Judging the Election
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
<font size="5">
Appointment of Judges
</font size>
<font size="3">
There are plenty of other good reasons why so many people are wringing their hands over the outcome of the Virginia Senate race between George Allen and Jim Webb. If Webb maintains his lead through the canvassing and recount process, a fairly good bet at this point, control of the Senate will strengthen the hands of the Democrats as they negotiate with the White House on issues foreign and domestic. On the other hand, if Allen miraculously comes back to win, the Senate will remain in GOP hands and thus temper whatever policy initiatives come out of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
But one of the most vital and long-lasting reasons why control of the U.S. Senate matters is the role that body plays in confirming federal judges. If the Democrats regain control of the Senate, President Bush will no longer be able to try to force through that body staunchly conservative judicial nominees like the two men he recently nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court-- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito-- and countless other lower federal courts judges who are even more ideological and partisan than those Justices. If the President wants to succeed in appointing any judges at all in the face of a Democratic Senate, he will have to look to more moderate jurists. And there are still plenty of them out there, in case you were wondering.
But Senate Democrats will face their own pressure points if and when Webb prevails. No longer will they be able, politically anyway, to threaten to filibuster when the President appoints federal judges. If they obtain their majority, they will have a responsibility to fill the many vacancies on the federal bench-- some that have existed for years. If they balk at this job they will subject themselves to an honest charge of obstructionism, the opposite of what they pledged to do on election night when the extent of their victory became clear.
There is an opportunity now, I believe, for real progress on the judicial nomination front, which has been mired for years in rank partisan conflict. The President has to know from these election results that he must govern with a more moderate focus. And if Webb prevails in Virginia Senate Democrats have to know that their newfound power brings with it newfound responsibilities to ensure that our federal judiciary is up and running at full speed, with many fewer vacancies than it now has. The moment is here. Let's see what the politicians can do with it.
</font size>
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/11/09/couricandco/entry2165305.shtml
Appointment of Judges
</font size>
<font size="3">
There are plenty of other good reasons why so many people are wringing their hands over the outcome of the Virginia Senate race between George Allen and Jim Webb. If Webb maintains his lead through the canvassing and recount process, a fairly good bet at this point, control of the Senate will strengthen the hands of the Democrats as they negotiate with the White House on issues foreign and domestic. On the other hand, if Allen miraculously comes back to win, the Senate will remain in GOP hands and thus temper whatever policy initiatives come out of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.
But one of the most vital and long-lasting reasons why control of the U.S. Senate matters is the role that body plays in confirming federal judges. If the Democrats regain control of the Senate, President Bush will no longer be able to try to force through that body staunchly conservative judicial nominees like the two men he recently nominated to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court-- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito-- and countless other lower federal courts judges who are even more ideological and partisan than those Justices. If the President wants to succeed in appointing any judges at all in the face of a Democratic Senate, he will have to look to more moderate jurists. And there are still plenty of them out there, in case you were wondering.
But Senate Democrats will face their own pressure points if and when Webb prevails. No longer will they be able, politically anyway, to threaten to filibuster when the President appoints federal judges. If they obtain their majority, they will have a responsibility to fill the many vacancies on the federal bench-- some that have existed for years. If they balk at this job they will subject themselves to an honest charge of obstructionism, the opposite of what they pledged to do on election night when the extent of their victory became clear.
There is an opportunity now, I believe, for real progress on the judicial nomination front, which has been mired for years in rank partisan conflict. The President has to know from these election results that he must govern with a more moderate focus. And if Webb prevails in Virginia Senate Democrats have to know that their newfound power brings with it newfound responsibilities to ensure that our federal judiciary is up and running at full speed, with many fewer vacancies than it now has. The moment is here. Let's see what the politicians can do with it.
