Home State News - Illinois, Quinn vetos Operating Budget

Quinn's press release:

CHICAGO - July 7, 2009. Governor Pat Quinn today vetoed House Bill 2145 saying the General Assembly's bill fails to make any significant cuts in state operations. Instead, the Governor proposed passing a responsible "Tough Choices" budget, which calls for cutting an additional $1 billion in state costs.

"I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because it favors preserving the government status quo and fails to make the necessary cuts and reductions in state government operations," said Governor Quinn. "It does not reflect the spirit of shared sacrifice that must prevail throughout our state government, particularly during these harsh economic times."

HB 2145 appropriates $3.8 billion to fund state operations. However, HB 2145 fails to adequately cut the cost of state operations, including the budget of the General Assembly and other Constitutional Officers, including the Attorney General, Treasurer, Comptroller and Secretary of State. (Attached is the Governor's veto message)

Governor Quinn said the General Assembly and all statewide officers should cut their budgets by at least 10 percent, a cost-cutting move that includes an option of ordering up to 12 furlough days for all employees.

"I presented my budget to the General Assembly on March 18 with a clear message: When it comes to making cuts, we have to make tough choices, not bad choices. It was true then and it's true today," said Governor Quinn. "My goal has always been to pass a fair and comprehensive state budget that serves the fundamental needs of the people of Illinois."

The Governor's "Tough Choices" budget proposes cutting $1 billion from the state budget including:

* $185 million from state operations, including approximately 2,600 layoffs and 12 furlough days for state employees
* $140 million from Medicaid and health insurance
* $250 million in targeted reductions in grant programs
* $125 million from the Department of Corrections
* $175 million cut from proposed increases for K-12 education
* $25 million from other state offices, departments and agencies not under the Governor
* $100 million in additional reserves

There are real problems here in Illinois. Governor Quinn wants to raise the income tax, temporarily, to get funds to pay for services but the Illinois House and Senate don't want to raise taxes.

From the Chicago Tribune:

For the second time in a week, Gov. Pat Quinn backed off his threats to make major cuts in state spending, instead vetoing much of the state budget Tuesday and trying to pressure lawmakers to help him find a solution.

But legislative leaders said Quinn's latest move only deepens mistrust of the rookie governor. House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton have urged Quinn to avoid a crisis situation, but state government edged closer to that as Illinois entered its second week with no budget in place.

As recently as Monday, Quinn said he would cut $1 billion in state spending as part of plans to fill a budget hole he estimates at $9 billion. On Tuesday, however, Quinn vetoed another budget bill, saying it was flawed from "beginning to end" and should be completely rewritten to reflect spending cuts across state government.

The decision allowed Quinn to try to spread responsibility for budget cuts. He called for a "partnership" as he said lawmakers must "start from scratch" to come up with a spending plan he can sign.

"If the General Assembly passed a budget that's out of balance, the proper thing for the governor, the executive, to do is to veto it and send it back and say, 'Do it again, do it right,' " said Quinn, who wants an income tax increase to raise more money. "Now if you need some help, I'm here to help."

The latest veto was a repeat of Quinn's budget maneuver last week. With the deadline to get a spending plan in place approaching, Quinn vetoed a different budget bill on social services after threatening for weeks that he would slash such spending by 50 percent.

Legislative leaders derided Quinn's vetoes, but said it was too early to say if they would seek to override them when they return to the Capitol on Tuesday.

"It looks at the front end as sort of his biggest flip-flop yet," said Madigan spokesman Steve Brown.

Cullerton spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said the governor's veto came as a surprise and was not mentioned during a meeting between Quinn and the Senate president earlier in the day. Phelon questioned why Quinn didn't instead use his amendatory veto powers to alter the budget bill instead of rejecting it outright, and said the decision will add further tension to negotiations.

"If we just had to deal with the budget gap in these meetings, that would be one thing.Now we have to maneuver around his credibility gap," Phelon said.

Quinn did move forward with some cuts, however. His administration sent layoff notices to 2,600 of the state's 58,000 employees, including 1,000 corrections workers. He said he also has started negotiating with worker unions for 12 unpaid days off. Combined, those measures are expected to save the state $185 million. If an agreement isn't reached on the furlough days, Quinn said another 2,500 workers could lose their jobs.

There has to be an agreement between Quinn and the Illinois legislature soon or there will be major problems for the most vulnerable in Illinois. Many of us. here in Illinois have been calling, emailing, and writing to both Gov. Quinn and our local Reps and Senators to pass something soon. I also added that I would like to see more transparency for the government of Illinois so we know where this money is going. A web site would be nice.

So far we haven't had to send IOUs like California but if they don't agree on something soon...

The Health Care issue is heating up!

Huffington reporting that:

Sanders Takes On Emanuel, Warns Of Dem Opposition To Baucus Proposal

Two major progressive voices in the health care debate took White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to task on Tuesday for suggesting that a public option with triggers could be a potential compromise on reform.

One of those voices, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went so far as to insist that some Senate Democrats would vote against any proposal that didn't include a strong government-run option. Even the bill being crafted by Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, Sanders noted, might not get the caucus' full support because it could stray too far away from an effective overhaul of the health care system.

"I think that it is fair to say that there are a number of us who would not be voting for anything resembling a Baucus-type plan as we understand it right now," the senator told the Huffington Post, referring to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' effort at constructing a reform bill.

In separate interviews, Sanders and his fellow Vermonter, former DNC Chair Howard Dean, both took umbrage with comments Emanuel made in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that was published Monday evening. The White House chief of staff did not deviate fully from the administration's line, suggesting that all prospects for reform remained on the table. But Emanuel added something that health care operatives said they hadn't heard from the White House to date: a statement of support for a health care insurance compromise based on a public option with triggers.

Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean are still fighting to get that Public option for our Health Care!

UPDATE: From Daily Kos - ROLLCALL NOW SAYS RAHM CONFRONTED BY REP WOOLSEY ON MEDICARE LIKE PUB OPT-RAHM APPARENTLY TOLD DEM REPS THAT OBAMA BACKS HAVING A STRONG PUB OPT. MORE BELOW.

Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) warned Emanuel that he would lose the caucus’ votes if the White House compromised on the issue and included a "trigger" that could delay a public insurance plan indefinitely. The trigger idea is backed by conservative Democrats but is anathema to liberals.

"We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game," Woolsey said she told Emanuel. "People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives."

Rove was Deposed today!

That's right! News we missed because the MSM was busy showing the "Memorial Service" for Michael Jackson, more newsers by Sarah Palin, and the swearing in of Al Franken as the 60th Dem Senator.

Politico reporting today:

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman.

Rove’s deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.

Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.

“He was deposed today,” Conyers said in an interview. “That’s all I can tell you.”

Remember the firings of the nine US Attorneys? Conyers finally got Rove to tell what he knows. (I cannot recall?)

There's not much more to the story except that Rove was deposed. Meier was deposed in June. Hopefully we'll be hearing something soon.

Reid making a bit of sense today

Harry Reid (D) Nevada, strongly urged Max Baucus (D) Montana, to drop a proposal to tax health benefits and stop chasing Republican votes on a massive health care reform bill per Roll Call.

Yes, you read right. Reid doesn't care about bi-partisanship for this Healthcare bill. He sent this message to Baucus after Consulting with Senate Dems after the Tuesday morning leadership meeting.

According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus that several in the Conference had serious concerns and that it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.

By Tuesday afternoon, the Finance Committee began looking at ways other than taxing health benefits to deliver a health care overhaul that costs less than $1 trillion and is deficit-neutral, as Baucus wants. Baucus’ office declined to comment, but Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a key member of Finance, confirmed as much late Tuesday.

“I would say there’s a search for alternatives,” Conrad told reporters. “There’s been feedback. There’s been additional questions in terms of getting the votes and public support.”

Maybe some of us are making inroads with some of the Senators letting them know what we expect of them. Maybe.

The article goes on to report:

The source added that the meeting then devolved into “a cacophony of voices against bipartisanship” because Senate leaders could not reconcile how they could attract Republicans without sacrificing too many Democrats.

Bingo! They would lose too many Democrats! And I would venture to say, Independents as well!

