| |
 |
Wednesday, March 15, 2006 |
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease "durable medical equipment," such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
2:39:57 PM 
|
|
Published on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 by the New York Times
Many Utilities Collect for Taxes They Never Pay
by David Cay Johnston
Many electric utility companies across the nation are collecting billions of dollars from their customers for corporate income taxes, then keeping the money rather than sending it to the government.
The practice is legal in most states. The companies say it is smart business.
But some representatives of utility customers say that the practice, which involves using losses from other subsidiaries to reduce taxes owed, is not fair. They say the money that utilities are required to collect for federal and state taxes [~] typically a nickel on each dollar paid for electricity [~] should go for just that, or not be included in electric bills.
Otherwise, they argue, these legal monopolies make more than they are authorized to, and other taxpayers have to make up the difference in higher taxes or reduced services.
An examination of regulatory filings by The New York Times shows that companies with electric utilities in at least 26 states have pocketed money intended for income taxes, and that utilities can legally do so in 21 more states.
Because they are legal monopolies, utilities must charge rates set by state regulators. These cover all costs [~] from buying fuel, to building new power plants, to a virtually guaranteed profit and paying the taxes on that profit.
Normally, customer payments for those taxes eventually find their way to federal and state governments. That is usually the case for independent utilities like Consolidated Edison, which serves the New York area, and American Electric Power, which operates in 11 states from Kentucky to Oklahoma.
But in recent years many utilities have expanded into unregulated businesses, like energy trading and aircraft leasing, while others have been acquired by companies that own other businesses. When those other businesses lose money or create artificial losses through tax planning, those losses can be used to offset income earned by the utilities.
As a result, the parent companies owe less in taxes than their electric customers paid. Sometimes these companies owe nothing, or receive large tax refunds. By not remitting the taxes, the parent companies effectively have more money to invest in their operations or pay to shareholders in dividends.
The ability to intercept tax payments is not limited to electric utilities. Natural gas, water and telephone utilities can use the same techniques. The potential tax benefits are much smaller for gas and water utilities, however. And most telephone companies are no longer regulated as monopolies and their rates no longer include income taxes. (The taxes and fees that phone companies add to monthly bills are not corporate income taxes.)
Among the electric utilities whose customer tax payments are not reaching tax coffers is Pepco, serving four states and the District of Columbia. Pepco collected nearly $546 million from customers to cover its income tax bill for the years 2002 through 2004. Yet the parent Pepco Holdings did not pay income taxes during those years; indeed, it received $435 million in tax refunds.
Pepco says the beneficiaries of those refunds were not the company's shareholders, but utility customers. A vice president, Anthony J. Kamerick, said that without the ability to use taxes embedded in monthly electric bills to help finance its unregulated investments, including new power plants, electric customers would pay higher rates.
Customers paid Xcel Energy, a big utility in 10 Midwest and Western states, at least $723 million to cover taxes from 2002 to 2004. But the money did not go to the government; in fact, the company received cash refunds of $351.4 million.
A spokesman, Ed Legge, said the refunds resulted from a failed energy trading business. "Utility customers did not bear the risk of that business, and they should not benefit either," he said.
Also expressing the utilities' view, Paul L. Joskow, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said, "For the customer, the result is the same." If the utility were a stand-alone company and filed its own tax return, he added, the customer would pay the same for power.
But critics argue that when utilities collect taxes the government never receives, customers do lose.
The Minnesota attorney general, Mike Hatch, said, "Essentially, the utility ratepayers pay the tax twice, once through the utility bill and again through the lost revenue to government that means either higher taxes for them or less government services." Mr. Hatch is trying to require that any taxes included in Xcel bills be paid to the government. Xcel opposes this.
The critics say that while many profitable businesses use losses to minimize their tax bills, utilities are unique because their taxes are built into the bills that customers pay.
Critics also say utility companies are enriched beyond the limits set by law if they pocket the tax money. "Utilities are entitled to a just and reasonable return," said Myer Shark, a 93-year-old lawyer who sued unsuccessfully to recover $300 million in taxes paid by Minnesota customers of Xcel. "But when they keep the taxes, they are earning an unjust and unreasonable rate of return."
Enron was a pioneer in turning taxes into profit. Since 1997 the company, now in bankruptcy, has collected nearly $900 million from customers of a utility it acquired, Portland General Electric, to cover income taxes. But none of that money reached the federal government from Enron, and only a quirk in the law forced Portland G.E. to pay about $800,000 in income taxes, of which $20 went to the state of Oregon.
