It's Time to Hold Democratic House Leaders in Contempt

It's Time to Hold Democratic House Leaders in Contempt

Enough is enough.

Like many of us, after having watched helplessly as the Bush administration trampled the Constitution and made a mockery of checks and balances over the course of five bitter years, I was hopeful when the American people elected a Democratic Congress in November of 2006. Finally, I imagined, we would have a whiff of legality and the hint of a restoration of the rule of law in the land. Perhaps we would even have congressional committees to oversee the administration's subversions of the rule of law and investigate the wide range of abuses that it had perpetrated since 2001.

There has been a bit of movement -- which is why the thousands of Americans I have met who are appalled at these abuses but feel powerless to raise their voices effectively should take heart, but not stop their fight. To some extent, these raised voices have yielded some action: Congress has in fact held numerous hearings on issues -- ranging from torture to warrantless wiretapping -- that had been taboo to contend with when the administration was heedlessly, and unopposed, using a hyped narrative of `the global war on terror' to subdue American liberties. Most prominently, we got some of the bad guys out of town. Citizen-driven congressional investigations into the politicization of the Department of Justice, for example, spurred the resignations of many key Bush administration officials, including the mild-mannered gatekeeper of the first bolgia of Hell, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

And yet, where it counts most, Democratic leaders in Congress have completely abdicated their constitutional oversight role. What they are doing now reprises the worst failures of other self-paralyzed Parliaments in societies that were facing crackdowns on civil liberties and the rule of law, and their voluntary self-emasculation may go down in history as one of those turning points at which leaders cave shamefully to transformative pressure that leaves a country far less than its founded ideal. Through their actions, they are potentially causing irreparable harm to the institution of Congress itself.

At issue is the failure of White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers to comply with congressional subpoenas to testify about the 2006 firings of a handful of U.S. Attorneys. We now have an America in which Congress says, "We subpoena you." And potential criminals say, "Yeah? F--- off."

As most people know, the Bush administration asserted executive privilege on behalf of Bolten and Miers and refused to allow them to comply with the subpoenas to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last July. It is widely understood that executive privilege only protects certain conversations and correspondences with the president and is not intended to be a blanket privilege -- protecting possible wrongdoers against having to appear before Congress AT ALL.

By going far beyond specific exchanges between the president and other officials, the White House essentially asserted that Congress has no power over the executive branch and could not question executive branch officials about their activities. This is an affront to our Constitution. In the shootout of this executive power grab, it effectively leaves one branch of government fatally wounded on Main Street.

Guess what? In America, Congress is not supposed to be tied up and left for dead as potential criminals walk away with impunity. Within weeks, the few brave members of the House Judiciary Committee who were apparently still sentient and still aware of their role as Americans appropriately passed a criminal contempt resolution against both Bolten and Miers.

It was then in the hands of Democratic leaders in the House to bring the resolution to the floor for a vote.

Since then, the citizens of this High Noon scenario have been hiding under the bar stools as the black hats swagger through the nation's abandoned thoroughfare, and chaparral rolls through the streets. Democratic leaders are hiding from the call of destiny and offering nothing but delays and excuses to avoid producing any semblance of cojones.

In July, they said there would be a vote in September. In September, they said there would be a vote in October. In October, they said a vote would be "more likely" in November. In December, it appeared as if there would be a vote in December - which was then changed to January. If this was my twelve-year-old justifying an unfinished school project, she would be grounded. If it is your congressional representatives justifying an advanced case of cowardice, they should be fired.

Then, less than two weeks ago, on January 14, the Washington Post reported, under a headline, "House Democrats Target Bolten, Miers," that the House would likely take up the resolutions in the next "couple of weeks." With this information coming from "Democratic leadership aides," it appeared as if -- Hallelujah! -- the long wait for some semblance of justice and a faint breeze of courage might be over.

But two days ago, Politico reported that the votes on criminal contempt citations had been -- Say it ain't so! -- "postponed" by House Democrats. Now they were not expected "for weeks." Moreover, after "Democratic leadership aides" asserted in October that Congress "would be able to round up the 218 votes needed to push through the resolution from Democrats alone," a Democratic "insider" was now saying, "When we have the votes, we'll go ahead with this. Right now, the votes are just not there."

So let me get this straight. The Democrats in Congress cannot even get their own members together to defend the Constitution against a supremely unpopular executive who has essentially spit in their faces, eaten their lunch and the nation's, and publicly called them out as powerless. Not to mention the fact that they are setting a precedent for the future that any executive can emasculate any Congress and defy any subpoena after having committed possibly any crime. Still they are trembling under the barstools -- summoning up, perhaps, the courage to crawl out fully prone and toss their untouched guns humbly at the feet of the posse.

Remember this: each and every member of Congress took an oath -- and the oath was not to some abstract government, it was an oath TO YOU -- to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." Unlike many good people across the political spectrum who are appalled at this dismantling of the three-part system the founders put in place and the besmirching of the rule of law, Congressional Republicans have clearly decided to place their allegiance to the president and their party over their allegiance to the Constitution. This is bad enough; this is, in fact, treason. But the Democrats do not even have that party allegiance as an excuse for their treachery. They would be standing up for their party, the institution of Congress, and the Constitution by passing the contempt resolutions. What more will it take to get them to act?

Those who think -- as Pelosi apparently does -- that they may rock the boat through a contempt citation in a way that endangers a possible Democratic victory in September are badly misreading the public mood -- as well as severely misreading the historical record. If you don't punish those who break the law at this stage of a crackdown on liberty -- through contempt citations, through the use of Congress's jail cell for those who are found guilty of contempt, and/or through the investigations of a truly independent prosecutor -- you are not going to have a transparent, accountable election in November. You will have set a benchmark for impunity and you will get greater and greater crimes committed in the certainty of impunity.

If you doubt the dangers of this, think of the Gulf of Hormuz threat a few weeks ago -- oops, hoax. Because the press is actually asking questions, the Pentagon's narrative of a vicious Iranian provocation was sidelined. But it is purely naive to believe that a White House that would ignore subpoenas and impose yet another false threat scenario on the American people will conduct a transparent election in the fall, especially if it can get away with murder -- the murder of the rule of law -- today.

Tell your representative to move forward with contempt. And if your representatives fail to act, the punishment should not just be removal from office in the next election; they should also be subject to investigations themselves -- for abetting crimes against the Constitution.

Contempt is at issue, indeed.

Naomi Wolf is the author of The New York Times bestseller "The End of America" (Chelsea Green) and is the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.

In Senate, a White House Victory on Eavesdropping

In Senate, a White House Victory on Eavesdropping
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — A White House plan to broaden the National Security Agency’s wiretapping powers won a key procedural victory in the Senate on Thursday, as backers defeated a more restrictive plan by Senate Democrats that would have imposed more court oversight on government spying.

The vote moves the Bush administration a step closer toward the twin goals it has pursued for months: strengthening the N.S.A.’s ability to eavesdrop without court approval, while securing legal immunity for the phone companies that have helped the agency in its wiretapping operations.

At the same time, the White House agreed Thursday after months of resistance to give members of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees access to internal documents on the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program and the legal foundation for it.

That access could ultimately help persuade skeptical lawmakers in the House, which so far has rejected the immunity idea, to sign on to the White House’s plan.

