begin in 2003 or even in 2000. It goes back to at least 1983, if not earlier, and has been a continuing factor in California politics for the last 25 years.
In a 1994 article on Christian Reconstructionism, Public Eye described Johnson's central role in an Ahmanson-financed attempt by the Christian Right to take control of the California state legislation. The strategy involved first pushing through a term limits initiative, which was accomplished in 1990, and then promoting its own candidates for the seats this opened up:
"The practical impact of term limits is to remove the advantage of incumbency ... which the extreme Christian Right is prepared to exploit. ... At a Reconstructionist conference in 1983, Johnson outlined an early version of the strategy we see operating in California today. ... The key for the Christian Right was to be able to: 1) remove or minimize the advantage of incumbency, and 2) create a disciplined voting bloc from which to run candidates in Republican primaries, where voter turn out was low and scarce resources could be put to maximum effect. ...
"Since the mid-1970s, the extreme Christian Right, under the tutelage of then-State Senator H. L Richardson, targeted open seats and would finance only challengers, not incumbents. By 1983, they were able to increase the number of what Johnson called 'reasonably decent guys' in the legislature from four to 27. At the Third Annual Northwest Conference for Reconstruction in 1983, Johnson stated that he believed they may achieve 'political hegemony. . .in this generation.'"
The mention of H. L. "Bill" Richardson as the originator of the Johnson-Ahmanson strategy is both eye-catching and significant. Richardson, a former John Birch Society member, was considered to be one of the most extreme right-wing politicians of his time. In 1975, he co-founded Gun Owners of America (GOA), an organization which is widely regarded as being well to the right of the National Rife Association.
Wayne Johnson began his political career in 1976 by working for Richardson -- and Johnson Clark Associates still operates a PAC for GOA's state affiliate, the Gun Owners of California Campaign Committee.
In 1992, Johnson and Ahmanson managed to help send a batch of conservative Republicans to Congress. Foremost among these was Richard Pombo, one of whose first acts after taking office was to introduce a resolution of commendation for the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.
In 2004, Johnson told an interviewer that Pombo's election was a high point of his political career. "There have been a lot of great moments, but Richard Pombo's 1992 upset victory in his first congressional primary has got to be near the top. The television stations didn't even have his name listed on their pre-programmed screens election night. Today, he's chairman of the House Resources Committee."
Two years after Johnson's enthusiastic declaration, Pombo was defeated by a Democratic challenger, following wide-ranging allegation of corruption, including being named as the Congressman who had received more donations from Jack Abramoff than any other.
The Anti-Homosexual Agenda
Although the Christian Right never achieved its original goal of taking over California state government -- which may be why Ahmanson and Johnson have turned their attention to passing socially conservative initiatives instead -- it has been far more successful in establishing dominance over that state's Republican Party.
In 1998, Mother Jones reported:
"First they packed the then-moderate California Republican Assembly (CRA), a mainstream caucus with a heavy hand in the state party's nominating process, with their Bible-minded colleagues. By 1990 they controlled the CRA, and since then the CRA's clout has helped the religious conservatives nominate and elect local candidates and—crucially—catapult true believers into state party leadership slots. ...
"From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? 'Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure,' says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly."
Stoos appears to come out of precisely the same background as Johnson and Ahmanson. He served as the executive director of Gun Owners of California and was also the chief of staff and a legislative advisor to Tom McClintock from 1998 until 2003, when he got into trouble for his over-the-top Reconstructionist sentiments.
In the Mother Jones interview, Stoos referred to Christian politicians as God's "vice-regents ... those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and the dominion mandate" and pointed to the repeal in the 1970's of laws against homosexual acts as an example of the need for rule by "biblical justice."
"The proof is in the pudding," Stoos told Mother Jones. "Since we lifted those laws, we've had the biggest epidemic in history."
To many who voted for it, Proposition 8 may have been no more than a nostalgic attempt to keep a changing world more like the way it used to be. But for Reconstructionists like Ahmanson, Johnson, and Stoos, it clearly represents something else -- a dramatic first step towards "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."