Enron could keep the tax money because it created 881 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens, tax shelters that on paper generated losses for the parent.
The tax benefits are one reason Wall Street these days likes electric utilities, long seen as unexciting investments. Warren E. Buffett, Henry R. Kravis and David Bonderman are among investors drawn to utilities in recent years in hopes of earning returns through parent companies that can be several times those typically approved by state regulators for the utilities themselves.
For decades utilities have been able to delay paying the government the taxes collected from customers; the delayed taxes are known as phantom taxes. But the more recent issue involves taxes the government will never receive because tax rules have not caught up with changes in the ownership structure of utilities.
Three decades ago, said James T. Selecky, a utility-rate consultant to the Minnesota attorney general, "we had true utility companies with very few or minor other operations," so the taxes eventually flowed to the government. But that is no longer true.
Only a few states have mechanisms to prevent pocketing such money. West Virginia and Oregon require that taxes be paid to the government, although the Oregon law, enacted last year, is under attack by utilities there.
In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that "fictitious" expenses, such as taxes government never receives, cannot be included in utility rates.
The prospect that a utility could charge for taxes that the government would never receive became a major issue in Oregon when David Bonderman's Texas Pacific Group tried to buy Portland General Electric in 2004.
Texas Pacific specializes in revamping financially troubled companies like Burger King and the clothier J. Crew. Such companies typically have tax losses, but little or no profit to make use of them. If Texas Pacific had acquired Portland General Electric, whose profits are virtually guaranteed and which had $92 million a year of taxes embedded in the bills customers pay, it could have used the losses from its other companies to offset the utility's profit and keep the money paid by customers ostensibly for taxes.
Texas Pacific persuaded Oregon utility regulators to keep most records of the purchase proceedings secret.
When these documents became public, they showed that Texas Pacific expected annual returns greater than 33 percent, three times the expected rate of return for a utility. That revelation generated public and official criticism. The state Public Utility Commission unanimously rejected the Portland purchase a year ago.
In the wake of the controversy, the Oregon Legislature passed a law requiring that taxes on electric bills be turned over to the government and rates adjusted each year to accurately reflect what customers paid and governments collected.
MidAmerican Electric, an Iowa utility holding company controlled by Mr. Buffett, and PacifiCorp, a Scottish-owned electric utility, have been lobbying in Oregon for repeal of the law.
The National Federation of Independent Business's Oregon chapter, with 12,000 members, favors the law. J. L. Wilson, its executive director, said it helped prevent a practice that "just bumps up electric rates."
One way to make sure customers do not pay for taxes that governments never receive would be to require each utility to file its own tax return. That way, taxes would be paid to the government, not to a parent company.
Another solution has been advanced for three decades by Robert Batinovich, a California businessman who promoted innovative approaches to regulation when he was chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission in the 1970's. Mr. Batinovich, now chairman of Glenborough Realty Trust in San Mateo, Calif., suggested exempting regulated monopolies from the corporate income tax. "It's just a disguised consumption tax, just another way to take from the little guy," he said.
But he said that if governments wanted to raise money from regulated utilities, it would be easier just to add a tax, similar to a sales tax, to monthly bills and require that all that money be turned over.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
###
10:51:12 AM
|
|
Jane Hamsher: Lieberman Betrays Rape Victims, Tells Them to Take a "Short Ride". In Connecticut, rape counseling activists say a recent study concludes that about 20% of state hospitals routinely refuse to offer emergency contraceptives to rape victims who are determined to be ovulating at the time they're attacked. A proposed bill would require them to do so.
And what sayith Joe Lieberman about this? According to The New Haven Register:
This fight isn't exclusively being drawn along party lines.U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who often takes a conservative line on social issues, is facing a liberal Democratic primary challenge from wealthy Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. But that hasn't stopped Lieberman from supporting the approach of the Catholic hospitals when it comes to contraceptives for rape victims.
Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.