“I have pushed for eight months to review this material,” said Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “I don’t know why the White House refused to give us access. Now we will be able to view documents used to set up the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.”

As the Senate opened debate on the security agency issue, it agreed by a convincing vote of 60-to-36 to set aside a bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would have given a secret intelligence court a greater role in overseeing wiretaps on terrorism and espionage suspects. The defeated measure, while imposing more judicial restrictions, omitted immunity for the phone carriers that aided the agency in its wiretapping operations.

The Senate will instead consider a measure passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee that has the backing of the White House. It would give legal immunity to AT&T and the other phone companies against some 40 lawsuits growing out of their alleged roles in eavesdropping. It would also give the N.S.A. a freer hand to eavesdrop on foreign-based communications without judicial checks.

After the more restrictive measure was defeated, Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, said, “It appears the Senate is buckling under pressure from the White House.”

A final vote on the N.S.A. issue is not likely to come until next week. The Senate is trying to beat a Feb. 1 deadline for amending the wiretapping law. That is when a temporary six-month authorization approved last August expires.

President Bush urged Congress on Thursday to amend the law before the legislation expires, to prevent the eavesdropping law from reverting to the more restrictive standards that were in place before August.

The deadline “is just eight days from today,” Mr. Bush said in a statement, “yet the threat from Al Qaeda will not expire in eight days. If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened.”

Even if the Senate is able to agree on legislation before the Feb. 1 deadline, a conference committee with House lawmakers would have to be held to work out the differences between the two versions, which are likely to be substantial. Rather than try to beat the deadline, Senate Democrats have been pushing for a one-month extension of the August law to allow more time to debate the issue. Republicans have balked at that idea.

In Senate, a White House Victory on Eavesdropping By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON — A White House plan to broaden the National Security Agency’s wiret

In Senate, a White House Victory on Eavesdropping
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — A White House plan to broaden the National Security Agency’s wiretapping powers won a key procedural victory in the Senate on Thursday, as backers defeated a more restrictive plan by Senate Democrats that would have imposed more court oversight on government spying.

The vote moves the Bush administration a step closer toward the twin goals it has pursued for months: strengthening the N.S.A.’s ability to eavesdrop without court approval, while securing legal immunity for the phone companies that have helped the agency in its wiretapping operations.

At the same time, the White House agreed Thursday after months of resistance to give members of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees access to internal documents on the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program and the legal foundation for it.

That access could ultimately help persuade skeptical lawmakers in the House, which so far has rejected the immunity idea, to sign on to the White House’s plan.

“I have pushed for eight months to review this material,” said Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “I don’t know why the White House refused to give us access. Now we will be able to view documents used to set up the president’s warrantless wiretapping program.”

As the Senate opened debate on the security agency issue, it agreed by a convincing vote of 60-to-36 to set aside a bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would have given a secret intelligence court a greater role in overseeing wiretaps on terrorism and espionage suspects. The defeated measure, while imposing more judicial restrictions, omitted immunity for the phone carriers that aided the agency in its wiretapping operations.

The Senate will instead consider a measure passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee that has the backing of the White House. It would give legal immunity to AT&T and the other phone companies against some 40 lawsuits growing out of their alleged roles in eavesdropping. It would also give the N.S.A. a freer hand to eavesdrop on foreign-based communications without judicial checks.

After the more restrictive measure was defeated, Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, said, “It appears the Senate is buckling under pressure from the White House.”

A final vote on the N.S.A. issue is not likely to come until next week. The Senate is trying to beat a Feb. 1 deadline for amending the wiretapping law. That is when a temporary six-month authorization approved last August expires.

President Bush urged Congress on Thursday to amend the law before the legislation expires, to prevent the eavesdropping law from reverting to the more restrictive standards that were in place before August.

The deadline “is just eight days from today,” Mr. Bush said in a statement, “yet the threat from Al Qaeda will not expire in eight days. If Congress does not act quickly, our national security professionals will not be able to count on critical tools they need to protect our nation, and our ability to respond quickly to new threats and circumstances will be weakened.”

Even if the Senate is able to agree on legislation before the Feb. 1 deadline, a conference committee with House lawmakers would have to be held to work out the differences between the two versions, which are likely to be substantial. Rather than try to beat the deadline, Senate Democrats have been pushing for a one-month extension of the August law to allow more time to debate the issue. Republicans have balked at that idea.

Bush to pawn Iraq occupation off on the next president

Bush redefining Iraq role, next president must pay for it

While planning a redefinition of the US role in Iraq, the White House isn't seeking the funds to pay for it, leaving an unknown and potentially onerous situation for President Bush's successor to navigate.

The White House has confirmed that its new budget, to be submitted in February, will reverse last year’s policy of providing a full year of funding for the war in Iraq, “leaving the next president and Congress to confront major cost questions soon after taking office in 2009,” the Politico reported on Wednesday.

Last year’s budget, unveiled soon after Democrats took control of Congress, was explicit in requesting a full year’s worth of funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new budget, the Politico notes, returns to the adminstration’s prior practice of "request[ing] only incremental ‘bridge’ funding,” and “won’t sustain the military through the full length of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2009."

President Bush’s term in office ends on Jan. 20, 2009.

This reversal in requesting war funding is concurrent with an effort by the White House to remake the terms of the US military commitment in Iraq. The Washington Post reported on Thursday on a Democratic pushback against the "White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government," with key Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office." The proposed security agreement would replace the current United Nations mandate authorizing the US presence in Iraq, which is set to expire on December 31, 2008.

According to conservative scholar Michael Rubin, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday, the details of the proposed security agreement "remain unclear." Rubin said, "The proposed agreement could take many forms and, indeed, could be a package of multiple agreements, ranging from a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) to economic development packages to basing agreements, to a formal defense treaty." Less unclear are estimates by Congressional staffers of both parties that the ‘bridge-funding’ request will total "between $70 billion and $80 billion — less than half the annual spending in recent years," according to the Politico.

"[B]y failing to spell out a full-year funding request, the administration will be effectively leaving office without ensuring the money is in place to sustain that U.S. commitment," the Politico reported.

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) convened a hearing on Wednesday on the proposed force agreement. "He dismissed the contention that the proposal is routine," The Post reported, "Saying that administration officials declined to explain themselves before his Foreign Affairs subcommittee.

"'We don't trust this administration,' he said, suggesting that at first glance, the scope of the proposed agreement goes well beyond

My TV Interview with Joseph Atwill author of Caesars Messiah

Gore endorses gay marriage

Gore endorses gay marriage

In a video quietly released on his Web site last week, former Vice President Al Gore came out strongly in favor of gay marriage.

"I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage," Gore said. "And I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians. Shouldn’t we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one’s partner regardless of sexual orientation?

During his unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2000, Gore said he supported domestic partner benefits for gays and lesbians but opposed "changing the institution of marriage as it is presently understood -- between a man and a woman."

Gore hinted that he would come around to support same-sex marriage as early as 2006, when speaking to a group of gay-rights activists, but his latest comments represent Gore's first formal endorsement of equal marriage rights.

The video was posted with little commentary to Current's Web site Jan. 17. It didn't receive much notice at the time, but Wednesday the video was picked up by Politico, Wonkette, The Huffington Post, DailyKos and others.

Plenty of supporters virtually begged Gore to enter the 2008 White House race, but the Nobel Prize, Emmy and Oscar-winning environmental activists demurred.