Afghanistan - war on Al Quaeda and Taliban; Iraqi FREEDOM - kill Saddam Hussein
Two different wars based on entirely different premises.........
I'm taking this to the top.
x
So you are taking up for the thugs
who are keeping the rescuers from help. You are mentally deranged....very mentally deranged.
doing taking tempature???
I get it now. You figure if you spout enough of your illiteracy on the Liberal board, you will dumb us down to your level.
Taking a survey...
Anyone have any thoughts on Romney being Mormon, will it hurt, help, doesn't matter....Did he convert to Mormonism; I don't remember his father being a Mormon.
Taking this response
x
I'm taking this to the top to enlist
nm
THis is not about taking anything away from kids...they
still have access to birth control...health departments, planned parenthood, clinics, any number of places. It is common knowledge. You hear about it on television on a daily basis, and television, movies, and the internet are where most kids get their information. And frankly, listen to it much more closely than to their parents. Throwing more federal money into any kind of sex ed and/or abstinence programs to me is a waste of money. That was the original question, did I think federal funds should be used for sex ed and abstinence programs.
No, in this culture we live in today, to remove contraception would be idiotic. Sex has been reduced to "expression," having one partner for life has disappeared, multiple partners are fine, yada yada...in that kind of culture to remove birth control would be nuts. Think what the abortion rate would be if that was done...good grief.
By education and programs that doesn't mean dispensing actual birth control. At many schools kids can get condoms. Nearly every health department in the country will dispense birth control and any planned parenthood place will, and that is not going to change.
If you want to reach kids, put those programs on the internet or introduce that kind of information to the shows the kids watch all the time. If you want the information to get to them, that is where it should be covered.
Thank you for taking the time to lay it all out
They will immediately go to Palin flaming because that's all they have. They can never refute any proof made on this board because they can't find any to refute with. Instead, they keep going round and round with the only thing they can remember from TV, Palin this, Palin that.
You don't see the republicans putting down Biden because they are decent people, unlike the dems on this board who refuse to see. AND, the dems on this board know that Biden LOVES McCain and they know in their hearts Biden can't stand Obama; he already said so.
God isn't the problem....taking God out of our
=
fabulous? When he is taking away a better one?
Letting Bush's tax cuts expire? Have you done the math?
profit taking
The rules have not changed yet and the hedge funds are still running loose, betting ups, betting downs. Everything they were doing to get us into this mess is still going on and still legal. Leverage is still high.
Taking money out
is actually a good idea, since there has been talk of bank runs under the current situation THAT IS NOW HAPPENING UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH.
For me, taking time every now and then
to look back and reflect on what we come from, where we're at, how far we've come and how far we have yet to go is a good thing. An Abe-Lincoln themed inauguration seems to be as appropriate of an occasion as any. I cannot pretend to understand how it feels to have the pain of slave ancestors' stories dragged up and thrust in my face, but I can speak to pain of a different sort.
The sight of hordes of GWTW southern belles all bedecked en masse in pools of pastel puke conjures up the shame I inherited from my own white ancestors. As a child, I felt plenty of it growing up in a southern metropolis in the 50s where cotton was still king and the vestiges of plantation life were still palpable and, at times, visceral. As a child, I lived in a wealthy community where some household "help" still stayed in "servants' quarters" behind the main residence (gag me). These were the days of segregation and separate but unequal when and the "N" word was still socially acceptable.
Enter MLK and the revolution of the 60s and 70s that turned our country up-side-down, thank you Jesus. The progress has been slow but steady since then, but the fact that I can still feel the stinging shame of where I came from and that you can still feel such outrage over a historical parade lets us both know that we have not yet reached the Promised Land.
When I watch the Azalea Trail Maids next Tuesday, they will not be marching toward me. They do not have the power to bring back the past and slap me in the face with it. Every step they take will be one step further away, back into a time we best not forget anytime soon, and I will be reminding myself that they are indeed GONE WITH THE WIND.