I'm sure that waving a chicken over your head is a marvelous cure for something but as yet we still don't call it medicine in this country. That access to emergency contraception is essential to the health and well being of rape victims is undeniable, and if Catholics can't provide that then they should get out of the emergency medical business. Having to deal with their superstitious voodoo nonsense applied as science is just one more indignity rape victims do not need. If Catholics want rape victims to be forced to carry the fetuses of their attackers that's great, let them move to South Dakota. As Matt Stoller says:What Lieberman said today about a short drive to a hospital is immensely cruel....Having a medical procedure done, any medical procedure, is embarrassing, intrusive, and scary, especially in a system as f**ked up as ours where doctors don't really care about you because they are paid to avoid mistakes with paperwork. When you combine with this making the decision to have children or not, and maybe in a bunch of cases dumbf**k boyfriends who either aren't around or aren't helpful, the agony for some women is just immense. To talk about hospitals denying legal medical care because commuting is easy in Connecticut is really monstrous. It's so out of touch, so banal in the evil sense, and so downright elitist and cowardly. It is outrageous and yet quite predictable that Lieberman once again provides "bi-partisan" cover to this especially ugly brand of religious extremism. His cloture vote put Alito on the Supreme Court and paved the way for what is happening today in South Dakota, Mississippi and Missouri. That he continues to be considered a "friend of choice" by both NARAL and Planned Parenthood is an absolutely contempt worthy. They should both be denouncing him loud and long and crying foul on his claim to be "pro-choice" rather than rubber stamping his nonsense.
I called NARAL Connecticut and spoke with Executive Director Carolyn Treiss, who said that she has a call into Lieberman's office and that they have not yet returned her call. Susan Yoland, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Connecticut, however, says that they have no plans to do any kind of press release or make any kind of statement denouncing Lieberman for his position. What the hell it is going to take to get them to call LIeberman out for being the coathanger-wielding creep he really is?
Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:42:16 AM
|
|
Rep. John Murtha: Claims and Facts: The War in Iraq. I sent the following to my colleagues in the House and Senate today.
Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection
CLAIM: "There's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." -- Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04
CLAIM: "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: "Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.' I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said." [NY Times, 1/9/04]
FACT: "Three former Bush Administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues said the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda was tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies." [National Journal, 8/9/03]
Weapons of Mass Destruction
CLAIM: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bush, 5/29/03
CLAIM: "We know where the WMDs are." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03
CLAIM: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - President Bush, 1/28/03
CLAIM: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - President Bush, 10/7/02
CLAIM: "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more...Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03
FACT: "A draft report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq provides no solid evidence that Iraq had such arms when the United States invaded the country in March" and none have materialized since. [Reuters 9/15/03]
FACT: On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. "Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere" made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation. In fact, "CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference" removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. [W. Post, 7/13/03]
FACT: "Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991... Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new chemical weapon munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
War on Terror/Bush Doctrine
CLAIM: "All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization." - President Bush's UN speech, 9/23/03
FACT: The Administration continues its close ties with the Saudis even though the LA Times reported on 8/2/03 that the bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 found the Saudi government "not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts."
Pre-War Cost Estimates
CLAIM: Iraq will be "an affordable endeavor" that "will not require sustained aid" and will "be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion." -Budget Director Mitch Daniels [Forbes 4/11/03, W. Post 3/28/03, NY Times 1/2/03, respectively]
CLAIM: "In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues...The American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." -- USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03
FACT: The Bush Administration has received over $200 billion for operations in Iraq, despite firing top economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey for suggesting (accurately) before the war that a war in Iraq would cost at least $100 to $200 billion of dollars.
FACT: The Bush Administration has requested more than $20 billion for reconstruction in Iraq -- despite the pledge that the U.S. would only fund $1.7 billion.
Pre-War Oil Revenue Estimates
CLAIM: "I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: International Oil Daily reported on 9/23/03 that Paul Bremer said that current and future oil revenues will be insufficient for rebuilding Iraq -- despite the Administration's pre-war promises.
Post-War Planning
CLAIM: "I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again...and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed." -- Vice President Cheney, [9/14/03]
FACT: "A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff blames setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process" in which "officials, conceded in recent weeks that the Bush administration failed to predict the guerrilla war against American troops in Iraq." [Wash. Times, 9/3/03]
Length of Military Operations
CLAIM: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." -- President Bush, 5/1/03
CLAIM: The war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld [2/7/03]
FACT: The war in Iraq is still going on, and more American troops have been killed after "major combat operations" supposedly ended than before.
Troop Deployment Needs
CLAIM: "What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2/27/03
CLAIM: "The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." -- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, 3/4/03
FACT: The CBO reported on 9/3/03 that "The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces" to do what is required in Iraq -- meaning the U.S. needs to increase its deployment above the 135,000 currently in Iraq. That confirms General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take "several hundred thousand troops."
FACT: 32 of the original 33 brigade combat teams (BCTs) have been in OIF/OEF at least once.
FACT: 15 NGB BCTs have deployed to OIF/OEF using up availability under current Partial Mobilization authority; most others have deployed to GTMO, KFOR, SFOR, and Sinai.