Gore had said he would endorse one of the Democratic contenders before the primary season is over, but some see chances of an endorsement fading.

Whether his latest video is simply an endorsement appetizer remains to be seen.

Contempt citations on hold as Dems, Bush craft stimulus plan

Contempt citations on hold as Dems, Bush craft stimulus plan

Nick Juliano

Last week it was "pretty certain" that House Democrats would quickly move forward with contempt citations against two Bush administration figures who were stonewalling Congress. Then the economy started circling the drain.

The planned citations now appear to be on hold as Congress and the White House work on a bipartisan economic stimulus package, the central tenet of which involves cutting virtually everyone an $800 check.

Democratic leaders and aides tell The Politico that pursuing the contempt citations in conjunction with the stimulus package would "step on their message" of bipartisanship.

The contempt citations against former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten were approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July after the two ignored subpoenas requiring their testimony on the US Attorney firing scandal.

Democratic aides told RAW STORY last week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was about to sent the citations to the full House. The higher priority now appears to be doing something about the US economy, which many fear is nearing recession.

“Right now, we’re focused on working in a bipartisan fashion on [the] stimulus,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) told Politico, indicating that the contempt vote is not expected for weeks, depending on how quickly the stimulus package moves.

Pelosi and House Republican leader John Boehner are Congress's chief negotiators with the White House in working out details of the $145 billion plan, and the two branches seem to be nearing a deal, according to the Washington Post.

"I left the meeting that I just had in the Cabinet Room with the leadership in the House and the Senate with a very positive feeling," Bush said Wednesday. "All of us understand that we need to work together. All of us understand that we need to do something that will be effective. And all of us understand that now is the time to work together to get a package done."

The president's optimism and work-together attitude on the stimulus package sharply contrasts his administration's approach to Congress's investigation into the firing of nine US attorneys in 2006 that appeared to be politically motivated.

Bush has invoked executive privilege in refusing to allow his current or former aides to testify and withholding documents from Congress, although the administration has also insisted that the president was not directly involved in discussions relating to the firings.

Pelosi supports the contempt citations, although some critics say even those do not go far enough to hold the administration accountable because the Justice Department has indicated it will simply ignore them.

But the Speaker has received mixed messages from the Democratic caucus, and "insiders" tell Politico that the citations do not currently have enough support to pass right now.

"When we have the votes, we'll go ahead with this," a House Democratic insider, speaking anonymously, told Politico. "Right now, the votes are just not there."

Correction: Bush's chief of staff's last name is spelled Bolten.

Will the cure be worse than the disease?

Politicians are scrambling to offer a stimulus package, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is slashing interest rates. But they may be paving the way for a bigger calamity down the road.

By Shawn Tully, editor at large

(Fortune Magazine) -- The wobbly economy is overtaking Iraq as the issue weighing most heavily on the minds of America's voters. And Washington has noticed. The White House and Congress are almost certain to enact some kind of stimulus package. But like all such temporary, feel-good measures, it will generate a quick blip in growth that will quickly evaporate. In reality only one player has the power to do anything swift and decisive: the Federal Reserve. And its chairman, Ben Bernanke, has already made his intentions abundantly clear. Unfortunately, the cure he's prescribing may be worse than the disease.

Just how low will the economy go? There are conflicting signals. It's clear that the economy is losing steam. The plummeting value of America's houses is chilling consumer spending, layoffs are mounting, and banks and other creditors burned by the subprime crisis are far more reluctant to lend to everyone from small-business owners to private equity firms. But GDP increased by 4.9% in the third quarter, and economists estimate that GDP was still growing in the fourth quarter. Exports are strong, thanks to the weak dollar. The Fed did a brilliant job last summer by flooding the banks with money to prevent a full-scale credit crunch. Credit is far more expensive today, but it's also becoming more plentiful, as demonstrated by the falling rates on everything from LIBOR - the rate at which international banks lend to each other - to junk bonds. So while a recession is a real possibility, it's not inevitable - even the Fed is not forecasting one this year. And if we do get one, it may be brief and shallow, like the one we had in 2001 - with economic growth falling by perhaps half a percentage point for a couple of quarters, and unemployment rising from its current 5% to 5.5% or 6%.

By cutting rates early and often, Bernanke is acting as though a recession - even a mild one - would be a calamity that must be avoided at all costs. He has already reduced the Fed funds rate (which banks pay when they borrow from each other) by one point, to 4.25%, and promises to "take substantive additional action as needed to support growth," a pledge that Wall Street interprets as meaning at least another half-point cut at the Fed's meeting on Jan. 29, if not sooner.

Many on Wall Street back Bernanke. "I'll defend the Fed," says Bear Stearns chief economist David Malpass. "Part of the slowdown is the result of banks' tightening credit, and you help that by lowering the Fed funds rate." Mickey Levy of Bank of America agrees: "You need to lower rates to offset the drag on housing."

But Bernanke is setting the stage for an even bigger recession down the road. Just as the ultra-low rates of the early 2000s created many of the problems we're experiencing today, pumping money into the system would probably stoke inflation, forcing the Fed to hike rates sharply in the near future. "It's better to take a small recession and kill inflation immediately instead of facing high inflation and a really big recession later," says Carnegie Mellon economist Allan Meltzer.

Meltzer, who is finishing the second volume of his history of the Federal Reserve, warns that Bernanke is risking a disastrous replay of the 1970s, when high oil prices fueled double-digit inflation. Every time the Fed started to tighten and unemployment jumped, chairmen G. William Miller and Arthur Burns lost their nerve. They lowered rates to boost job growth, and inflation inevitably revived, causing a vicious price spiral. The Fed let the disease rage for so long that it took draconian action by chairman Paul Volcker in the early 1980s to finally defeat inflation. The price was a deep recession, with unemployment hitting 11% in 1982. "The mentality is the same as in the 1970s," says Meltzer. "'As soon as we get rid of the risk of recession, we'll do something about inflation.' But that comes too late."

Indeed, while the economy is sending mixed messages about growth, the signs of increasing inflation are flashing bright red. For 2007 the consumer price index rose 4.1%, the biggest annual increase in 17 years. Gold, historically a reliable harbinger of inflation, set an all-time high of more than $900 an ounce. The dollar is languishing at a record low against the euro and a weighted basket of international currencies. "Flooding the market with liquidity is a disaster for the purchasing power of the dollar," says David Gitlitz, chief economist for Trend Macrolytics.

The Fed's supporters tend to downplay those dangers. They contend that the inflation surge is being driven largely by energy costs. Since oil isn't likely to rise from its near-$100 level, inflation is likely to tail off in 2008. "That argument is wrong," says Brian Wesbury, chief economist with First Trust Portfolios, an asset-management firm. "As people spend less to drive to the golf course, they will spend the extra money on golf clubs or other products. The Fed wants to reflate the economy, so the money that went into higher oil prices will drive up the prices of other goods."

Fed supporters also point out that the yield on ten-year Treasury bonds stands at just 3.8%, a figure that implies that investors expect inflation to be around 2% in future years. So if inflation is really expected to rage, why aren't interest rates far higher? The explanation is twofold. First, government bonds are hardly a foolproof forecaster. For example, five years ago Treasury yields were predicting 2% inflation over the next five years, and the actual figure was 3%, or 50% higher. Second, investors are so skittish about most stocks and corporate bonds that they're paying a huge premium for safe investments, chiefly U.S. Treasuries. "It's all about a flight to safety," says Meltzer. Stand by for a major rise in yields as the reality of looming inflation sinks in.