PS. I too am hoping for brisk winds that whip right past those pretty pastel pantaloons and chill them straight to the bone.
I appreciate you taking time out....(sm)
to respond to my post in such a reasonable and adult manner. Keep up the good work! You must be so proud.
Government is taking over
everything and they aren't even smart enough to run the government let alone every business in the US. I just cannot believe you Obamabotics find this okay. This is total government control going on here!!!! This is scary crap!
Thank you for taking the time
I appreciate your reasonable and well-composed argument. I do see how recent actions by this administration could be construed as a power grab, but what actions do think they should have taken instead?
Regarding the private sector argument, if a company accepts federal funding to bail them out of a financial crisis, are they still truly a private company, at least until the money is paid back? I do not agree with all the actions of this administration with respect to the financial crisis, but I do think they had to demonstrate that there are strings attached to receiving taxpayer money. (I may not agree with how they choose to about demonstrating that, however.)
So you are taking the word of
a guy who others consider a little off, Jolie's father? Not a good selection. Can you do better?
Thanks for taking up for me Brunson, the problem is SM
I didn't post any of these posts. Someone is playing a stupid joke and not a very funny one. However, since Lurker seems content to know me so well, I am not sure who got the real butt of the joke ;)
taking things out of context
I agree that it's not fair to take Michelle Obama's statements out of context, but then you turn around and take Cindy McCain's problem out of context. I say leave both wives alone. I know what Cindy did was illegal, so it's kind of apples and oranges, but she's worked through her recovery and worked it out with the law, so I don't think she needs to be beat over the head with it the rest of her life.
I'm taking my response to a new thread
nm
Not interested in taking this off task.
nm
He wan't taking care of a 4-mo old Down infant
nm
All the while, his supporters taking notes
X
Why do you "whiners" think that taking money from
nm
oh, REALLY? So snipers or bombs taking out
In many ways, Christianity is even worse than Islam. And it's disgusting to see the US has been so thoroughly infested with it.
Taking a rest today.
Yes, you go ahead. Take a rest. Freedom of speech.
Taking from Peter to pay Paul.....
Well, h@ll........I suppose with this glorious reform package of Obama's, I should just go sit under a bridge, kiss my hard working years goodbye. Obama will kill this society. My husband has also worked his butt off since he was 12 years old and he definitely does not owe anyone his money. They can get off their butts and shovel dirt, dig ditches, work in a powder factory, haul hay, move furniture, dig sewages, whatever. WORK FOR A CHANGE! Live within their means. My husband did it. They wanna go to college, do like us, work your butt off and pay for your college education. Quit whining!!!
Even those families at the low end of the income bracket will be paying dearly in taxes, more than now, and they actually think they will be getting a break. Tax credits are NOT tax cuts.
Socialists are whining, sniveling, moaning, groaning....
You wanna see free money given to people who DO NOT pay taxes? If you don't contribute, don't expect anything else.
GP was taking issue with the stereotype
characterize all poor people as freeloaders in the linked post. In the current post, she is addressing an entirely different subject...corporate welfare.
I thank you for taking the time to try to explain
Difference in opinion is what makes horse races. I respect your opinion that the b/c is not authentic, I ask that you respect my opinion that it is.
Irregardless, I think the mayhem that would result in Obama not being inaugurated far outweighs his becoming president even IF his b/c should prove to be inaccurate. After all, we have the Congress to keep things in check although there is little comfort for me in THAT. I doubt the electoral college would dare defy the will of the people either and I would imagine all of them are a bucket full of crooks the same as all congress and other politicians.
I fear that Bush will find a reason to declare martial law and I will continue to fear that until he is OUT OF THERE. Would we really want to see that happen? Can you possibly imagine the bedlam at this 11th hour if we woke up and had no president elect? Please, I ask all of you who are trying to make this happen to stop and think what would be the result if you "win."
I did not want to see either Obama or McCain elected nor did I want to see Hillary elected or any of the other candidates. It's a fine kettle of fish we find ourselves in in any event.