And then you have the centrists, better known as the Blue Dog Dems that said:

However, the Democratic source said the leadership’s decision could backfire by alienating other elements of the Democratic caucus, such as centrists.

“I’m concerned we’re going to be perceived as abandoning the Republicans,” the source said. “The demands Reid is putting on some Democrats is going to make it harder for other Democrats to support this. ... Going the partisan route doesn’t get this bill done any faster.”

So what the Blue Dogs are doing, in essence, is threatening to slow down the bill.

Here's the holdup:

Finance may not begin marking up its bill until next week or the week after that. Meanwhile, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is set to complete the markup of its health care reform legislation this week or next. One senior Democratic Senate aide warned Tuesday that further delays by the Finance Committee could result in the planned merger of the two panels’ bills being scrapped in favor of allowing each one to move to the floor on its own.

The HELP bill is unanimously supported by the panel’s Democrats, with all Republicans opposed. It was drafted with liberal reform goals in mind, including health care policies that many Democrats have sought for decades.

“The longer Baucus takes, the trickier it gets,” a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

And the issue doesn’t just rest on Baucus’ shoulders. For Reid, up for re-election in 2010 and to whom Obama is looking for delivery of a top priority, the stakes are incredibly high.

Complicating matters, the Majority Leader must contend with powerful committee chairmen who are not a part of his leadership team, including Baucus and HELP Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), the No. 2 Democrat on HELP, has been managing the markup of that committee’s bill in the absence of Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer. Dodd has said he confers with Kennedy regularly.

There are more liberal Dems for the bill:

Reid also faces the challenge of reconciling two bills that have been developed with conflicting goals.

Particularly on whether to implement a government-run insurance option as a part of the overhaul, Reid must assuage a significant number of Democrats from conservative-leaning states who are either skeptical of or opposed to the proposal, while simultaneously keeping happy his liberals — whose numbers are greater.

Most Democrats, including Reid allies like Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), are enthusiastic backers of the government-run insurance option. The HELP Committee’s bill includes a robust government-run option; Finance on Tuesday was still haggling over several policies, including an acceptable compromise to the public plan component.

Now all we can do is keep the heat on all these people and see what happens.

Clinics starting options to Insurance for Health Care

Here's an interesting concept for Health Care. It's flat-rate no-limit primary care.

From Reuters:

A Seattle clinic for people fed up with insurance, started by doctors fed up with insurance, has gotten $4 million in private venture capital money to expand, it announced on Monday.

Qliance says it has a profit-making solution to the problems of long waits, rushed doctors and cursory care that bother patients, at the same time that it eliminates the paperwork and pressure that plague primary care doctors.

"If you spent five minutes in my office you would notice there is nobody waiting. We don't have to stack them up like jets over Newark," said Garrison Bliss, a doctor and co-founder of the primary care clinic.

The new venture funding comes from Second Avenue Partners with participation by New Atlantic Ventures and Clear Fir Partners, bringing total capital raised to about $7.5 million.

Co-founder Norm Wu said per-patient revenue is triple that of insurance-based clinics. He said many costs are fixed so the firm, now losing money, will turn to profit as business grows.

More than 50 noninsurance clinics operate in 18 U.S. states, based on different business models, Wu noted.

The backers believe Qliance can grow very profitable, and the clinic uses stock options to attract new doctors. The next step is to open a suburban office.

And the charges to the patients:

Qliance customers pay $99 to join, then a flat monthly rate of $39 to $119, depending on age and level of service. Patients can quit without notice and no one is rejected for pre-existing conditions.

Patients must go to outside brokers and qualify medically to buy catastrophic care. One broker said a 30-year-old could expect to pay $133 per month for such care, and a 60-year-old nearly $400, plus substantial deductibles.

Qliance patients get unrestricted round-the-clock primary care access and 30-minute appointments.

And Dr. Garrison Bliss said this about insurance companies:

"Why would a doctor not want to see sick people? That doesn't make sense, unless you're an insurance company," Bliss said.

He rejected the idea that unrestricted access causes overuse, calling that "nonsense promoted by insurance companies .... There's nobody I've ever met who gets their pleasure by seeing doctors."

Bliss said dumping rigid, convoluted insurance requirements and paperwork saves large amounts of money.

This just goes to show you that the prices paid for healthcare are much higher because of insurance companies. Take out the middle man and you can still get good healthcare at more reasonable prices.

As a side note, I do think that doctors must start policing themselves. If they do that the amount of their liability insurance would go down. And it would root out the bad doctors.

Obama denies that U. S. has given Isreal green light to attack Iran

Just as I surmised, Biden was out of line, again when he was interviewed on Sunday.

The AP reports On ABC's This Week, Vice President Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, even as the top U.S. military officer said any attack on Iran would be destabilizing.

Now Obama is doing damage control with reports out today from the AFP:

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday strongly denied that the United States had given Israel a green light to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, in an interview on CNN television.

Asked by the cable television broadcaster whether Washington had given Israel the go-ahead to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Obama answered: "Absolutely not."

In the interview, which was broadcast from Russia, where he is on an official visit, he added: "We can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are.

"What is also true is, it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities," Obama said.

This would be achieved "through diplomatic channels," he added.

And from Boston.com:

Obama was asked on CNN this morning, "Are you giving Israel a green light?"

"Absolutely not," the president replied. "And I think it’s very important that I’m as clear as I can be, and our administration is as consistent as we can be on this issue."

"I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact which is we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are," Obama added. "What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to try to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels. That is our policy, I have been talking about this for the last two years, we are going to continue to pursue this, and you know we have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and solve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East.

I don't dislike Biden but he does have a trigger mouth and seems always to say things before he really thinks about what he is saying.

Between Biden and Emanuel, Obama has his hands full. And I think he is regretting his choice for economic advice as well, if not yet, very soon! I am thinking Obama has many regrets on who he chose for many cabinet members and aides. He's learning fast that who stands behind you is very important.

Health Care. The fight for the Public Option

This morning Think Progress' Faiz Shakir's posted about how Rahm Emanuel Signals White House Is Willing To Compromise On Public Plan. Rahm has never been one of my favorite politicians, and he's from my State and a Democrat. They try to call him a king maker but all I've seen from Rahm is obstructionism and back room deals for power and money. About the issue of Health Care, I wish he would just shut up. He's going against the wishes of Obama. Here's part of Faiz's post:

The Wall Street Journal reports that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is now lending Baucus his support for the public plan “trigger”:

Mr. Emanuel said one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama’s goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect. […]

On Monday, Mr. Emanuel said the trigger mechanism would also accomplish the White House’s goals. Under this scenario, a public plan would kick in under certain circumstances when competition was judged to be lacking. Exactly what circumstances would trigger the option would have to be worked out.

But in the same post, even though Emanuel said: "one of several ways to meet President Barack Obama’s goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own", there is an unlinked update of what Obama is saying:

President Obama issued a statement this morning, reiterating his support for a public plan:

I am pleased by the progress we're making on health care reform and still believe, as I've said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest. I look forward to a final product that achieves these very important goals.

I think Obama needs to tell Rahm to keep his mouth shut on this issue and quit talking for Obama. And I also think Obama has to talk to his Senate buddies and tell them what he wants and that he will accept only a bill that has a Public Plan in it.
A majority of the American people really want this public plan.

What I can't understand is that Obama has a Web Site for people to post the problems they've had with Private Insurance. What is he going to do with it and when is he going to use it?

Update: Huffington's Sam Stein has a post saying: President Tries To Put Out Fire From Emanuel's Health Care Remarks

"Rahm's problem with this is he is on the more conservative end of the Democratic Party and he is a very political guy," the source added. "He is working for a way out without a bloody fight. The problem is he doesn't mind taking that fight to the left. And what I worry could happen is the left will just quit."

Certainly Emanuel's remarks to the Journal presented a pill too big to swallow for many Democrats. "It is actually the most ludicrous of the compromises on the table," explained one activist. "It says we should wait until the health care crisis gets worse before it gets better."

And in the hours after the interview was published, the White House clearly sensed concern bubbling. Moving with haste, aides put out a statement from the president before any major firestorm erupted.

The Economy! What can I say? It stinks!

Biden said yesterday that the Obama Admin misread the economy.

From ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "Biden acknowledged administration officials were too optimistic earlier this year when they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent as part of their effort to sell the stimulus package. The national unemployment rate has ballooned to 9.5 percent in June -- the worst in 26 years.

"The truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited," said Biden, who is leading the administration's effort to implement it's $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

snip

The vice president argued more time is needed for the stimulus to work.

"We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package," he said. "The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money."

Biden didn't rule out a second government stimulus package, but downplayed calls from Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman this week that a second stimulus will be needed.

There are many economists that agree with Krugman. How about Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Ravi Bahtra. The stimulus wan't enough and the TARP money went to Banks that didn't need the funds. What we should give the banks is a nice package of rules and regulations that would keep their lawyers and bean counters busy for awhile trying to find loop holes and ways around these rules and regs!

And just to throw another wrench on the pile, the New York Times has an article today about the unstable Oil Prices and how it will hurt our economy. But this article also says:

"The instability of oil and gas prices is puzzling government officials and policy analysts, who fear it could jeopardize a global recovery. It is also hobbling businesses and consumers, who are already facing the effects of a stinging recession, as they try in vain to guess where prices will be a year from now — or even next month."

This article goes on to say:

While the movements in the oil markets have been similar to swings in most asset classes, including stocks and other commodities, the recent rise in oil prices is reprising the debate from last year over the role of investors — or speculators — in the commodity markets.

Government officials around the world have become concerned about a possible replay of last year’s surge. Energy officials from the European Union and OPEC, meeting in Vienna last month, said that “the speculation issue had not been resolved yet and that the 2008 bubble could be repeated” without more oversight.

Many factors that pushed oil prices up last year have returned. Supply fears are creeping back into the market, with a new round of violence in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta crimping production. And there are increasing fears that the political instability in Iran could spill over onto the oil market, potentially hampering the country’s exports.

So in my opinion, the Foxes guarding the economic Hen House from the Obama Admin has to start broadening their outlook and accept the opinions of other economist that our stimulus package wasn't enough. The falling employment shows this with fears of a double digit jobless count on the horizon.

And G W Bush is in Texas, in his recliner, with his feet up, and his wide screen TV watching all the destruction his 8 years in office has created. Doesn't seem right!

Back to posting and discussing again....

Health issues have kept me away but it's time to start blogging again. Too many issues to cover now. The economy, health care, climate change, Iran, North Korea, the G8 to name a few.

The GOP and GW left us in a huge mess. And the economic problems go all the way back to the Reagan administration. It seems they don't like Government but I can see by what they've done that an Emperor would be okay.

There's lots to post and lots to discuss! Let's get to it

toniD

Election Commission of DuPage is Challenged

Finally. having been an Election Judge, I've seen a security issue first hand. Here's more from the Naperville Sun:

Election commission is challenged to explain voting machine accuracy

July 17, 2008Recommend (5)

"With all the mechanical improvements they have in the way of adding machines, and counting machines, they can't seem to invent anything to take the place of the old Political mode of counting - two for me and one for you. More people have been elected between Sundown and Sunup, than ever were elected between Sunup and Sundown." Indeed, when Will Rogers wrote that, we could not mechanize vote fraud. But now that we have things like Premier/ Diebold touch screen voting machines, votes can be stolen whether it's night or day.

Of course, it's not the machine that steals them.

Diebold machines are, as our election commission proclaims, fairly accurate. And we do not, in fact, know that any votes have ever been stolen electronically in DuPage County. All we know is that they have been stolen in other places and that, if they were to be stolen here, the design of the machines guarantees that the theft would be absolutely undetectable.

The criticisms that have been leveled at the DuPage County Election Commission have had more to do with the appearance of impropriety. They've been about some members' close personal relationships with both the manufacturer and distributor of the voting machines, for example, and the kind of cross fertilization that, frankly, is not unusual in "old boy" networks.

There's nothing in the commission's charter, however, that mandates objectivity or that forbids doing business with cronies. The commission simply certifies election judges, registers voters, and redistricts precincts. In short, it conducts elections, and its only responsibility to the people of DuPage County is to ensure that every vote is counted, and counted fairly.

Were we using only paper ballots that could be kept indefinitely, so they could be sampled after the election, or if the state Legislature had mandated touch screen voting machines with open source software, nobody would have to worry about his or her vote.

But we use machines with unnecessarily complex, poorly written, proprietary software that are physically much less secure than ATMs made by the same company. Some of these machines can be secretly, and undetectably, reprogrammed in seconds by people with limited technical skills.

I have been assured that everything is fine and that the commission's critics are suffering from paranoia. Perhaps, but in response to increased concerns from readers, I would like to invite the election commission to allay our fears and tell us, either in a special Sun column or in a meeting with me that I will discuss in this space, exactly what measures they are taking to deal with the dangers posed by this new, and as yet unrefined, technology.

Read more HERE

The last day of the Democrats Primary. Who will win?

First Clinton will concede then she won't concede. Obama's within 30 delegates of clinching the nomination. The MSM is going crazy trying to forsee what will happen tonight. What do you think will happen?

The Senate Commerce Committe held an eye opening meeting on the price of oil. Speculation in oil is being blamed for the steep increase in oil and gas prices because we have no regulations over speculators. This will be an issue to follow and voice your thoughts to your Senators.

I've been away for awhile because of many things, one being health problems. I'm going to try to keep the blog going as best I can.

Comments welcome.

toniD

Sam Seder Blog down - Open Thread

Use it if you need to.

THE GATES GATE

Today on The Young Turks, Michael Hirsh spoke of Seymour Hersh from the New Yorker Magazine and his latest predictions on the likelihood of strikes against Iran.  The audio segment can be heard here.

During the interview Hirsh discusses the role of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  It wasn't that long ago when many on the left including myself had serious doubts about Roberts ability to maintain objectivity.  While Defense Secretary Gates has long and controversial ties with various Bush administrations, some now look at him as the man who stands in the way of war with Iran.

I only began looking at Robert as a voice of reason when I heard of Admiral Fallon's description of General Petraeus as an Ass Kissing Chicken Shit.  I asked myself how Admiral Fallon got his post at CENTCOM and learned that it was Robert who installed him in that post.  So I say give Robert Gates space.

Michael Hirsh is the first to confirm to me that Gates and Cheney are the opposing voices pulling George into the future.  How can we help Robert?

Today Navy Adm. Mike Mullen is scheduled to replace Marine Gen. Peter Pace.  He is already on record as saying the military is over stretched.  Robert Gates also nominated Adm. Mullen as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Let's watch and hope that reason triumphs over greed.  Could the Gates gate be in his choice of nominations?

Unfair Treatment to Kucinich

This should not be done to any of the candidates running for president....

From Media Bloodhound:

Special Report:
WashPo and Time Help ABC Bury Treatment of Kucinich

Following last Sunday's Democratic presidential debate on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Dennis Kucinich's campaign asked ABC News to address issues it had with treatment Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio) received both during the debate and afterward in ABC's online coverage. In an email sent out to supporters on Wednesday, the campaign said it "submitted objections and inquiries to ABC News representatives on Monday and Tuesday. ABC News representatives have failed to respond - or even acknowledge - those objections and inquiries." I confirmed with the Kucinich campaign yesterday that it has subsequently been forwarded the same response ABC News Executive Director Andrea Jones sent to The Washington Post and Time magazine.

ABC News representatives felt it necessary to answer the Kucinich campaign's objections when Time magazine's National Political Correspondent Karen Tumulty queried them. Writing on the Time blog Swampland, Tumulty initially says of the Kucinich team's issues with ABC's treatment (which included Kucinich not having a chance to speak until 28 minutes into the debate), "These all seemed like fair complaints to me, so I asked ABC News to respond." Then Tumulty says, "In an e-mail, Executive Director Andrea Jones answered him [Kucinich] point by point."

While I give Tumulty credit for contacting ABC News, her investigative journalism unfortunately ends there. Once she receives the email from Jones, Tumulty slips into stenography mode. Jones' "point by point" response to the Kucinich campaign's complaints does not in itself exculpate or dispel any of ABC's wrongdoing. Tumulty fails to assess the accuracy and logic of Jones' answers.