So what is the right course for the Fed? Bernanke should hold the Fed funds rate exactly where it is now, at 4.25%. Standing pat might well push the economy into a recession. But the Fed's newfound vigilance on inflation would boost the dollar, effectively lowering the prices of oil and other imports. America would suffer a short downturn and restore price stability, paving the way to a strong recovery in 2010 or 2011.

Sadly, the Fed has already chosen sides. It's likely to lower rates every time growth slows or joblessness rises. As a result, it will never tame inflation until it becomes a clawing, bellowing threat. Then we'll have to suffer a real recession, the kind we suffered in the aftermath of a time we should study and shouldn't forget - the 1970s.

Supreme Court Tells Enron Investors, “So Sorry, Oh Well…”

Supreme Court Tells Enron Investors, “So Sorry, Oh Well…”

By: Nicole Belle @ 4:45 PM - PST

LA Times:

The Supreme Court today dismissed a huge lawsuit growing out of the Enron debacle that sought to hold Wall Street bankers liable for scheming with the executives of the defunct Houston energy trader.

Lawyers for investment funds and pension plans, including the University of California’s pension plan, had sued Merrill Lynch and the other bankers, seeking to recover more than $30 billion that was lost when Enron folded in 2001. They argued that all the key players in the scheme that fooled stockholders should be forced to pay.

In dismissing the appeal of the Regents of the University of California vs. Merrill Lynch, the court appeared to doom the big lawsuits still pending against Enron’s bankers.

Today’s ruling is the most recent of a spate of decisions in which the courts have favored businesses. Last week, the Supreme Court rejected the notion of “scheme liability” in a closely watched stock fraud case involving a cable TV company and its vendors. In a 5-3 ruling, the court said suits for stock fraud are limited to the company that sells stock to the public, not bankers and other firms that had done deals with the company.

Decisions favoring businesses and protecting them from accountability from collusion and fraud against investors, whodathunk it from the Roberts Supreme Court? This precedent will also make it difficult to sue sub-prime players. As the Houston Chronicles says, the Enron-driven reforms are now unraveling. And it is this environment that the White House want YOU to direct your Social Security account…with no security.

Is the Dem Congress Criminally Insane?

Is the Dem Congress Criminally Insane?

By Rob Kall

This coming year will be a time when the damage Bush and Cheney have done so far will seem miniscule, compared to what they can and will do if allowed to continue running the US into the ground.

In the SC debate, yesterday, the DEM candidates agreed that Bush has been incredibly destructive.

Failure to impeach and quickly end the occupation will send the US into an irreversible nosedive.

The world is entering a time of chaos. It will be a time of fluctuations-- in power, finance, alliances, war...

Many things will not be as they seem.

The next year, with such massive instability, will be a time of great danger to the middle class. If you are afraid, you have good justification.

This coming year will be a time when the damage Bush and Cheney have done so far will seem miniscule, compared to what they can and will do if allowed to continue running the US into the ground.

Today, to intervene, hoping to damp the expected crash that the rest of the world experienced yesterday, the Fed cut a key interest rate 3/4s of a point. We still see, an hour into the market day, the market down 350 points-- with a massive rate cut. The Bush/Cheney administration is clueless and don't have any answers. It's not suprising, since they have made appointments based on loyalty, not competence.

In the SC debate, yesterday, the candidates agreed that Bush has been incredibly destructive.

Hillary said, "We will inherit a huge amount of damage from President Bush." and Obama said, "When you look at Bush and Cheney and what they've done for us... They have given their party a very bad name. "

It is criminally insane for the congress to allow Bush and Cheney to continue, without holding impeachment hearings. The candidates, at least the Democratic candidates, should be challenged on impeachment at every opportunity. "If you know the damage Bush and Cheney are doing to the nation, why are you not supporting impeachment?"

It is screamingly obvious that the war in Iraq is siphoning off, sucking out the spine of our economy and without those funds, we are hurting.

It is time for the Democrats in congress to stand up to the failed, incompetent, but loud-mouthed right wing financial, economic, military incompetents who have led our country to the brink of ruin. If Pelosi and Reid fail to take action now, they should be drummed out of congress. They have a historic opportunity to rescue America. Waiting a year, until the next president is inaugurated is far too long. They must act courageously, now.

It is essential that the democrats in congress get the message that simple tax breaks are not going to ingratiate them to the public. Simple tax breaks will not persuade the public that the congress has a handle on the economic problems we face. On the contrary, people see this as a weak, shallow, meaningless, almost insulting gesture.

The way the congress can help America is to get Cheney, then Bush out, and put someone in who can function competently and intelligently-- maybe James Baker. Yes, he is a Republican. But he is competent and it is not possible to put a Democrat in. That will have to wait.

If congress begins impeachment hearings... HEARINGS, not votes... in short order, Cheney will be forced to resign and he will be replaced and Bush will be investigated next with impeachment hearings. The hearings will force Bush to resign and the congress will be in a position to get things done. Republicans who were blocking solutions will be forced to cooperate to save their jobs.

The democrats in congress got together and agreed that they would reject impeachment with the excuse that it would keep them from getting things done. That is a lie and it must be called a lie, to legislators' faces. They must be aggressively challenged on it, so they no longer feel safe or comfortable using it, insulting we the people with it.

The idea of George Bush, a failure at everything he has touched in his life, at the helm when we face such economic cataclysm is horrific. Cheney is a predatory parasite, not a leader who can solve our problems or rescue our economy. They are both criminals many times over and it is time, beyond time for them to be ejected from office and replaced. America deserves better than them and the congress has a responsibility to make it happen as soon as possible.

Firefighter: Giuliani 'ran like a coward on 9/11'

Firefighter: Giuliani 'ran like a coward on 9/11'

David Edwards and Adam Doster Published: Tuesday January 22, 2008 |

Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state's upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner.

"We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic," said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, "telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that's another lie."

Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani's big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate.

"He didn't prepare us before, during, or after," says Riches.

Giuliani has campaigned strongly on his leadership during the attacks on New York, claiming he is the best suited to prevent an "Islamic terrorist war against us." But the firefighters were quick to question that courage.

"Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run," says Riches. "And he ran north, and that's all he did."

The Giuliani campaign labeled the display a misleading, partisan attack. The former mayor is also emphasizing his ability to deal with the economy, distancing himself from the 9/11 pitch.

This video is from CNN.com, broadcast January 22, 2008.

Stock Markets Plunge Worldwide

Stock Markets Plunge Worldwide
TOBY ANDERSON

LONDON — Stocks fell sharply worldwide Monday following declines on Wall Street last week amid investor pessimism over the U.S. government's stimulus plan to prevent a recession.
U.S. markets were closed for Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but the downbeat mood from last week's market declines there circled through Europe, Asia and the Americas. Britain's benchmark FTSE-100 slumped 5.5 percent to 5,578.20, France's CAC-40 Index tumbled 6.8 percent to 4,744.15, and Germany's blue-chip DAX 30 plunged 7.2 percent to 6,790.19.
In Asia, India's benchmark stock index tumbled 7.4 percent, while Hong Kong's blue-chip Hang Seng index plummeted 5.5 percent to 23,818.86, its biggest percentage drop since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Canadian stocks fell as well, with the S&P/TSX composite index on the Toronto Stock Exchange down 4 percent in early afternoon trading. In Brazil, stocks plunged 6.9 percent on the main index of Sao Paulo's Bovespa exchange.