And as a final note, I have no confidence in our crooky Supreme Court either. Look how THEY got in their positions.
Are you taking about Stevens in Alaska?
Their thought is if he's voted in and goes to prison, they'll be able to hold a special election and put someone else in or something like that.
I thought it was ridiculous.
Thank you for taking the time to post this!! :-)
awesome post
I've been taking the package apart.
I see no jobs for this area.
In fact, 2 years ago, they turned a whole mountain into windmills. Who has those jobs? The company that put them there. Their guys come from another state to maintain and repair them. No locals are employed by that company. Doesn't make sense but that's the way they do it.
So you think government officials taking a pay
solve the issue of $2 trillion dollars worth of toxic paper held by the our financial institutions and stop the hemorrhaging of 650,000 job losses per month? Will that really restart the flow of credit to businesses and put people back to work? Will government officials taking a pay cut restore the million and billion dollar budget deficits faced by the states?
I just finished taking a tax class --
The instructor never lets anything be an open book test in our other classes, but the tax class is because it is some complex and confusing that even doing just the basics you cannot get it all in your head.
It is CRAZY!!!
Obama is taking our money... you would be
nm
Thanks for taking the time to post
Sorry, forgot to add that. Have a good afternoon.
taking back our country
So, most of us agree that Obama should not be in office for another term. As well, most of want our country back. How do we, as Americans, do this? Contacting our representatives or senators is not the answer, since they are "in bed" with each other. There must be a way.
right on, it is about justice, not about taking sides!...nm
nm
Taking a course on common sense
nm
Well, of course you have no problem taking welfare from a communist. sm
That's your problem. You believe people should get something for nothing. You believe in support of the masses equally, i.e., socialism where everyone is equally poor but that's okay. I have no problem believing you would think that was okay. He is also virulently anti-American, but then so is the left. Perfect match!
I don't have a problem with taking the "under God" part out...sm
However, it should not be banned all together. The students who wish to say under God should be given the choice to say it though while the others are silent. Maybe hand out two different versions.
Why are you taking drugs and then posting on this board?
Your mind seems jumbled and confused. Remember this one?
Antiwar Protestors Feed Muslim Murderers.
There are too many others to cut and paste. They are slanderous and at times shocking. They fuel intolerance and negative stereotypes. We have some of the same on this board, but cannot even begin to approach what is posted on the CON board. Not all of this scum journalism passing for the truth that is posted on the CON board is even commented on by the libs.
You don't play fair, you don't tell the truth. You are only making these ridiculous and moronic claims in order to get a flame going. I am going to ignore you and hope others will, too. (It's a hard thing to do when someone is posting such nonsense).
Taking a look at the data proves your points...sm
From 2000 - 2004, America has seen a significant increase in poverty each year.
I agree with sm that people must have personal responsibility and not sit around waiting on a check when they are able bodied and can work. These are not the poor that I'm concerned with. I speak of the poor single mother or father who works 2 jobs, the poor mother and father who both work and still can't make ends meet. Heck, you can still just be getting by with a college education in today's economy. Look at inflation. In just ONE year gas prices have doubled. And look at the housing market. Prices of other necesities are also rising and the mean income is still 40,000.
I agree with Zauber, everyone can't be on the top, some people have to settle for lower paying jobs due to life circumstances. But if the big business had it their way, they would still be paying 4.25 an hour. They griped about going to 5.15 an hour.
Do you think this administration will even attempt to increase min. wage? They think and obviously believe Rush Limmy when he says, only teenagers who are working for extra money to buy Ipods are working min. wage jobs. They are out of touch.
Not having a good father in the household is one of the root cause issues that needs to be addressed, but I wouldn't be so quick to put this as the main or only cause of poverty. There's no one answer to the problem, but I do hold our local, state, and federal government responsible to do their part - make sure employers pay a fair wage and have fair labor practices, control inflation, and education.
Taking from the poor, giving to the rich
US House of Representatives approves $50 billion in social cuts
By Joseph Kay
19 November 2005
In the early hours of Friday morning, the House of Representatives
passed a budget reconciliation bill that includes cuts of nearly $50
billion over five years, primarily in social programs for the poor.