First, just so we're all up to speed, here are the issues (an aggregate of the thousands of complaints received during and after ABC's debate coverage) that the Kucinich campaign asked ABC News to address:

* Congressman Kucinich was apparently deliberately cropped out of a "Politics Page" photo of the candidates.

* Sometime Monday afternoon, after Congressman Kucinich took a commanding lead in ABC's own on-line "Who won the Democratic debate" survey, the survey was dropped from prominence on the website.

* ABC News has not officially reported the results of its online survey.

* After the results of that survey showed Congressman Kucinich winning handily, ABC News, sometime Monday afternoon, replaced the original survey with a second survey asking "Who is winning the Democratic debate?"

* During the early voting Monday afternoon and evening, U.S. Senator Barack Obama was in the lead. By sometime late Monday or early Tuesday morning, Congressman Kucinich regained the lead by a wide margin in this second survey.

* Sometime Tuesday morning, ABC News apparently dropped the second survey from prominence or killed it entirely.

* AND, as every viewer of the nationally televised Sunday Presidential forum is aware, Congressman Kucinich was not given an opportunity to answer a question from moderator George Stephanopoulos until 28 minutes into the program.

Now back to Tumulty commenting on Jones' response [emphasis below is mine]:

This gist of her answer is this: She denies that Kucinich was cropped out of any photo, noting that "there are 20 photos live on the ABC News website, Mr. Kucinich is in a number of them and there is even one of him and his wife. He is one of 6 candidates who got his own photo in the slide show. As for the images, clearly nothing was cropped, the image in question was shot by Charlie Neibergall of the AP not ABC."

FALSE. Had Tumulty - Time magazine's National Political Correspondent and former member of the White House press corps - simply located the original AP photo (which, at most, should've taken a few minutes online), she would've found Kucinich in it and realized the following version ABC News prominently displayed online after the debate had, indeed, been cropped:

So Jones either lied when she said "clearly nothing was cropped" or was misinformed by someone on her staff. Since Tumulty seems to think her job ends with receiving answers from an ABC News spokesperson, she doesn't question the veracity of Jones' assertion, which is clearly false.

Adding to its duplicity, ABC News has now completely replaced the original photograph in question. If you click on the link in Tumulty's post (which is supposed to bring you to that photo), you are now taken to a wholly different shot that includes Dennis Kucinich and is currently the default debate photo sitting on the ABC News website.

So, in case your keeping score, first ABC disappears Kucinich from a photo by cropping him out, then denies it, then later disappears the original cropped photo, replacing it with a separate photo that includes Kucinich, making it appear as if nothing improper ever occurred.

Eat your heart out Fox News.

Tumulty does later post an update after she manages (she doesn't say how) to find her way to a page on the site Pinkraygun that shows the original AP photo and the doctored ABC photo side-by-side. This compels Tumulty to gingerly concede "there does in fact appear to have been some cropping." First, it was either cropped or it wasn't. "Some cropping" gives the impression a whole cropping didn't occur, which it did. Second, if there was "some cropping," then logic follows that Jones either did some lying or some misinforming. That, in turn, means Tumulty should be doing some follow up with Jones. She does not. Third, a question for Tumulty and her editors over at Time: How did you fail to bring this simple fact to light yourselves? You had three main points to investigate - whether a photo was cropped, whether a poll was manipulated and whether Kucinich was allotted a fair amount of time. Arguably, the cropped photo was the most simple and quick of the three to verify. Did you attempt to find this on your own? If so, what's your excuse for initially failing to obtain such readily available evidence? If not, what's your excuse for failing to pursue this evidence in the first place?

On to the poll(s):


She notes that the poll was and is live on ABC's website. (When I checked it, Kucinich was still winning, with Barack Obama a distant second.) She also notes the poll's disclaimer that it is "not a scientific survey," which seems like a decent reason for ABC not to treat it as a news story.

MISLEADING. Jones' statement circumvents the facts and the original thrust of the Kucinich campaign's complaint about the poll. Tumulty's unobtrusive reporting gives the impression the poll has always been up on ABC's site in clear view and at no time were changes made to it.

FACT: The original poll, prominently displayed, asked, "Who won the Democratic debate?" Once Kucinich jumped ahead, this poll was scuttled from its prominence on the site. As it became clear Kucinich was trouncing his competition, ABC just happened to decide to post a new poll asking, "Who is winning the Democratic debate?" As the Kucinich campaign (and Tumulty) correctly cited, Barack Obama had an early lead in this second poll; but when Kucinich pulled ahead by a wide margin, ABC then dropped this poll from prominence, too. (Because the Kucinich camp had difficulty finding the poll after ABC moved it, they questioned whether ABC may have buried the poll "or killed it entirely." It appears ABC didn't kill it entirely; they just made it difficult for users work to find - which, as anyone who knows anything about online usability, is nearly tantamount to killing it). More at link.

And this they call the "Liberial Media"?

NUGENTS NUGGETS

Facing a draft, Nugent bravely wet his pants

Rocker is all talk as he calls Obama, Hillary vile names

August 27, 2007

BY RICHARD ROEPER Sun-Times Columnist

So Ted Nugent roams a concert stage while toting automatic weapons, calls Barack Obama "a piece of -----" and says he told Obama to suck on one of his machine-guns. He also calls Hillary Clinton a "worthless bitch" and Dianne Feinstein a "worthless whore."

That Nugent, he's a man's man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right?

Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative!

GOLD RECOGNIZES ALBERTO

I took this screen shot of the price of gold as soon as Alberto Gonzales resigned his post.

Hastert Retiring, Will a Dem take his place?

Dennis Hastert isn't running again. Who will take his place? Chris Cillizza from Washinton Post's, The Fix, has some thoughts:

Analysis: Can Dems Pick Up Hastert and Pryce Seats?It's been a bad couple of days for House Republicans, as two senior lawmakers who once held top leadership positions in the GOP caucus -- former Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) and ex-Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (Ohio) -- said they will not run for reelection next fall.

We've written before in this space that with Republicans no longer in the majority and a national political environment that looks decidedly unfriendly for GOPers in 2008, it's likely that a number of lawmakers who had been contemplating leaving office in elections past will retire this time around.

Republicans currently have four open seats -- two in Illinois, Hastert's 14th District and Ray LaHood's 18th, Pryce's 15th in Ohio, and the 52nd in California, currently held by Duncan Hunter. (House Democrats are so far losing three lawmakers: Luis Gutierrez in Illinois's 4th, Mark Udall in Colorado's 2nd, and Tom Allen in Maine's 1st.)

Wholesale retirements could leave an underfunded National Republican Congressional Committee hard pressed to cover all of its vulnerabilities, creating the potential for another cycle of significant Democratic gains in the House.

Here's a quick synopsis of the political situation in the districts currently held by Hastert and Pryce. We'll provide this synopsis any time a seat comes open between now and next November. These are meant to be sketches; we'll return to each race with additional analysis as events warrant.

Illinois's 14th District

Geography: The 14th runs west out of Chicago, taking in the population hub of Aurora as well as several smaller towns like Geneva and St. Charles (home of The Fix's in-laws).

Electoral History: President Bush carried the 14th with 55 percent of the vote in 2004 and 54 percent in 2000. Hastert has held the seat easily since 1986.

Candidates: Both sides seem headed for a primary. For Republicans, dairy magnate Jim Oberweis and state Sen. Chris Lauzen are seen as the two most serious contenders. Oberweis has name identification as a result of three unsuccessful statewide races -- twice for Senate (2002, 2004) and once for governor (2006); he also has very deep pockets. Hastert will not likely endorse in the primary race to replace him, but he's made clear that Oberweis is his preferred candidate. Lauzen has held an Aurora-based legislative seat since 1992 and has already formed an exploratory committee for the race.

On the Democratic side, national party officials seem to prefer Bill Foster. Foster, a scientist who spent two decades working at Fermilab in Batavia, is independently wealthy and has already pledged to put $2 million into the race. Foster also released a poll conducted for his campaign in April that showed him trailing Hastert by 27 points but with a generic Democratic candidate ahead of a generic Republican candidate 40 percent to 30 percent. John Laesch, the party's 2006 nominee, looks set to run again. State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, seen by some as the party's strongest candidate, has said she will not run.