Investors dumped shares because they were skeptical that an economic stimulus plan President Bush announced Friday would shore up the economy that has been battered by problems in its housing and credit markets. The plan, which requires approval by Congress, calls for about $145 billion worth of tax relief to encourage consumer spending.

"We've taken our lead from the Asian markets who have not been impressed by the U.S. There's debate if there's going to be a recession in the U.S. I don't think there's much chance of that though," said Richard Hunter an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers Ltd. in London.
Concerns about the outlook for the U.S. economy, a major export market for Asian companies, has sent the region's markets sliding in 2008. Just last Wednesday, the Hang Seng index sank 5.4 percent.

"It's another horrible day," said Francis Lun, a general manager at Fulbright Securities in Hong Kong. "Today it's because of disappointment that the U.S. stimulus (package) is too little, too late and investors feel it won't help the economy recover."

Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 index slid 3.9 percent to close at 13,325.94 points, its lowest close in more than two years. China's Shanghai Composite index plunged 5.1 percent, partly on worries about mainland Chinese banks' exposure to risky U.S. mortgage investments.
"People are certainly nervous about a potential recession in the U.S. spilling over to the rest of the world," said David Cohen, Director of Asian Economic Forecasting at Action Economics in Singapore.

"Maybe there's still some wariness about politicians are able to come up with a compromise and act sufficiently quickly" on a stimulus package, Cohen said. "I think the impact would be marginal anyway."

Investors took cues from the negative reaction to the president's plan on Wall Street on Friday, when the Dow Jones industrial average slid 0.5 percent to 12,099.30, bringing its loss for the year so far to nearly 9 percent.

Traders also have shrugged off assurances from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that the U.S. central bank is ready to act aggressively _ which means a likely big interest rate cut later this month _ to help the sagging economy.

Some analysts predict that Asia won't suffer dramatically from a U.S. recession because increased trade and investment within Asia has made the region less reliant on the United States than in the past. Excluding Japan, 43 percent of Asia's exports go to other nations in the region, Lehman Brothers calculates, up from 37 percent in 1995.

But on Monday, uncertainty and pessimism reigned.

In Tokyo trading, exporters got hit hard, partly because of the yen's recent strength against the dollar. Toyota Motor Corp. lost 3.3 percent and Honda Motor Co. sank 3.4 percent.
Shares of Bank of China dropped 6.4 percent in Hong Kong after the South China Morning Post newspaper reported that the bank is expected to announce a "significant write-down" in U.S. subprime mortgage securities, citing unidentified sources. In Shanghai, the bank's stock declined 4.1 percent.

India's the benchmark Sensex index fell 1,353 points, or 7.4 percent _ its second-biggest percentage drop ever _ to 17,605.35 points. At one point, it was down nearly 11 percent.
The decline hit companies across the board, with power utility Reliance Energy Ltd. falling 16.4 percent. Major software company Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. slid 7.6 percent
"A gloomy U.S. climate has affected the global markets. Even if those markets recover, it will take sometime for the recovery to reach India because today's fall has been so drastic," said Jayant Pai, of the Mumbai investment company IL&FS Ltd.

Still, Pai and others suggested that the declines could lead to a buying opportunity.
"The sell-off today takes us close to the bottom," she said.

Since the start of the year, Japan's Nikkei index has declined 13 percent, while Hong Kong's blue-chip index is down more than 14 percent. Even China's Shanghai index _ which nearly doubled last year _ has fallen 6.6 percent over the same period and nearly 20 percent from its all-time closing high on Oct. 16.

Email missing from Cheney's office on day White House told to preserve documents in CIA leak

Email missing from Cheney's office on day White House told to preserve documents in CIA leak


New report shows archives gone on several key days in Plame investigation
Among the sixteen days for which email are missing from Vice President Cheney's office is Sept. 30, 2003, the same day the day the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced they were investigating who outed former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson.
That morning, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered the president and the vice president's staff to "preserve all materials that might be relevant" to an inchoate Justice Department probe.

"We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee," Gonzales wrote in a terse Sep. 30, 2003 email. "The Department advised us that it will be sending a letter today instructing us to preserve all materials that might be relevant to its investigation. Its letter will provide more specific instructions on the materials in which it is interested, and we will communicate those instructions directly to you. In the meantime, you must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the Department's investigation."
The analysis was released over the weekend by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based ethics watchdog.

The White House said in a court filing last week that backup tapes, which contained archived copies of the e-mails, were recycled as part of a policy the White House had in place until October 2003.

Special Prosecutor and Chicago US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald convicted Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of obstructing justice and lying to investigators last year. Fitzgerald noted in a January 2006 letter that some of the White House's emails had not been archived.

Emails gone on day Bush said he'd 'take care of' leaker
Ironically, Cheney's office is missing emails from the very day President Bush told reporters he'd "take care of" whatever staff member had actually leaked the CIA agent's name.

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush said Sept. 30, 2003. "And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."
The day before, then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan had said there was "nothing, absolutely nothing" to suggest any White House involvement.
"And that includes the vice president's office, as well," McClellan added.

Much remains to be learned about what happened to White House e-mails on 473 days for which they seem to have disappeared. A lawsuit brought by CREW and the National Security Archive and planned hearings from the House Oversight Committee are trying to find out just how much of the historical record of the Bush administration ended up in the White House recycling bin.
Cheney's office also is missing e-mails from Oct. 4, 2003, when the Justice Department demanded that the White House turn over "all documents that relate in any way" to the leak of Plame's identity. E-mails are also missing for the following day, during which the probe intensified and CIA director George Tenet found himself at the center of it, "caught between his loyalty to the president and defending an agency enraged" at Plame's exposure, according to the New York Times.

As Fitzgerald's probe continued over the next few years, emails continued to disappear, CREW says. More e-mails were missing from Cheney's office on Feb. 16, 2005, when a court ordered reporters who had discussed Plame's identity with administration officials to testify about those conversations.

All in all, some 473 days of emails are missing from various Administration departments, according to a House Democrat who saw a White House presentation on the files.

Pioneer Female Journalist Frances Lewine Dies
January 20, 2008 06:29 PM EST
WASHINGTON — Frances Lewine, a White House correspondent for The Associated Press during the administrations of six presidents, from Eisenhower to Carter, has died of a probable stroke. She was 86.

Lewine, who died Saturday, joined the Washington bureau of the AP in 1956 to cover general assignments, including White House social events and other activities of the first family. But despite her sometimes glamorous assignments, she often expressed frustration that she was relegated to social and family stories and sidebars while male colleagues covered the president.

Lewine's coverage of first families was deeply appreciated, however, by Luci Baines Johnson, daughter of President Lyndon Johnson.

"Fran was a part of my daily life from the time I moved into the White House until my father moved out. She was just part of my extended family," Johnson said. "She was there for all the big moments in my personal life from high school graduation, to my first day of university, to my marriage, through the 'baby watch' for my first born."