At the same time, Congress is considering extending tax cuts that
overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy in the amount of $60 billion-$70
billion over the same period.
The budget reconciliation bill modifies requirements for mandatory
spending programs, in particular, entitlement programs such as
Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare. Unlike the rest
of government outlays, known as discretionary spending, which are
allocated each year in appropriation bills, spending for these
mandatory programs is determined by legal requirements. If the
reconciliation bill is signed into law, it will mark the first time
since 1997 that entitlement programs have been slashed.
The House passed the bill 217-215 after Republican leaders kept the
vote open 25 minutes to drum up sufficient support. It will now go
to a House-Senate conference committee, where negotiators from the
two chambers will work out a compromise between the House bill and a
Senate bill passed earlier this month.
The Senate version includes cuts amounting to $35 billion over five
years. While leaving out some of the most egregious cuts in the
House version, the Senate bill includes one major provision left out
by the House: the opening up of the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration.
The compromise will then be subject to a final vote in both chambers
before going to President Bush to be signed into law.
Major cuts in the House bill include:
* Cutting Medicaid spending by $11.8 billion. The bill would place
new restrictions on the ability of elderly people to transfer assets
to relatives so as to become eligible for Medicaid, and would allow
states to charge higher premiums and co-payments for emergency room
visits and some drugs. It would give states greater discretion to
cut services for low-income recipients who earn more than the
poverty level, including such services as eye and ear care.
* A $14.3 billion reduction in spending on financial assistance for
college students. The bill repeals a previous 6.8 percent cap on
interest rates for federal student loans, increasing it to 8.25
percent. One estimate calculates that this would lead to an increase
of $5,800 in payments for a college student graduating with a debt
load of $17,500. The bill includes other increases in taxes and
interest on a variety of loans, as well as a provision to reduce
subsidies to lenders.
* Cuts in the Food Stamp program totaling $700 million. The bill
would end a provision that automatically enrolls welfare recipients
in Food Stamps, denying eligibility to approximately 165,000 people,
mainly among the working poor. It would deny Food Stamps to
approximately 70,000 legal immigrants by extending the waiting
period for eligibility from five to seven years. Since eligibility
for Food Stamps automatically gives children access to free school
lunches, thousands of students may be stripped of this benefit. This
cut will worsen an already growing problem of hunger in the US. An
article in the Boston Globe of October 29 noted, The number of
people who are hungry because they cannot afford to buy enough food
rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five
years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of US households.
* Other measures include nearly $5 billion in cuts associated with
child support enforcement; $577 million in cuts for child welfare
programs; a reduction of $732 million in social security income
payments, including payments to some disabled people; and more
stringent work requirements for welfare eligibility.
House passage of these draconian measures demonstrates the
determination of the ruling elite to continue its assault on social
programs. Hurricane Katrina, which laid bare the persistence of
poverty and the growth of social inequality, as well as the
devastating consequences of decades of neglect of the social
infrastructure, is being used as an excuse to accelerate the very
policies that compounded the disaster.
The position of the Bush administration and the Republican-
controlled Congress is that the tens of billions appropriated for
immediate hurricane relief and reconstruction in New Orleans and
other Gulf Coast areas must be offset by a more determined assault
on entitlement programs for working people and the poor. At the same
time, there is to be no retreat in providing tax windfalls for big
business and the rich.
This was spelled out in a summary of an earlier version of the bill
published by the House Budget Committee, which stated that the bill
was intended to provide a down-payment toward hurricane recovery
and reconstruction costs and begin a longer-term effort at slowing
the growth of entitlement spending and stimulate reform of
entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient, and
excessively costly.
Speaking before the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation,
Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who was forced to step
down after being indicted on corruption charges, made clear that the
budget was intended to spearhead a permanent rollback of social
programs. He said the budget would not only provide the nation
immediate fiscal relief, but also institute permanent reforms of the
way our government spends money and solves problems.