Outlook: By the numbers alone, this district shouldn't be all that tough for Republicans to hold. But with Sen. Dick Durbin (D) expected to cruise to reelection in 2008 and the possibility of Sen. Barack Obama on the national ticket, Democrats are increasingly optimistic. The 14th District is not all that dissimilar to Illinois's 8th District, which was won by Rep. Melissa Bean (D) in 2004, and the 6th district, which played host to an expensive and competitive open-seat race in 2006 -- eventually won by now Rep. Peter Roskam (R). One other X-factor in this race is that the district is almost entirely covered by the pricey Chicago media market. If Foster and Oberweis wind up as the nominees, this could be one of the most expensive races in the country.

Sam Seder Show Blog Widget

I'm going to put up this embed widget for people to copy/paste the code. Post Sam's shows on your blog for those who miss the show. I will try to keep it current as soon as the show becomes available.

Embed code available by playing the show. Look for the <> button.

This embed created using SplashCast.

Custom Blog Widget Code:

<p><center><a href="http://samsedershow.com/">
<img border="0" width="200" src="http://www.rancholaluna.net/FREEDOM_FIGHTERS_SML.JPG" height="94"/></a></center>
<center><embed width="200" src="http://web.splashcast.net/go/so/1/p/SQAB7564BF/s/VXUS8580EY" wmode="Transparent" height="150" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"/></embed></center></p>

Illinois Action Needed for DuPage County

Operation Turn DuPage Blue Announces


Help us oppose Senate Floor Amendment No. 2 to IL House Bill 1752


State Senator Dan Cronin (a Republican from District 21) has proposed an amendment to House Bill 1752 which seeks to amend the Election Code by making the minimum nomination petition signature requirement for county offices in DuPage County 1.5% (now, 0.5%) of the number of voters in a certain category.

OTDB thinks it is egregious that such a state law would single out DuPage County, seemingly for the purposes of making it three times more difficult for Democratic, and especially grassroots, candidates to run for office.

What makes Sen. Cronin's sponsorship of this amendment even more irksome is that he has recently written letters to the editor stating that, "It has become imminently clear that one-party rule in the General Assembly does not benefit the people we were elected to represent" (Elmhurst Press, 6/14/07) and that Illinois' budget stalemate was "the result of one-party control of our system of governance, which eliminates the need for cooperation and good-faith negotiations" (Daily Herald, 8/7/07).

Below is a list of Representatives. Please chose three or four to contact on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. The vote is on Friday. Let them hear us down in Springfield (and it will certainly echo around DuPage).

List of Representatives

Here's a story I haven't heard on the MSM yet and it's a doozy!

The Italians have uncovered a arms deal that involves the sale of Russian made arms to the Government of Iraq.

Here's the AP story:

Italy probe unearths huge Iraq arms deal By CHARLES J. HANLEY and ARIEL DAVID, Associated Press Writers
Sun Aug 12, 3:28 PM ET

In a hidden corner of Rome's busy Fiumicino Airport, police dug quietly through a traveler's checked baggage, looking for smuggled drugs. What they found instead was a catalog of weapons, a clue to something bigger.

Their discovery led anti-Mafia investigators down a monthslong trail of telephone and e-mail intercepts, into the midst of a huge black-market transaction, as Iraqi and Italian partners haggled over shipping more than 100,000 Russian-made automatic weapons into the bloodbath of Iraq.

As the secretive, $40 million deal neared completion, Italian authorities moved in, making arrests and breaking it up. But key questions remain unanswered.

For one thing, The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command — a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.

Why these officials resorted to "black" channels and where the weapons were headed is unclear.

The purchase would merely have been the most spectacular example of how Iraq has become a magnet for arms traffickers and a place of vanishing weapons stockpiles and uncontrolled gun markets since the 2003 U.S. invasion and the onset of civil war.

Some guns the U.S. bought for Iraq's police and army are unaccounted for, possibly fallen into the hands of insurgents or sectarian militias. Meanwhile, the planned replacement of the army's AK-47s with U.S.-made M-16s may throw more assault rifles onto the black market. And the weapons free-for-all apparently is spilling over borders: Turkey and Iran complain U.S.-supplied guns are flowing from Iraq to anti-government militants on their soil.

Iraqi middlemen in the Italian deal, in intercepted e-mails, claimed the arrangement had official American approval. A U.S. spokesman in Baghdad denied that.

"Iraqi officials did not make MNSTC-I aware that they were making purchases," Lt. Col. Daniel Williams of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I), which oversees arming and training of the Iraqi police and army, told the AP.

Operation Parabellum, the investigation led by Dario Razzi, anti-Mafia prosecutor in this central Italian city, began in 2005 as a routine investigation into drug trafficking by organized-crime figures, branched out into an inquiry into arms dealing with Libya, and then widened to Iraq.

Court documents obtained by the AP show that Razzi's break came early last year when police monitoring one of the drug suspects covertly opened his luggage as he left on a flight to Libya. Instead of the expected drugs, they found helmets, bulletproof vests and the weapons catalog.

Tapping telephones, monitoring e-mails, Razzi's investigators followed the trail to a group of Italian businessmen, otherwise unrelated to the drug probe, who were working to sell arms to Libya and, by late 2006, to Iraq as well, through offshore companies they set up in Malta and Cyprus.

Four Italians have been arrested and are awaiting court indictment for allegedly creating a criminal association and alleged arms trafficking — trading in weapons without a government license. A fifth Italian is being sought in Africa. In addition, 13 other Italians were arrested on drug charges.

In the documents, Razzi describes it as "strange" that the U.S.-supported Iraqi government would seek such weapons via the black market.

Investigators say the prospect of an Iraq deal was raised last November, when an Iraqi-owned trading firm e-mailed Massimo Bettinotti, 39, owner of the Malta-based MIR Ltd., about whether MIR could supply 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 10,000 machine guns "to the Iraqi Interior Ministry," adding that "this deal is approved by America and Iraq."

The go-between — the Al-Handal General Trading Co. in Dubai — apparently had communicated with Bettinotti earlier about buying night visors and had been told MIR could also procure weapons.

Al-Handal has figured in questionable dealings before, having been identified by U.S. investigators three years ago as a "front company" in Iraq's Oil-for-Food scandal.

The Interior Ministry's need at that point for such a massive weapons shipment is unclear. The U.S. training command had already reported it would arm all Interior Ministry police by the end of 2006 through its own three-year-old program, which as of July 26 has bought 701,000 weapons for the Iraqi army and police with $237 million in U.S. government funds.

Negotiations on the deal progressed quickly in e-mail exchanges between the Italians and Iraqi middlemen of the al-Handal company and its parent al-Thuraya Group. But at times the discussion turned murky and nervous.

The Iraqis alternately indicated the Interior Ministry or "security ministries" would be the end users. At one point, a worried Bettinotti e-mailed, "We prefer to speak about this deal face to face and not by e-mail."

The Italians sent several offers of various types and quantities of rifles, with photos included. The negotiating focused on the source of the weapons: The Iraqi middlemen said their buyer insisted they be Russian-made, but the Italians wanted to sell AK-47s made in China, where they had better contacts.

"We are in a hurry with this deal," an impatient Waleed Noori al-Handal, Jordan-based general manager of the Iraqi firm, wrote the Italians on Nov. 13 in one of the e-mails seen by AP.

He added, in apparent allusion to the shipment's clandestine nature, "You mustn't worry if it's a problem to import these goods directly into Iraq. We can bring the product to another country and then transfer it to Iraq."

By December, the Italians, having found a Bulgarian broker, were offering Russian-made goods: 50,000 AKM rifles, an improved version of the AK-47; 50,000 AKMS rifles, the same gun with folding stock; and 5,000 PKM machine guns.

The Iraqis quibbled over the asking price, $39.7 million, but seemed satisfied. The Italians were set for a $6.6 million profit, the court documents show, and were already discussing air transport for the weapons. At this point prosecutor Razzi acted, seeking an arrest warrant from a Perugia court.

"The negotiation with Iraq is developing very quickly," he wrote the judge.

Bush's puppet government in Iraq has gone behind his back to purchase wearons and we don't know who they are going to. Don't you think this should be on a National News program?