Johnson said that "when my son Lyndon was born, Fran joked about being one of his 'godmothers.' "

"Fran was a professional journalist of the highest caliber who didn't compromise the quality or accuracy of her story, but also didn't compromise common decency," Johnson said. "I loved her. I'll miss her."

Longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas, now a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, described Lewine as "a great, great wire service reporter with the highest integrity."

"We were very competitive during the day," Thomas said, "but we were great friends during the evening."

Lewine became a leader among women journalists in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, protesting discrimination against women in jobs and assignments. She was president of The Women's National Press Club at a time when some major journalistic organizations excluded women or limited their participation. The efforts of Lewine and other reporters eventually led to such groups as the National Press Club and the Gridiron Club opening their membership to women.

"Fran Lewine was a pioneer for women in journalism and she stood up to the Washington 'media' establishment and helped open doors that had been open only to men," said Edith Lederer, chief AP correspondent at the United Nations. "She was passionate about freedom of the press, concerned about maintaining the highest journalistic standards in this era of new media _ and a wonderful friend."

Lewine left the AP in 1977 to join the Carter administration and became deputy director of public affairs for the Transportation Department. When President Carter left office in 1981, she moved to the fledgling Cable News Network as an assignment editor and field producer.
"Fran was one of my closest friends, a mentor, colleague, sister and a role model for what a great woman could accomplish in journalism," AP legal writer Linda Deutsch said. "She was truly a legend but so self-effacing you would never know how much of this country's history she had covered."

Lewine was born Jan. 20, 1921, in New York City and grew up in Far Rockaway, Long Island, in an extended family household that included her first cousin Richard Feynman, who later won the Nobel Prize in physics. Upon graduation from Hunter College, where she edited the college newspaper, she worked as a reporter for the Plainfield, N.J., Courier-News and the Newark, N.J., bureau of The AP before moving to the AP's Washington bureau.
She was also a member of Executive Women in Government and the Society of Professional Journalists. She was elected to the Washington Society of Professional Journalists Hall of Fame and to the Hunter College Hall of Fame, and was awarded the Missouri Honor Medal for Distinguished Service in Journalism last October.

Deutsch said Lewine had undergone surgery two weeks ago to correct a blocked carotid artery. She died at home of a probable stroke, according to a coroner's preliminary ruling, and was found by friends.

She had planned to celebrate her 87th birthday on Sunday at Charles Town Races in West Virginia, where friends had arranged to have a race named in her honor.
Funeral arrangements were pending.

Pelosi greeted with “Impeach” Bush and Cheney buttons

January 18th, 2008, filed by Thomas Ferraro

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she’s drawing heat from fellow Democratic lawmakers as well as people across the nation for refusing to move to impeach President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.


“I go through airports, and people have buttons as if they knew I was coming,” Pelosi said with a smile, mimicking a protester pointing to an “Impeach” button on their chest.

But the California Democrat said she is sticking to her position that trying to remove Bush or Cheney would be divisive, and she added, most likely unsuccessful. If the House voted to impeach Bush and Cheney, a two-thirds vote would be needed in the closely divided Senate to oust them.


Many Democrats and civil liberties groups have accused the Bush administration of misleading the United States
into the Iraq war and violating the rights of U.S. citizens with its warrantless surveillance program. The White House denies the charges.


In helping Democrats win back control of Congress in 2006 from Republicans, Pelosi said she would not push for impeachment despite a number of calls to do so.

Speaking with reporters, she recalled that she wanted to focus on unifying the nation, passing the Democrats’ legislative agenda — not picking an impeachment fight with the White House.


“It was my belief that an impeachment of the Vice President or the President … would be very divisive in our country, and that is what I believed then,” Pelosi said. “It should have come to no
surprise when I became Speaker I said it again, and I continue to hold that view.”

Clinton Ad Gets Some Magic

Clinton Ad Gets Some Magic

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Consider it a bit of advice from one hoops player to another.
In a radio ad for Hillary Rodham Clinton, Earvin "Magic" Johnson, the celebrated Los Angeles Lakers point guard, recalls his first year as professional basketball player.

"We won our first game on a last second shot," he says in the ad, now airing in South Carolina. "I was so hyped. But the captain of my team said, 'take it easy rookie, it's a long season, it's a long road to the championship.' He was right."

Johnson wants South Carolina voters to send the same message to Barack Obama, whose left-handed jump shot and sharp elbows have been known to attract notice in a pickup game.
Of course, it's all a metaphor for the presidency.

"Whether it's winning championships or a president who can lead us back to greatness, I'll always want the most prepared and experienced person leading my team," says Johnson, who has endorsed Clinton and campaigned with her. "That's why I'm asking you to join me in voting for Hillary Clinton for President.

The Sham of the Bush-Pelosi Tax Rebate Economic Stimulus-- that could cost a Trillion Dollars

By Bill Burkett

From 1972 through 1980, I was a Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration employee as an Economic Development Specialist. In life, we find natural fits and that was mine. I was really good at it; and received numerous regional and national accolades for my proficiency. With that as a basis for my stated opinion I am compelled to comment on this public drive by President Bush and the Democrats to place a band-aid on the American economy.

Understanding the Economic "drivers" of America has led us to fifty years of a few positive experiences and a whole lot of politicized negatives. The President and Speaker both understand that over 57% of all voters were neither voters nor spenders in 1988, when most of the underlying bad policy began to drive down our economic principles and ability to heal ourselves through true supply and demand – free market principles.

The Bush/Pelosi package of tax rebates that is already awash in the political news hour is NOT an economic stimulus package, because it again applies remedies in places that do not stimulate re-growth.

Tax cuts will always be disproportional to the pain index and those that feel the pain the most. The Reagan theory is that tax cuts stimulus should be "trickle down" driven - and maintain the fairness concept that those that pay, should be rebated. When in truth, if tax collection was truly fairness driven, that logic might apply, but since tax policy is vastly skewed the logic is false. One can not credibly use such logic, without fairness across the board.

Yet, Nancy Pelosi and others have already jumped on this bandwagon because they have also allowed the non-sense notion that consumer spending drives the American economy to rule economic policy.

I don’t want to jump too hard on Ronald Reagan to those that were born after his presidency and have been driven to idolize him. His economic policy was actually that of David Stockman. It was called supply-side economics. The name implied that the policies to realign and accumulate wealth and investment would be realized through inertia within job and economic investment within America. What actually happened was the newly acquired and concentrated wealth was far more fluid and mobile; less controllable; and more greed influenced than idealistically intended. More investment dollars were exported to develop burgeoning and in some cases, third-World economic investment because you could simply get more bang for the buck, more return on investment in those underdeveloped economies; with less competition and less risk. This unbridled and uncontrolled policy, instead created a runaway competition to export industrial capacity to lower labor cost areas, for example. The patriotic zeal that was envisioned and skillfully communicated as only Reagan could do had been hijacked by personal and corporate zeal. The negative stigma of investing overseas first, rather than in America first was never checked post-Reagan and still undermines the true American economy.

So when I hear the phrase that America’s economy has become service based, I recognize this reality as a result of poor economic policy that still has not been reversed. This is also using economic terms to people who don’t want to understand economic principles as a cover for bad decision making in the past. Economic principles are not easily understood because they are not tangible; yet are as basic and painful as reconciling and balancing the family checkbook.