FACT: Army continues to accept risk in OPLAN 5026.
Insurgency Strength
CLAIM: The Iraq insurgency is in its "last throes." -- Vice President Cheney, 5/30/05
CLAIM: Mr. Cheney, speaking on CNN, said that the Iraqis were well on their way to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq. "When we do, that will be the end of the insurgency." [Wall Street Journal 6/24/05]
FACT: "Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said that, actually, the insurgency has not grown weaker over the last six months and the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased." [Newsweek 7/4/05]
FACT: Secretary Rumsfeld said, "We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years." [Philadelphia Inquirer 6/27/05]
Troop Withdrawal
CLAIM: "Indeed, if you think about it, last June or July there were no Iraqi security forces, and today, in February of 2004, there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces ... And there are a number of thousands more that are currently in training." - Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, 2/23/04
CLAIM: "Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." [NY Times, 6/29/05]
CLAIM: Gen Abizaid said that the Iraqi forces could begin taking a lead role by next spring or summer, and that U.S. force reductions would probably come a year after that. [International Herald Tribune 6/27/05]
FACT: Gen. Peter Pace, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that only a "small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves" which means we have a long way to go. [Washington Post 7/22/05]
Situation on the Ground
CLAIM: Over the past several months, Administration officials have argued that the situation in Iraq was improving. Recently, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on "Meet the Press" [Sunday, March 5, 2006] that the situation in Iraq was going "very, very well."
FACT: Since the last week in February 2006, sectarian violence and death has reached new heights. In the past few weeks alone, over a thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence.
FACT: Electricity production remains below pre-war levels. Baghdad received an average of 6.4 hours of electricity per day. Oil production was at 1.77 million barrels per day, some 30% below pre-war production rates. [Iraq Weekly Status Report of March 1, 2006 from the U.S. State Department]
FACT: The number of incidents per week have tripled since one year ago [summary of classified information provided by the Central Intelligence Agency]
FACT: Unemployment ranges from 30-60% nation-wide. In Anbar Province -- the epicenter of the insurgency -- unemployment reaches 90%. [summary of estimates by the State Department and U.S. intelligence agencies]
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:39:28 AM
|
|
THIS IS THE SAME BILL PRESS WHO A WEEK AGO WAS OUTRAGED THAT PEOPLE WERE DISSING DEMOCRATS FOR NOT HAVING A STRONG MESSAGE, A REAL AGENDA, A BACKBONE.
NOW HE'S WITNESSED FIRST HAND WHAT THE REST OF US HAVE BEEN FRUSTRATED BY AT LEAST SINCE 9/11 ... REALLY LONG BEFORE THAT. IT SIMPLY REACHED HEIGHTS OF RIDICULOUSNESS SINCE THAT HORRIFIC DATE.
I VOTED NADER. THEN I VOTED KERRY - THOUGH NOT HAPPILY. I'M LOOKING AT A FEINGOLD CANDIDACY THAT MAY GET MY ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT IF HE KEEPS IT UP.
HOW ABOUT YOU?
Bill Press: Russ Feingold: My Hero. I have a new hero: Senator Russ Feingold.
He's the only Democrat in the Senate with balls. And he proved it by introducing a resolution to censure President Bush over his illegal NSA wiretapping.
Now, here's what I don't get. You expect those knee-jerk Republicans to line behind Bush and attack Feingold. But what happened to the Democrats?
Once he called for censuring President Bush, Democrats ran away from Feingold faster than cockroaches running away from Tom Delay.
Why? What are they afraid of?
This is not complicated. Did Bush break the law? Yes! Does he deserve censure? Yes! So do it!
Instead, Democrats gave all kinds of bogus reasons for abandoning Feingold.
Some said: We should have an investigation first. Ca ca! Surely, they must know: Republicans have said they will block any such investigation.
Others said: It sends the wrong message? Say what? Wrong message? What's wrong with telling the world we expect even the president to obey the law?
And still others said: Censuring the president for spying on Americans without a court order makes Democrats look too mean.
They've got it backwards. Refusing to hold Bush responsible, kissing Bush's ass, makes Democrats look too soft.
And, besides, Republicans impeached - not censured, remember: impeached! - Bill Clinton for a hell of a lot less.
Come on, Democrats. Stand up with Russ Feingold. Censure President Bush. Show some backbone. Please! Just this once!