</font size>
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/11/09/couricandco/entry2165305.shtml
<img src="http://image.guardian.co.uk/sitelogos/Guardian.gif">
<img src="http://image.guardian.co.uk/siteheaders/Guardian.gif">
<hr noshade color="#333333" size="2"></hr>
<font face="arial black" size="7" color="#d90000">Thank You, America</font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>US midterm elections
<p>EDITORIAL</b></font>
<img src="http://www.cagle.com/news/RumsfeldResigns/images/sherffius21.jpg">
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
Thursday November 9, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/0,,,00.html
For six years, latterly with the backing of both houses of a markedly conservative Republican Congress, George Bush has led an American administration that has played an unprecedentedly negative and polarising role in the world's affairs. On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences. By large numbers and across almost every state of the union, the voters defeated Republican candidates and put the opposition Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years.
When the remaining recounts and legal challenges are over, the Democrats may even have narrowly won control of the Senate too. Either way, the results change the political landscape in Washington for the final two years of this now thankfully diminished presidency. They also reassert a different and better United States that can again offer hope instead of despair to the world. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last night was a fitting climax to the voters' verdict. Thank you, America.
In US domestic terms, the 2006 midterms bring to an end the 12 intensely divisive years of Republican House rule that began under Newt Gingrich in 1994. These have been years of zealously and confrontational conservative politics that have shocked the world and, under Mr Bush, have sent America's global standing plummeting. That long political hurricane has now at last blown itself out for a while, but not before leaving America with a terrible legacy that includes climate-change denial, the end of biological stem-cell research, an aid programme tied to abortion bans, a shockingly permissive gun culture, an embrace of capital punishment equalled only by some of the world's worst tyrannies, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his replacement by a president who does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The approval by voters in at least five more states of same-sex marriage bans - on top of 13 similar votes in 2004 - shows that culture-war politics are far from over.
Exit polls suggest that four issues counted most in these elections - corruption scandals, the economy, terrorism and Iraq. In the end, though, it was the continuing failure of the war in Iraq that has galvanised many Americans to do what much of the rest of the world had longed for them to do much earlier. It is too soon to say whether 2006 now marks a decisive rejection of the rest of the conservative agenda as well. Only those who do not know America well will imagine that it does.
The Democratic victory was very tight in many places, but its size should not be underestimated. November 7 was a decisive nationwide win for the progressive and moderate traditions in US political life. The final majority in the House will be at least 18. The recapture of the Senate, if it happens, will involve captures from the Republicans in the north-east, the north-west, the midwest and the south. The Democrats won seven new state governorships on Tuesday, including New York and Ohio, and now control a majority nationwide. Republican governors who held on, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and Charlie Crist in Florida, only did so by distancing themselves from Mr Bush. The statewide Democratic wins in Ohio give their 2008 presidential candidate a platform for doing what John Kerry failed to do in this crucial state in 2004.
Claire McCaskill's win in the Missouri Senate race showed that Democrats can win a state which almost always votes for the winning presidential candidate. If Jim Webb has won the recounting Virginia Senate seat, Democrats will have gone another step towards re-establishing themselves in a changing part of the south. In almost every one of these cases, as in the Connecticut contest won by Joe Lieberman running as an independent, the Democrats have won by cleaving to the centre and winning the support of independent voters. The new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be the Armani-clad San Francisco leftwinger of the caricaturists' dreams but she heads a caucus that will demand caution on some of the baby-boomer liberal generation's pet subjects.
The big questions under the new Congress will be the way that Mr Bush responds to this unfamiliar reduction in his authority and whether the Democratic win will push the president into a new Iraq policy. At his White House press conference yesterday, Mr Bush inevitably made plenty of suitably bipartisan and common-ground noises. He had little alternative. But they rang hollow from such a tarnished and partisan leader. It will take more than warm words in the immediate aftermath of an election reverse to prove that Mr Bush is now capable of working in a new way.
The departure of the disastrous Mr Rumsfeld has come at least three years too late. But it shows that Mr Bush has finally been forced to face the reality of the Iraq disaster for which his defence secretary bears so much responsibility. As the smoke rose over the Pentagon on 9/11, Mr Rumsfeld was already writing a memo that wrongly pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein. He more than anyone beat the drum for the long-held neoconservative obsession with invading Iraq. It was he who insisted, over the advice of all his senior generals, that the invasion required only a third of the forces that the military said they needed. He more than anyone else is the architect of America's humiliations in Iraq. It was truly an outrage that he remained in office for so long.