When I hear the new mantra that this is now a consumer spending based economy, I cringe for numerous reasons. First, consumers can not spend money they can not earn. And without jobs that provide more than bare necessities, disposable income does not provide the ability to spend. No amount of handout changes that truth.

This notion is purely a political and journalistic cover for poor policy of building economies world wide first and America last. Globalization is the next generation sham principle of that same failed policy. While we can not isolate from the World and its economy, we can not export our ability to be self-sustaining.

Within all of this foundation of principle, I hope to comment using the inconsistencies of political speak of both parties as headed by both Bush and Pelosi and explain why this notion of tax rebates is a new round of poor economic policy.

Stimulus as a means of Recovery

Stimulating consumer spending as an economic stimulus is pure hogwash. It has no real affect. Giving the average American a fifty dollar bill will not change anything. It, in fact, is an inflationary action and the inflationary impacts will far outstrip the true value of that $50 average rebate. Yet the direct cost would initially be $15 billion dollars and indirectly cost nearer seven times that amount.

It doesn't alter the continuous rise in costs - true inflation as opposed to inflation as measured by the revised, revised statistics of today. When we measured inflation in the 1970s, we truly measured inflation. I've kept an inflation barometer based upon the formulas we used to measure inflation before Reagan began to gerrymander the numbers for political gain, since he was unable to truly solve the problems of inflation and falling productivity within the US. The headlines of 1977 were prime interest rates of 17% and true inflation over 11%. By 1981, the numbers had fallen only slightly. Using the same formulas, the second quarter of 2007 would have yielded a true inflation rate of 9.3%; while the Congress and President only quoted a 2.3% cost of living rate for social security recipients. This was not by accident. In fact, it was a continuation of bad policy; reflected by gerrymandered numbers with intent to use social security recipients to help balance a staggering budget.

The measures of economic strength/weakness applied by most economists working within the banking industry include the “net cost” of money. Simply stated, this is the prime interest rate less the true inflation rate. This determines the true worth of investment. Do the comparisons to determine whether this is a good time to invest and then factor in the housing meltdowns that still have not been fully realized. Again, we are dealing with several factors of which only the tip of the iceberg is yet seen, on some.

1977-1988 were the root cause years of today’s dilemma; when after the failing of this country to pay for the Vietnam War, we drove up inflation and interest rates and sought a political solution instead of an economic one. We’ve never been able to face economic reality since – not even within the Clinton years when the budget was balanced by inordinate earnings of the technology bubble.

The net effect of this political policy was that we simply printed more money and priced not only our products, but the cost of building our products out of the world-wide competitive marketplace. Once we factor in the devastating monetary policy, we understand that gasoline that has a pain index to those using the dollar, has a pain index of $2 to those using the Euro and only one dollar within the producing states. This disproportionate pain again exacerbates the domestic economic dilemma. And no, it is not an option to convert the US system from the dollar to the Euro.

We also took away the critical key to economic correction - PERSONAL SAVINGS - by encouraging spending in tough times rather than encouraging savings as was accented in the 1880s to recover from the post Civil War Depression and again in the 1930s/1940s to recover from World War I and the poor political economic policy of the consumer based roaring twenties.

We are so far out of kilter, that I'm not sure how we can get back into shape without a major depression which will again level the playing field.

BOTH political parties, by claiming and reinforcing the false claim that this is a consumer spending based economy are doing nothing but building the requirement for bailing out overbuilt industries, including consumer based service industries.

It's far easier to understand - economically - that when we have too much capacity within a single industry, the industry is overbuilt and therefore must retract. As a result the excess capacity, by pure law of supply and demand, will be trimmed by lack of ability to market its production and the least efficient or capitalized will be closed down purely by lack of profit. In America, we currently have numerous such overbuilt business and service sectors that have been artificially propped up by poor policy. Certainly, it can be argued, that allowing the free market to take these effects will cause a deep economic recession where job loss will be prevalent. This would be far less painful, if America had not been allowed to become so dependent on consumerism; on imports; and thus a nose-diving dollar. But the facts remain. The only thing holding up this economy has long been false assertions and claims, and the motive for maintaining is to protect businesses at the expense of consumers, rather than vice versa.

The economic bubble must be deflated rather than allowed to collapse if this nation’s economic future will be recovered. There will be much pain, and gnashing of teeth. Great institutions will be forced to face their own folly and many may not survive. In an uncontrolled manner, the damage will be cataclysmic. Within a controlled process, the pain will be extreme, but manageable.

Not once have I heard EITHER Bush or Pelosi talk about the causes of this near hyper inflation (when measured in true economic terms).

The critical cause is FUEL and ENERGY.

The alternative energy bill is again, a politically driven sham to provide economic kickbacks primarily to Archer Daniels Midland - (look up the political contributions of ADM and its primary ownership Mark Andreas and associates and their history and you understand both cause and affect). Florida Power and Light and others have also been direct recipients of these kickbacks.

Under any previous American historical picture, regulations which artificially withheld production within the US would be altered to affect policy; and if gouging was taking place, regulatory authority would be implemented to correct it.

But deregulation has taken away any control or ability to respond. Instead corporate power and monopolistic control have allowed the stranglehold of excessive energy costs, and limited true alternatives to the internal combustion engine and other technological solutions to be slowed or stopped.

Now comes the Bush-Pelosi Washington solution.

Using the rebate process as a salve rather than true remedy also places the US government's fiscal house in even worse order. Believe me; in order to cover the outlays of such a regressive measure, the budget will go further into the red; requiring higher interest offsets within the prime rate and exacerbating the overall problem. This is a dangerous cycle that will be driven within the economy; one that will last three to five times the pain of just facing the problem to begin with.

Adding just one quarter percent to the cost of a mortgage will cost the average home owner, AND RENTER an additional $375 per year. But the deleterious affect of this policy will likely drive up true interest four to five times that - simply on its own. So what is the true cost of this $50 rebate check? I would say that by the time the rebates are privatized, and the cost of government is added, that a $50 stimulus rebate will actually cost each consumer in the neighborhood of $650-700.

Bush/Pelosi are thinking of $800 per individual taxpayer. Quick math says the up-front cost will be $120 billion and the real cost about 6.3 times that amount or almost a trillion dollars.

This is stupid economic policy.

Since we have now gone almost thirty years within the charade that our economy is a consumer spending economy - a picture that can not sustain itself - then how do you face the issue today?

1. Face the root causes. The recently passed energy bill didn't face a single cause. On the one hand, we speak of being a consumer spending economy, but every stimulus given within that energy bill was given to corporate and business structures. Give tax advantages TO CONSUMERS for Energy savings from weatherizing, to developing solar systems; buying more efficient cars, etc. This allows consumers to drive the economic turnaround rather than business being paid to protect its own gluttonous behavior that got us into this mess in the first place.

Think of how on the one hand we call this a consumer spending economy, but inconsistently apply the band aid to the provider.

2. Reward efficiency at every turn through the individual tax system. When tax savings can drive decision making, banks will lend money to make this happen to 70+% of Americans with good credit scores. This also allows banks a stimulus to do the right thing, rather than chasing the wrong economic policy as they have done now for the last 23 years.