Fed steps in to provide liquidity to market

Sub Prime financing, rate increases, credit debt have thrown the market into termoil. This has caused a worldwide credit problem. Read below for more info:

Fed injects $35 bln, conducts 2nd operation
By Tamawa Kadoya
29 minutes ago

The U.S. Federal Reserve on Friday provided the banking system with $35 billion in two cash infusions, the largest amount of liquidity in at least four months, adding ample funds for the second day running as financial markets fretted over credit conditions.

Before Wall Street's opening bell, the Fed infused $19 billion in a market operation that was conducted more than an hour before its usual time.

The Fed also took the unusual step of making a rare statement after the first operation -- the first time it's done so since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks -- in an effort to calm investors' fears.

By late morning, the Fed injected $16 billion in a second market operation -- an unusual occurrence for a Friday. The last time the Fed conducted two operations on a Friday was more than two years ago.

U.S. stock indexes sharply cut their morning losses after the Fed's second liquidity injection, which occurred shortly before 11 a.m. (1500 GMT) At midday, stocks still were down, but were well off their intraday lows.

In its statement after Friday's first market operation, the Fed said it would provide liquidity as needed "to facilitate the orderly functioning of financial markets.

"In current circumstances, depository institutions may experience unusual funding needs because of dislocations in money and credit markets," it said.

The last time the central bank made a similar statement was after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, when it also said it would do what was necessary to keep markets functioning normally. The Fed made a similar vow in October 1987 following a precipitous decline in U.S. stock markets.

Central banks worldwide have now injected at least US$323.3 bln in the past 48 hours to prevent markets from spinning into a global liquidity crunch. Short-term interest rates spiked in response to banks' decreased willingness to lend to each other.

The Fed has now added a total of $35 billion of temporary reserves to the banking system through 3-day repurchase agreements, compared with adding $7.5 billion through 3-day repurchase agreements last Friday.

That followed Thursday's total injection of $24 billion in two separate operations.

"Today's action indicates that (Fed policy-makers) are being more pro-active to ensure financial stability," said David Katz, chief investment officer at Matrix Asset Advisors in New York.

The fed funds rate was trading at 6 percent in early morning trade, but fell back to 5.25 percent shortly after the operation, in line with the target set by the central bank. It was last trading at 5.25 percent.

The Fed said all of the collateral accepted in the 3-day repos on Friday was mortgage-backed debt.

The Fed added a total of $84.5 billion to its reserves this week, compared with a total of $50.25 billion last week.

Also read what the world banks are doing:

Central banks pour money into bank system
59 minutes ago
FRANKFURT/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve and European Central Bank pumped money into the banking system for a second day on Friday to ward off a global credit crisis and the Fed said it stood ready to do more if needed.

UPDATE: The Fed has now added 65 Billion to its reserves today.

John Dean on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

John Dean is an attorney and a disenchanted Conservative. You may remember him from the Nixon years. Here's a little of his Bio with more at the link:

Before becoming Counsel to the President of the United States in July 1970 at age thirty-one, John Dean was Chief Minority Counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, the Associate Director of a law reform commission, and Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States. He served as Richard Nixon's White House lawyer for a thousand days.

Here's his summation of the Fisa Act Ammendments. This is a must read:

The So-Called Protect America Act: Why Its Sweeping Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Pose Not Only a Civil Liberties Threat, But a Greater Danger As Well
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Aug. 10, 2007

Congressional Democrats are getting a lot of well-earned heat from rank-and-file members of their party, not to mention editorial writers and bloggers, for their lack of spine in refusing to reject the Bush/Cheney Administration's sweeping amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Just before Congress departed for its August recess, the Administration jammed through in five days - from start to finish -- the dubiously titled Protect America Act (PAA) of 2007, over the protest of the Democratic leadership. The only thing good about the PAA is that it is temporary - with a six month expiration date (although surveillance programs authorized under it can operate for up to one year.)

On her Democracy NOW daily program, Amy Goodman's (streaming video) interviewed Salon.com's law blogger, Glenn Greenwald, and the president of the National Lawyers Guild, Marjorie Cohn, about the PAA. The interview nicely sets forth what happened and its broad implications. Simply stated, Bush threatened to make a political issue of any effort by Congressional Democrats to protect the civil liberties of American. Bush surely succeeded beyond his most fervent hope in his intimidation of sixteen Democratic members in the Senate and forty-one Democratic members in the House, earning these members a place on "the roll of shame" in the blogosphere.

A Threat Greater Than That to Civil Liberties: Executive Aggrandizement

The Washington Post, the New York Times, and politically-diverse organizations ranging from the John Birch Society and the Cato Institute to the American Civil Liberties Union all agree that the PAA is a serious mistake, and threat to the civil liberties of Americans. They point out that the law ignores the Fourth Amendment while, at the same time, hiding its actual operations in national security secrecy. Indeed, Congress was not even certain about the full extent of what it has authorized because President Bush and Vice-President Cheney refused to reveal it.

It is not likely that law-abiding Americans will even know that the U.S. Government's intelligence gathering operations are listening in on their calls to and from foreign countries, or similarly scanning emails. For this reason, it is not to be expected that many Americans will care about what the Democratic Congress has given a Republican president who has proven himself insensitive to anyone's privacy other than his own.

There is, however, a threat in this new law even greater than its robbing Americans of their communications privacy, which commentators and critics have virtually ignored. This law is another bold and blatant move by Bush to enhance the powers of the Executive branch at the expense of its constitutional co-equals.

Congress was willing to give Bush the amendments to FISA that would make this law effective under current technology. The 1978 law did not account for the fact that modern digital communications between people outside the United States often is routed through the United States, yet the FISA Court said surveillance of such routed communications required a warrant. Nevertheless, Bush rejected the legislation proposed by the Democrats because it also contained checks on the use of surveillance powers.

This, of course, is consistent with Bush and Cheney's general drive to weaken or eliminate all checks and balances constraining the Executive. This drive was evidenced by countless laws enacted by the Republican-controlled Congresses during the first six years of the Administration, and in countless signing statements added by the President interpreting away any constraints on the Executive. Thus, when even the GOP Congresses required presidential compliance and reporting, they were thwarted.

The most stunning aspect of the Democrats' capitulation is their abandoning of their institutional responsibility to hold the president accountable. The Protect America Act utterly fails to maintain any real check on the president's power to undertake electronic surveillance of literally millions of Americans. This is an invitation to abuse, especially for a president like the current incumbent.

Fixing the Dangerously Deficient Albeit Quickly Sunsetting Protect America Act And Ignoring the White House's Requests For Even More Power

Though it is quite certain abuses of the surveillance powers under the Protect America Act will occur, they have not yet occurred. The failure to provide a check on such potential abuses, however, has already occurred. It represents the greatest failing of the Democratic Congress in acceding to the demands of Bush and Cheney. It is this failure that should be a paramount concern of the Congress when it next addresses this temporary law.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to the chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, requesting they develop legislation "addressing the many deficiencies" of the temporary law as soon as Congress returns from its recess.

Even though the White House got everything it demanded from Congress, it is requesting even more. When signing the Protect America Act, Bush said, "When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Bush also wants legislative immunity for the American companies, and government officials (including himself), to protect them from criminal prosecution for violating the criminal provision of FISA. As readers will recall, before Congress caved and gave Bush power to conduct this surveillance, he - and telecommunication companies simply opted to do so illegally. Now, Bush will claim, with some justification, that because Congress has now made legal actions that were previously illegal, it should retroactively clear up this nasty problem facing all those who broke the law at his command.

If the Democrats fail to stand up to the bullying of this weak president, and ignore his demands for more unaccountability, they might as well start looking for another line of work. Not only are their fellow rank and file Democrats going to turn on them in 2008, but the overwhelming numbers of independents who assisted them in regaining power are going to desert them in droves.

At bottom, Democrats truly only need to add one fix to this dangerous law: meaningful accountability. They must do so, or face the consequences.

No one wants to deny the intelligence community all the tools it needs. But regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, no Congress should trust any president with unbridled powers of surveillance over Americans. It is not the way our system is supposed to work.

Lots of Economic news today!

Stock Market dropped like a brick this AM. Here's why...