But at least the passing of Mr Rumsfeld shows that someone in the White House now recognises that things cannot go on as before. Business as usual will not do, either in general or over Iraq. Mr Bush's remarks last night showed that on Iraq he has now put himself in the hands of the Iraq Study Group, chaired by his father's consigliere James Baker, one of whose members, Robert Gates, an ex-CIA chief, was last night appointed to succeed the unlamented Mr Rumsfeld. Maybe the more pragmatic Republican old guard can come to the rescue of this disastrous presidency in its most catastrophic adventure. But it has been the American voters who have at last made this possible. For that alone the entire world owes them its deep gratitude today.</font>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="4"></hr><p>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="4"></hr>
<img src="http://image.guardian.co.uk/siteheaders/Guardian.gif">
<hr noshade color="#333333" size="2"></hr>
<font face="arial black" size="7" color="#d90000">Thank You, America</font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>US midterm elections
<p>EDITORIAL</b></font>
<img src="http://www.cagle.com/news/RumsfeldResigns/images/sherffius21.jpg">
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
Thursday November 9, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/0,,,00.html
For six years, latterly with the backing of both houses of a markedly conservative Republican Congress, George Bush has led an American administration that has played an unprecedentedly negative and polarising role in the world's affairs. On Tuesday, in the midterm US congressional elections, American voters rebuffed Mr Bush in spectacular style and with both instant and lasting political consequences. By large numbers and across almost every state of the union, the voters defeated Republican candidates and put the opposition Democrats back in charge of the House of Representatives for the first time in a dozen years.
When the remaining recounts and legal challenges are over, the Democrats may even have narrowly won control of the Senate too. Either way, the results change the political landscape in Washington for the final two years of this now thankfully diminished presidency. They also reassert a different and better United States that can again offer hope instead of despair to the world. Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last night was a fitting climax to the voters' verdict. Thank you, America.
In US domestic terms, the 2006 midterms bring to an end the 12 intensely divisive years of Republican House rule that began under Newt Gingrich in 1994. These have been years of zealously and confrontational conservative politics that have shocked the world and, under Mr Bush, have sent America's global standing plummeting. That long political hurricane has now at last blown itself out for a while, but not before leaving America with a terrible legacy that includes climate-change denial, the end of biological stem-cell research, an aid programme tied to abortion bans, a shockingly permissive gun culture, an embrace of capital punishment equalled only by some of the world's worst tyrannies, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and his replacement by a president who does not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The approval by voters in at least five more states of same-sex marriage bans - on top of 13 similar votes in 2004 - shows that culture-war politics are far from over.
Exit polls suggest that four issues counted most in these elections - corruption scandals, the economy, terrorism and Iraq. In the end, though, it was the continuing failure of the war in Iraq that has galvanised many Americans to do what much of the rest of the world had longed for them to do much earlier. It is too soon to say whether 2006 now marks a decisive rejection of the rest of the conservative agenda as well. Only those who do not know America well will imagine that it does.
The Democratic victory was very tight in many places, but its size should not be underestimated. November 7 was a decisive nationwide win for the progressive and moderate traditions in US political life. The final majority in the House will be at least 18. The recapture of the Senate, if it happens, will involve captures from the Republicans in the north-east, the north-west, the midwest and the south. The Democrats won seven new state governorships on Tuesday, including New York and Ohio, and now control a majority nationwide. Republican governors who held on, like Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and Charlie Crist in Florida, only did so by distancing themselves from Mr Bush. The statewide Democratic wins in Ohio give their 2008 presidential candidate a platform for doing what John Kerry failed to do in this crucial state in 2004.