Last month, Bush urged Republican congressmen to push the envelope
when it comes to cutting spending. On Friday, he welcomed the House
bill and called for Congress to quickly pass a final version for him
to sign into law.
The ultimate bill as agreed by the conference committee will likely
include many of the cuts in the House bill. Senate leaders,
moreover, have vowed to reject any bill that does not include the
opening up of the ANWR, which has been a major goal of the energy
industry and the Bush administration.
At the same time that Congress is negotiating these cuts in social
spending, it is preparing the passage of a separate tax cut
reconciliation bill. The two bills were deliberately separated in an
effort to obscure the connection between tax cuts for the wealthy
and cuts in social programs.
Early on Friday, the Senate passed a bill that would cut taxes by
$60 billion over five years. This includes $30 billion in cuts
resulting from an extension in exemptions to the alternative minimum
tax. It also includes $7 billion in tax cuts for corporations as
part of Bush's so-called Gulf Opportunity Zone—a scheme to use the
hurricane as an opportunity to give handouts to businesses. The
Senate rejected any windfall tax on record oil company profits;
however, it did include an accounting rule change that is expected
to increase taxes for oil companies by about $4.3 billion over five
years.
The House is considering a companion bill. However, its version
would focus on extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains
that are not due to expire until 2008. These taxes are paid
overwhelmingly by the wealthy. Once the House version is passed, the
two bills will go to a conference committee. Bush has vowed to veto
any bill that includes the accounting change for oil companies.
There is some nervousness within the political establishment over
the budget process. House Republican leaders were forced to delay
their budget bill for a week as they sought to win enough support
within their own party to push the bill through, and the final
version slightly pared down some of the cuts in Food Stamps and
other programs.
The two measures—the one cutting social programs for the poor, and
the other providing tax cuts for the rich—constitute such a blatant
redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top that several
Republicans have opposed the measures. Congressional elections are
only a year away, and the mounting popular opposition to the Bush
administration has caused Republican representatives to fear losing
their seats.
On Thursday, the House voted down the appropriations bill for the
departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services, after
the defection of a number of Republicans. The bill, which includes
cuts in various pet projects for representatives as well as in
social programs such as rural health care, may have to be modified
or attached to the defense appropriations bill in order to push it
through.
In spite of this nervousness, the consensus within the ruling elite
is that social programs must be cut one way or another. Democratic
opposition to the size of the current cuts notwithstanding, both
parties agree on this basic policy, which has been ongoing for more
than a quarter century.
The Democrats are themselves proposing no significant measures—
whether for jobs, housing, health care or education—to deal with the
acute social crisis exposed by the Hurricane Katrina disaster,
underscoring their abandonment of any policy of social reform.
The current budget reconciliation process is in many ways a
continuation and deepening of cuts initiated by the Clinton
administration, which ended welfare as a federal entitlement. The
1996 budget act, moreover, permanently barred legal immigrants from
receiving Food Stamps. In 2001, the Bush administration modified
this provision to allow legal immigrants to receive Food Stamps
after a five-year waiting period. The House is now proposing to
extend the waiting period to seven years.
The bulk of the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under Bush were
voted in with the support of the Democratic Party leadership, while
at the state level Democratic governors are overseeing massive cuts
in Medicaid and education programs.
The new budget bill places in sharp relief the fact that the entire
political system is an instrument of big business, dedicated to
increasing the wealth of a financial aristocracy at the expense of
the working class. It is one more _expression of the crisis and rot
of the profit system.
Obama Has Democrats Taking Notice...sm
My personal pick for 08.
Obama's Profile Has Democrats Taking Notice
Popular Senator Is Mentioned as 2008 Contender
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page A01
EAST ORANGE, N.J. -- Barack Obama was standing before a packed high school auditorium when he noticed a familiar face in the crowd -- none other than singer Dionne Warwick. He paused, flashed a mischievous smile, then let loose with a perfectly on-key performance of the opening line of her hit song Walk On By.