From the AP:

Stocks plunge on rising credit anxiety
By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer
7 minutes ago

Wall Street plunged in early trading Thursday, yanking the Dow Jones industrials down more than 180 points after a French bank said it was freezing three securities funds that struggled to find liquidity in the U.S. subprime mortgage market.

The announcement by BNP Paribas raised the specter of a widening impact of U.S. credit market problems. The idea that anyone — institutions, investors, companies, individuals — can't get money when they need it unnerved a stock market that has suffered through weeks of intense volatility triggered by concerns about available credit.

A move by the European Central Bank to provide more cash to money markets intensified Wall Street's angst — although the bank's loan of more than $130 billion in overnight funds to banks at a bargain rate of 4 percent was intended to calm investors, Wall Street saw the step as confirmation of the credit markets' problems.

The Federal Reserve followed suit, adding $12 billion to U.S. markets to help ease liquidity constraints, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

Bonds rose sharply as investors again sought the relative safety of Treasurys, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year note falling to 4.78 percent from 4.89 percent late Wednesday. Bond prices move opposite yields.

Thursday's plunge continued an erratic pattern of triple-digit moves in the Dow for several weeks. There has been more panic and gambling in those moves rather than conviction — even when the Dow has finished up more than 280 points in a session, those gains have evaporated at the first mention of trouble in housing, subprime lending or the credit markets.

In early trading, the Dow fell 185.02, or 1.35 percent, to 13,472.84 after falling more than 200 points.

The Dow on Wednesday finished 2.45 percent below the record close of 14,001.41 reached on July 19. Since passing 14,000, the blue-chip index has been highly volatile — in the 14 trading days since that record close, 10 have seen a triple-digit gain or loss.

Also Thursday, the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 24.25, or 1.62 percent, to 1,473.24, while the Nasdaq composite index lost 28.58, or 1.09 percent, to 2,584.40.

The dollar was mixed against other major currencies, while gold prices fell. Light, sweet crude fell $1.03 to $71.12 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Just heard on CNN: Mutual funds are now affected by the European Bank move.

Stay tuned!

China Threatens to crash US Dollars

China holds close to a Trillion dollars of our debt. This is the money Bush borrowed from China to fight his war in Iraq and to give the wealthy Americans tax breaks.

I've been warning my friends and family for several years now, that China, still a Comunist country, could use this debt to destroy our economy by calling in our debt and converting to euros. China has just threatened this very thing.

From the UK Telegraph:

China threatens to trigger US dollar crash
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 1:41am BST 09/08/2007

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US Treasury bonds if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

Two Chinese officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning, for the first time, that Beijing may use its $1,330bn (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is breaking down through historic support levels.

It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession.

It is estimated that China holds more than $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

Xia Bin, finance chief at China's Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what appears to be government policy, with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US.

"Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he said.

He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went further yesterday, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse, if it chose to do so.

"China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US Treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency," he told China Daily. "Russia, Switzerland and several other countries have reduced their dollar holdings. China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar.

"The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar."

You can read more here.

This morning we get a response from Bush from the AP:

China dollar attack would be 'foolhardy' : Bush Thu Aug 9, 4:05 AM ET

President George W. Bush on Wednesday said China would be "foolhardy" to attempt to push down the dollar in retaliation for US pressure over Beijing's alleged currency manipulation.

Bush said he had not seen the report that Beijing was hinting at such a move, in Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper, but warned against any attempt by China to hit back at Washington using vast foreign currency reserves.

"That would be foolhardy of them to do that," Bush said in an interview with Fox News, adding he doubted the report was based on sources from the office of Chinese President Hu Jintao.

"If that's the ... position of the government, it would be foolhardy for them to do this."

A researcher at a top government think tank said Thursday China will not sell off its US dollar assets as long as there is no major disagreement with the United States.

Zhang Ming, an economist with the top Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, made the remark after Bush's comments.

"As long as there are no big upheavals in the American economy and there is no serious dispute between China and the United States, the Chinese government will not sell off US dollar assets in any major amounts," Zhang told AFP.

He said that China would stand to lose, too, if the dollar plunged as a result because an estimated two thirds of its 1.3-trillion-dollar foreign exchange reserves are tied up in US-dollar assets, mostly Treasury bonds.

"Neither China nor the United States would rashly touch the yuan exchange rate," Zhang said.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson meanwhile said on CNBC that suggestions that China was considering selling off dollar denominated assets to hammer the already weakened US dollar were "absurd."

"We have tensions and we have to deal with tensions on both sides ... but overall, both of our countries are committed to a constructive economic relationships," said Paulson, who returned from talks with top leaders in China last week.

China said on Friday it would not be pressured into currency reform as Washington and the US Congress renewed calls for it to speed up changes to make the yuan more market-oriented.

The Telegraph reported that two officials at leading Communist Party bodies had given interviews in recent days warning that Beijing might use more than a trillion dollars in foreign reserves as a political weapon in the event of US sanctions designed to punish Beijing for yuan manipulation.

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such a move could trigger a crash of the already-falling greenback and a spike in the US bond yields, which could then dampen the beleaguered housing market and put the world's richest economy into a recession.

When asked whether such an option would hurt China more than the United States, Bush said, "Absolutely. I think so."

China reportedly holds some 900 billion dollars in a mix of US bonds.

Granted, if China tried this, the whole world would suffer, however, this is still hanging over or head. Damage would be done to our economy if China sold even a small amount of our debt.

More Bush:

Bush said the United States and China could resolve their differences "in a cordial way" as opposed to the reported option by Beijing of liquidating its vast holdings of US dollars or through legislation by the US Congress imposing sanctions on China.

He cited a high level "strategic economic dialogue" chaired by Paulson and Chinese Vice-Premier Wu Yi as an effective channel to discuss differences between the two powers.

Bush said the two powers had "a very complex trading relationship" and that it was "very important" for the US economy to have access to the vast Chinese market.

Critics of China in the United States say the yuan currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, making Chinese exports cheaper.

Some blame the low currency value for the loss of US manufacturing jobs and a US trade deficit with China that hit 232.5 billion dollars last year, according to Washington's figures.

Bush said Chinese goods had been beneficial for US consumers as they had helped hold down inflation, particularly in the face of rising energy prices.

The First Time

From Sam's bunker.

Don't Worry.....

Bush's Directive to block property...

From the White House's web site:

"Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq."

This defy's the Constitution!

Read this San Francisco Chronicle Editorial:

In Bush we trust - or else
Sunday, August 5, 2007

It doesn't require a subpoena of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or a brave whistle-blower to find President Bush's latest affront to the U.S. Constitution. It's in plain view on the White House Web site: "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq."

This far-reaching order of July 17 may be Bush's most brazen defiance of the Constitution, which is no small feat for an administration that thinks it can set its own rules on electronic surveillance, torture, kidnapping, rendition, and the designation of "enemy combatants" who can be arrested on U.S. soil and held indefinitely without judicial review.

This one is a frontal assault on the Fifth Amendment, which decrees that the government cannot seize an individual's property without due process.

Under Bush's executive order, the U.S. government has endowed itself with the authority to freeze the American assets of anyone who directly or indirectly assists someone who poses "a significant risk" of committing a violent act that has the purpose or effect of threatening the Iraqi government, the "peace and stability" of the country or the reconstruction effort.

The White House has claimed the order is targeted at people or groups that are helping the insurgents, particularly in Syria or Iran, but the language of the order is far broader than its stated intent.

The order's liberal use of the word "or" and inclusion of the highly subjective term "significant risk" are particularly troubling in the hands of a White House that has suggested that domestic war critics are emboldening U.S. enemies in Iraq.

"On its face, this is the greatest encroachment on civil liberties since the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer who was a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration and author of an article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.

Fein said the sanctions against suspected violators would amount to "a financial death penalty." The executive order not only calls for the freezing of assets of anyone who directly or indirectly aids our enemies in Iraq, it prohibits anyone else from providing "funds, goods or services" to a blacklisted individual. In other words, a friend or relative could have his or her assets seized for trying to help someone whose bank account is suddenly frozen. An attorney who offered legal help could risk of losing everything he or she owned.