 [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
9:26:21 AM
|
|
Israel's Iran options?!. Crazy talk on Iran by way of the Jerusalem Post:
The Pentagon is looking into the possibility of Israel launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In the past months there were several working-level discussions trying to map out the possible scenarios for such an attack, according to administration sources who were briefed on these meetings.
...One of the questions Pentagon analysts are grappling with is how an Israeli attack - if launched - would affect the US and its forces in the region and whether it would force the US to follow with further strikes in order to complete the mission. The US is also discussing what could be the possible avenues of retaliation Iran would take against US's forces and interests in the region.
Well, I don't think you have to grapple very long before concluding that the Iranian response--in Israel as in Iraq--would be fairly robust; and that the Iranians are not apt to make any great distinction between Israeli and U.S. aggression. (Why start now, after all?)
Elsewhere, in congressional testimony, an expansive Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy recently considered loopy options short of all-out airstrikes.
If force were to be necessary, the options are much broader than an air raid like that which Israel mounted in 1981 against Iraq[base ']s Osiraq reactor. For instance, Israel put a stop to Egypt[base ']s missile program in the early 1960s by arranging the sudden premature death of German scientists working on those missiles in Egypt. Iran[base ']s nuclear program is a series of sophisticated, large industrial plants which could encounter industrial accidents. [MoJo Blog]
9:19:02 AM
|
|
Published on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 by The Nation
A Peculiar Politician
by William Greider
Senator Russ Feingold is an embarrassment to the US Senate, which makes him an authentic hero of the Republic. The Wisconsin senator gets up and says out loud what half of the country is thinking and talks about every day. This President broke the law and lied about it; he trashed the Constitution and hides himself in the flag. Feingold asks: Shouldn't the Senate say something about this, at least express our disapproval? He introduces a resolution of censure and calls for debate.
Well, that tore it in the august chamber of lawmakers. Democrats scurried away like scared rats. And Republicans chortled at the thought. You want to censure our warrior President, the guy who defends us every day against terrorist attacks? Let's have a vote right now, the Republican leader demanded. Yuk, yuk.
The joke is obvious to everyone in the Washington club--politics trumps principle, especially when it is about something as esoteric as the Constitution. It's a nonstory, the club agrees, not a constitutional crisis.
The Washington Post runs an obligatory account on page 8, quoting Mr. Anonymous Democrat Strategist on the unwisdom of Feingold's gesture. The New York Times story on page 24 quotes the esteemed constitutional authority Dick Cheney. The House Repubican leader (who replaced the corrupt House leader who resigned) denounces Feingold's resolution as "political grandstanding of the very worst kind." Like the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton for fellatio in the White House? Go away, Feingold, let us get back to the people's business.
The real story--naturally overlooked by cynical editors--is that an honest truth-teller is loose in the fun house and disturbing the clowns. Man bites dog, senator defends Constitution.
Feingold has a reputation for such quaint deviations--a naïf who voted against the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. On principle! How naïve is that? He talks like he might run for President, yet he seems tone-deaf to the artful resonances of power politics--the cutesy games insiders play and the press cherishes. Hey, what is this Constitution thing anyway?
The senator is peculiar in this era of decaying democracy. There was a time, believe it or not, when his type was a familiar presence in the Senate. I think of Sam Ervin of North Carolina, a conservative Democrat on most matters but always a lion on the Constitution. Ervin is remembered for his heroic role in the investigation of Watergate. Old-timers remember that before Watergate, Senator Sam led courageous hearings on the illegal spying on civilians by the Army and FBI (Democratic scandals predating Nixon).
When liberalism was in flower, the Senate always included a good mix of such maverick voices. They were party loyalists but departed on principle in ways that sometimes kept the majority honest. Voted against the President's war in Vietnam and never let up. Ernest Gruening of Alaska, Wayne Morse of Oregon, Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee. Phil Hart of Michigan was his own one-man reform party. George McGovern of South Dakota was another.
We might ask why the Republican Party has not produced a similar collection of independent thinkers. We might mourn the fact that pursuing a career in the Senate no longer seems compatible with stubborn self-directed character. The media, instead of kissing off Feingold as a dumb politician, might do a little honest reporting on the substance of what he is saying.
For the moment, however, let us celebrate the man. The club will try to shove him in a closet and forget his little unpleasantness ever happened. I hope they fail and other Dems are properly embarrassed. Amid scandals in high places, Senator Feingold is fresh air. The country should rise up and sing.
National affairs correspondent William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers "One World, Ready or Not," "Secrets of the Temple," "Who Will Tell The People," and, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).
9:16:21 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
|
|