The audience of 300 students and adults roared with approval.
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was sworn into office as a U.S. Senator on January 4, 2005. There is speculation that the popular former Illinois state senator will run for president in 2008.
Photos
Sen. Barack Obama
Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was sworn into office as a U.S. Senator on January 4, 2005. There is speculation that the popular former Illinois state senator will run for president in 2008.
U.S. Congress
Obama, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, seems to be hitting the right notes these days. During Senate recesses, he has been touring the country at breakneck pace, basking in the sudden fame of a politician turned pop star. Along the way, he has been drawing crowds and campaign cash from Democrats starved for a fresh face and ready to cheer what Obama touts as a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear.
His office fields more than 300 requests a week for appearances. One Senate Democrat, curious about Obama's charisma, took notes when watching him perform at a recent political event. State parties report breaking fundraising records when Obama is the speaker.
The money he is bringing in for fellow Democrats is shaping up as an important influence on 2006. And the potential Obama is demonstrating as a political performer -- less than two years after his elevation from the Illinois state legislature -- is prompting some colleagues to urge him to turn his attention to 2008 and a race for the presidency. Obama has made plain he is at least listening.
I think he is unique, said Illinois's senior senator, Richard J. Durbin (D). I don't believe there is another candidate I've seen, or an elected official, who really has the appeal that he does. As for the 2008 presidential race, I said to him, 'Why don't you just kind of move around Iowa and watch what happens?' I know what's going to happen. And I think it's going to rewrite the game plans in a lot of presidential candidates if he makes that decision.
Republicans taking a different tone on Iraq...sm
Republican lawmakers losing positive tone on course of war
Jonathan Weisman, Anushka Asthana, Washington Post
(07-22) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage, Republicans are shifting their message on the war in Iraq from optimistic talk of progress to acknowledging serious problems and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse than we'd been led to believe, and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.
Other Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media is ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war. About 4,338 Iraqi civilians died violent deaths during the first six months of 2006, according to a new report by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. Last month alone, 3,149 civilians were killed -- an average of more than 100 a day.
It's like after (Hurricane) Katrina, when the secretary of Homeland Security was saying all those people weren't really stranded (at the New Orleans civic center) when we were all watching it on TV, said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. I still hear about that. We can't look like we won't face reality.
Essentially, what the White House is saying is, 'Stay the course, stay the course,' Gutknecht said. I don't think that course is politically sustainable.
Rep. Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, a swing-district Republican facing a tough re-election race, has introduced legislation to create clear measurements of progress in Iraq, from territory under the control of Iraqi forces to government stability.
Congress needs to be more proactive and aggressive in evaluating what is the progress in Iraq, he said. The Iraqi government shouldn't feel like it's got a blank check on American lives and American dollars.
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., meanwhile, is using his House Government Reform subcommittee on national security to vent criticism of the White House's war strategy and new estimates of the monetary cost of war.
On Tuesday, Shays joined U.S. Comptroller General David Walker in criticizing unreliable cost estimates of a war that is nearly 3 1/2 years old.
Even Democrats say they see a change in tone on the other side of the aisle.
I think there is a lot less arrogance about the war in Iraq than there once was -- and people are much more sober in their assessment, said Rep. Chris VanHollen, D-Md.
The evolving Republican message on the war contrasts with the strong rhetoric used by House and Senate Republicans recently in opposing a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. Last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement hailing the turnover of Iraq's Muthanna province to Iraqi security forces under the headline, Progress in Iraq ... Despite Doomsday Democrats.
During a debate last month, Gutknecht intoned, Members, now is not the time to go wobbly. This week, he conceded I guess I didn't understand the situation, saying that a partial troop withdrawal now would send a clear message to the Iraqis that the next step is up to you.
Republicans, especially those in swing districts, had no choice but to shift the emphasis of their war talk, lawmakers said.
The Iraq issue is the lens through which people are looking at the federal government, said Rep. Charles Dent of Pennsylvania, another swing-district Republican. That is the issue to most people. There's no question about that.
|