Then again, there's not much need for lawyers in the world of this executive order. The blacklist would be drawn up by the "secretary of treasury, in consultation with the secretary of state and the secretary of defense."

The targets of the property seizures, even American citizens, would not be given any advance notice or opportunity to challenge the government's action in court. The American Civil Liberties Union has noted that an order this sweeping could encompass "entirely innocent" activities such as an donations to humanitarian relief groups that indirectly provide what the U.S. government decides is "material support" to supporters of the insurgency.

"This order could have a serious chilling effect on charitable contributions intended to ease the suffering in Iraq," said Michael German, ACLU national security counsel.

The Fifth Amendment was written for good reason: It's dangerous to give the government unchecked authority to seize private property without judicial review. Our founding fathers knew that people in power were not always going to be reasonable or ethical - or competent.

One need look no further than the Transportation Security Administration's "watch list" - which subjects passengers from a secret list to additional security screening - to see the margin of error. I know: I was among the many thousands of Americans who ended up on the TSA watch list for no apparent reason. I recently made a flight without being flagged for extra scrutiny, but I have no way of knowing whether I was lifted from the list or slipped through the cracks. The government refuses to say who might be on the list - or why. (More at link)

Enough! Have you had enough of this administration? Get active or lose the America you thought you had!

Dems Caved on the FISA ACT-Bush got his way again

From the AFP:

Senate endorses expanded wiretap powers by Stephen Collinson
Fri Aug 3, 11:34 PM ET

The US Senate Friday voted to extend the power of US intelligence agents to eavesdrop on terror suspects, in a victory for the White House after a tense showdown with congressional Democrats.

Democratic leaders balked at White House terms for a deal, but the Senate went ahead and passed a Republican bill which reflected President George W. Bush's requests.

The controversy centered on a program designed to listen in on telephone and email conversations mainly outside the United States, but routed through US-based communications firms.

Senators voted to permit intelligence officers to listen in to such conversations without obtaining prior approval from a special court.

The House of Representatives voted against a Democratic party alternative, but could vote on the version passed in the Senate, which provides rules which expire within six months, in the next few days.

"My Republican colleagues chose to rubberstamp a flawed administration proposal," said Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, accusing the White House of misusing anti-terror powers in the past.

But White House deputy spokesman Tony Fratto said the bill would give US spy agencies the tools they needed to fight terrorism.

"It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible, so we encourage the House of Representatives to swiftly consider and pass this bill."

Democrats were angry because they claimed the Republican approach would allow Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, target of their demands for perjury and impeachment proceedings, to authorize wide-ranging surveillance.

US intelligence czar Mike McConnell however rejected the Democratic alternatives, saying they contained too much "uncertainty.

"I must have certainty in order to protect the nation from attacks that are being planned today to inflict mass casualties on the United States," he said.

The White House wants Congress to endorse eavesdropping on conversations between suspected terrorists abroad without prior court approval.

Democratic proposals allow that, but say individual warrants should be required before agents can listen in on a conversation involving one party in the United States, in a bid to protect civil liberties.

The White House says it is unreasonable to force agents to get the court to agree ahead of time to listen to conversations between a target abroad who makes frequent calls to a contact who happens to be on US soil.

Bush earlier urged Democrats to close the "intelligence gap" in US law, which he said threatened the government's ability to keep Americans safe, and urged them not to start a summer break before passing the bill.

"I'm going to ask Congress to stay in session until they pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States."

The rush to change US law came after a US federal judge earlier this year secretly ruled a key element of the electronic telephone wiretapping program was illegal.

The ruling held that the Bush administration had overstepped its authority in trying to eavesdrop on communications between two locations abroad that are passed through routing stations in US territory.

Republican Senator Christopher Bond, who sponsored the Senate version, warned that failure to act promptly could endanger US security.

It is definately time to have a third party that will stop the direction this country is being pushed. Write your congress people on how disappointed you are in them. Let them know that things must change and soon. Impeach the lot of them and change or ammend the laws to where they were.

Sometimes I feel like a voice in the wilderness!

UPDATE: The House caved too!

House approves foreign wiretap bill

VIDEO -Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley about the FISA ACT

Jonathan Turley is a constitutional lawyer who is interviewed by Keith Olbermann about the updates Bush wants about the FISA Act.

Bush is holding Congress open until they pass a new FISA Act that gives the president more power to spy. He wants to put the DOJ/Alberto Gonzales in charge of this. Watch this video and you will get a good idea of what Bush and his Admin is trying to do. After the major problems with Alberto, Bush wants to give him more to screw up.

Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, FISA Changes 8/3/07

Keith talks with Jonathan Turley about Bush's demand that Congress accede to his demands for FISA changes. 8/3/07

SAM TRIES A NEW FEED

NOTE: This link will disappear with the feed

BREAKING: EPA sides with BP on toxic dumping in Lake Mich.

From NBC5 News:

EPA Gives BP OK For Lake Dumping
Indiana Permit Is Within Federal Pollution Standards
POSTED: 8:49 am CDT August 1, 2007

CHICAGO -- The Environmental Protection Agency has said it will not stop BP from dumping thousands more pounds of toxins into Lake Michigan.
Indiana issued BP a permit that allows it to discharge 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge into the lake.

Congress approved a resolution urging Indiana to reconsider, but now the EPA said the permit is valid and well within federal pollution standards.
Indiana also exempted BP from meeting mercury limits for the next five years.

From the Chicago Tribune:

EPA head: Agency won't stop BP refinery wastewater permit
Associated Press
3:55 PM CDT, August 1, 2007
CHICAGO

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will not stop a permit that allows a BP refinery in Indiana to dump more pollution into Lake Michigan because it complies fully with the Clean Water Act, the agency's chief says.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said Tuesday he saw nothing wrong with the permit Indiana regulators awarded in June to BP, the first company in years allowed to increase the amount of toxic chemicals pumped into the Great Lakes.

Although the federal government has been pushing for more than three decades to eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes, the EPA did not object to the BP permit.

Johnson told The Chicago Tribune in a brief interview Tuesday after a speech at the Chicago Cultural Center that the agency is trying to "work collaboratively" with BP and other companies to improve the condition of the Great Lakes.

"In this case, it's my understanding that Indiana issued a permit that is fully compliant with the Clean Water Act. As an agency we need to honor that permit," he said.

BP, one of the largest polluters of the Great Lakes, won permission from state regulators in June for its Whiting refinery to discharge into the lake 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more suspended solids -- silty materials left after wastewater is treated and filtered.

BP needed the permit to move ahead with a $3.8 billion refinery expansion to process more heavy Canadian crude oil at the refinery, which is the nation's fourth largest. The permit gives BP until 2012 to meet a stringent standard for mercury pollution set by the EPA in 1995.

In recent years, the EPA has repeatedly stated a goal of "virtually eliminating" pollution in the Great Lakes. Asked how the BP permit squares with that goal, Johnson noted the agency spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year cleaning up polluted sites around the lakes.

Last week, the House of Representatives voted 387-26 to approve a resolution urging Indiana to reconsider the permit.

A coalition of lawmakers implored Johnson last week to put the permit on hold while BP considers additional upgrades. They question why the EPA is allowing BP to increase the amount of pollution it puts into the lake even as the agency addresses years of past contamination. And they demanded to know why EPA officials signed off on the permit when the Clean Water Act prohibits any decline in water quality, even when limits on pollution discharges are met.

"The administrator's comments aren't surprising, but they are unacceptable," said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., one of the lawmakers threatening to punish BP in pending legislation unless the company finds a way to reduce pollution from its refinery.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican and former Bush administration official, has defended the permit, saying it was in compliance with state law. And Tom Easterly, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management commissioner, said the permit imposes even tougher requirements than federal law because Indiana has designated the lake an outstanding state resource deserving special protection.

We cannot let this happen! I cannot believe the EPA will allow this! It's time to demand a change of leadership in the EPA. More Cronyism from the Bush Admin!

DOD BRIEFING REGARDING COLONEL TILLMAN

General Censured for Tillman Investigation Mistakes
By Gerry J. Gilmore

American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, July 31, 2007 – The Army’s senior civilian announced today that a retired three-star general will receive a letter of censure as the result of a review of previous military investigations into the death of Army Spc. Patrick D. Tillman.