3. BALANCE THE BUDGET and pay as we go. We can't dig out of this mess without quitting digging. When you go deeper and deeper with your budget, you have to quit digging before a recovery can take place. We must now pay for the boondoggles of politics and follies of foreign policy that have gone unpaid. Yes, this means that economic decisions now must strongly influence and maybe even dictate a major portion of foreign policy. Imperialism is not an economically sustainable option. America has learned that four times in history and supposedly learned by watching the rise and fall of other supreme nations including Great Britian This means that War in perpetuity - the War on Terror or other Wars against factions rather than States - are simply not prosecutable until we have regained our economic balance. It also means that "bridges to no-Where, Alaska" should become not only impeachable offenses, but criminally prosecutable ones, as an example. Using the philosophy that this is a consumer-spending economy encourages waste and corruption. Neither is tolerable within the building blocks of a strong economy.

1. Realign the tax system for fairness; not stimulus. Wealth realignment has been allowed to occur over the past thirty years under the guise of economic stimulus. Any time local communities want to justify a bond issue today, they call it economic and job development. This is literally false economic policy and politically boondoggling. So is the practice of realigning wealth and protecting the ‘haves’ under the umbrella that they are the job providers. Within any tax system that makes exceptions for one over another will become loopholes that encourage waste and corruption as well. For example, why are Wall Street investors given special tax consideration over those that, for example, invest in plant, equipment, real estate or jobs? Is this sound policy, or a reward to the ‘have’s’? If so, we now have not only the class warfare of the ‘have’s’ and ‘have nots’ but a new super ‘elite have’s’ from which to provide different economic policy.

If this is a consumer based economy, then consumer based fairness must apply. A Flat Tax proposal without upper limits - based not on deductions, but on pure raw income may have to be applied to remedy this gross mismanagement of public policy in America. I am not in favor of it, from a theoretical basis, but even the two richest Americans tout that we have gone way too far in protections for the “have's” and taken away the ability to survive and thrive from those working the hardest. I am far more supportive of the theoretical edge of a flat tax as compared to the smokescreen issue of a simple sales tax. With a sales tax, immediately, the issue of deductibles for business and job creation will influence policy, and the warping of that approach will end with a further distortion of fairness. Discipline is not a strong suit in Washington.

5. Finally, all sacrifices must be jointly shared. This seems simple, yet, the last three generations have worked the hardest to insure this as a slogan but not as true policy. This principle if applied across the board would mean that all citizens; regardless of race, color, creed, gender or age would share the burden of financing, equipping, defending and prospering in America. In times of War, all Americans would share the burden to pay the costs of both blood and treasure. Every American is a ‘common’ stockholder with one share of stock in this nation. There are no ‘preferred’ stockholders.

Waxman sets the record straight

By: Steve Benen @ 5:15 AM - PST

Following up on an item from yesterday, the White House officially made a ridiculous argument about officials’ missing emails.

The White House is currently under fire for allegations that it violated the Presidential Records Act by failing to archive official e-mails. Facing a court order, the White House yesterday acknowledged that it recycled its “backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003,” raising the possibility that many messages “have been taped over and are gone forever.”

Yet when asked about the missing e-mails in today’s White House press briefing, spokesman Tony Fratto inexplicably tried to claim that the White House has “absolutely no reason to believe that any e-mails are missing.” He argued that these scurrilous charges of missing e-mails “came from outside the White House.”

Fortunately, we have Henry Waxman to set the record straight.

The White House possesses no archived e-mail messages for many of its component offices, including the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President, for hundreds of days between 2003 and 2005, according to the summary of an internal White House study that was disclosed yesterday by a congressional Democrat.

The 2005 study — whose credibility the White House attacked this week — identified 473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices, said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

Did Fratto not realize he’d be called on such a blatant falsehood? Or does the Bush White House simply no longer care?

Scientists Make Human Embryo Clones

NEW YORK — Scientists in California say they have produced embryos that are clones of two men, a potential step toward developing scientifically valuable stem cells.

The new report documents embryos made with ordinary skin cells. But it's not the first time human cloned embryos have been made. In 2005, for example, scientists in Britain reported using embryonic stem cells to produce a cloned embryo. It matured enough to produce stem cells, but none were extracted.

Stem cells weren't produced by the new embryos either, and because of that, experts reacted coolly to the research.

"I found it difficult to determine what was substantially new," said Doug Melton of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He said the "next big advance will be to create a human embryonic stem cell line" from cloned embryos. "This has yet to be achieved."

Dr. George Daley of the Harvard institute and Children's Hospital Boston called the new report interesting but agreed that "the real splash" will be when somebody creates stem cell lines from cloned human embryos.

"It's only a matter of time before some group succeeds," Daley said.

Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk claimed a few years ago that he'd created such cell lines, but that turned out to be a fraud.

Dr. Samuel Wood, a co-author of the new paper and chief executive of Stemagen Corp. of La Jolla, Calif., said he and his colleagues are now attempting to produce stem cell lines from the embryos.

The work was published online Thursday by the journal Stem Cells.

Scientists say stem cells from cloned embryos could provide a valuable tool for studying diseases, screening drugs and, perhaps someday, creating transplant material to treat conditions like diabetes and Parkinson's disease.

But critics raise objections. The process "involves creating human lives in the laboratory solely to destroy them for alleged benefit to others," said Richard Doerflinger, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Citing the earlier work in Britain, he also said that as a scientific advancement, the new work was "very limited."

Other objections to cloning include concerns about health risks and exploitation if large numbers of women are asked to provide eggs.

Those objections are one reason that an alternative route to stem cells made headlines last November. Scientists reported a relatively simple way to turn skin cells directly into stem cells. This direct reprogramming carries a theoretical risk of cancer for the recipients of tissue from these cells, however, and many scientists have urged that work continue on the cloning technique as well.

The cloning approach involves inserting DNA from a person into an egg, and then growing the egg into an embryo about five days old before extracting the stem cells. At that stage, the embryo is a sphere of about 150 cells.

In the new work, researchers took skin cells from Wood and another volunteer and produced three embryos with DNA matching the men's. Further DNA testing on one of these embryos strengthened the case that it was a clone, researchers said.

___

'Doctors saw entry and exit bullet wounds on Bhutto's head'
16 Jan 2008, 2140 hrs IST,PTI

SMS NEWS to 58888 for latest updates

WASHINGTON: The husband of slain former premier Benazir Bhutto has claimed that doctors who tried to revive her after a suicide attack "clearly stated" that they saw the entry and exit wounds of a bullet on her head, contradicting Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who said there was a wound only on one side. "The doctors who first tried to revive her (Bhutto) had clearly stated that they saw bullet wounds entry and exit. The doctors were then threatened and hushed up. The authorities have all along been trying to cover up and changed their versions," Asif Ali Zardari said in an interview to The Washington Times. Musharraf had earlier said in an interview that there is "no bullet wound other than on the right side......A bullet wound is a small hole, and if the bullet goes through it makes a big hole on the other side". Zardari slammed Musharraf, saying that the president "has shown that he does not respect the constitution and considers his own word above that of the law", adding that the upcoming general election "cannot be free and fair." "The electoral rolls are flawed. The election commission is far from independent. The media and judiciary are not free. The district governments and intelligence agencies are openly engaged in electoral fraud," Zardari said. The PPP co-chairman, however, would not say if his party would seek the impeachment of Musharraf if opposition parties get a majority in the elections. "This question is hypothetical. For now, we are focused on the elections," he said