Claire McCaskill's win in the Missouri Senate race showed that Democrats can win a state which almost always votes for the winning presidential candidate. If Jim Webb has won the recounting Virginia Senate seat, Democrats will have gone another step towards re-establishing themselves in a changing part of the south. In almost every one of these cases, as in the Connecticut contest won by Joe Lieberman running as an independent, the Democrats have won by cleaving to the centre and winning the support of independent voters. The new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be the Armani-clad San Francisco leftwinger of the caricaturists' dreams but she heads a caucus that will demand caution on some of the baby-boomer liberal generation's pet subjects.
The big questions under the new Congress will be the way that Mr Bush responds to this unfamiliar reduction in his authority and whether the Democratic win will push the president into a new Iraq policy. At his White House press conference yesterday, Mr Bush inevitably made plenty of suitably bipartisan and common-ground noises. He had little alternative. But they rang hollow from such a tarnished and partisan leader. It will take more than warm words in the immediate aftermath of an election reverse to prove that Mr Bush is now capable of working in a new way.
The departure of the disastrous Mr Rumsfeld has come at least three years too late. But it shows that Mr Bush has finally been forced to face the reality of the Iraq disaster for which his defence secretary bears so much responsibility. As the smoke rose over the Pentagon on 9/11, Mr Rumsfeld was already writing a memo that wrongly pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein. He more than anyone beat the drum for the long-held neoconservative obsession with invading Iraq. It was he who insisted, over the advice of all his senior generals, that the invasion required only a third of the forces that the military said they needed. He more than anyone else is the architect of America's humiliations in Iraq. It was truly an outrage that he remained in office for so long.
But at least the passing of Mr Rumsfeld shows that someone in the White House now recognises that things cannot go on as before. Business as usual will not do, either in general or over Iraq. Mr Bush's remarks last night showed that on Iraq he has now put himself in the hands of the Iraq Study Group, chaired by his father's consigliere James Baker, one of whose members, Robert Gates, an ex-CIA chief, was last night appointed to succeed the unlamented Mr Rumsfeld. Maybe the more pragmatic Republican old guard can come to the rescue of this disastrous presidency in its most catastrophic adventure. But it has been the American voters who have at last made this possible. For that alone the entire world owes them its deep gratitude today.</font>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="4"></hr><p>
<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="4"></hr>
All good, fall out, from here on out....
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Democrats Poised to Flex New Muscles</font><font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>
Lawmakers Vow to Probe Bush's Prewar Case,
Katrina Contracts, Corporate America</b></font>
<font face="georgia" size="3" color="#000000"><b>
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN, JAY SOLOMON and ROBERT BLOCK
November 10, 2006; Page A4</b>
WASHINGTON -- The Democrats' sweep of the House and the Senate gives the party powerful tools for probing certain controversies of the Bush administration's years in office, from its use of faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq to its effort to rebuild New Orleans.
<br>With President Bush retaining his veto pen, the Democratic majorities may have a difficult time passing laws, especially in areas like health care and Social Security. But some Democrats in both the House and the Senate already are signaling a willingness to conduct tough oversight of the Bush administration's policies and to reopen lingering controversies -- particularly over pre-Iraq intelligence -- the Republican-led Congress largely ignored.
<img height="231" alt="[C L]" hspace="0" src="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/HC-GF487_Levin_20051021132058.gif" width="136" align="left" border="0" />
<br>In the Senate, the likely new Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, says he will complete an investigation into the White House's case for invading Iraq that Republicans were accused of stalling. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin is in line to take over the most powerful congressional oversight body, the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which routinely sends staffers to Iraq and other overseas countries. Mr. Levin, a critic of the Iraq war, has previously promised to conduct tougher oversight of the administration's use of no-bid contracting in Iraq, where the $21.8 billion U.S.-led rebuilding effort is winding down without having restored prewar levels of water or electricity. (<a href="/article/SB116312174221919352.html?mod=Politics-and-Policy">See related article.</a>1)
<br>In the House, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, expected to take over the House Committee on Homeland Security, is promising to haul Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff before the panel to face questions on issues ranging from the no-bid contracts awarded after Hurricane Katrina to the number of vacancies in the department's senior management.
<br>"The secretary only came before our committee two times this entire year, and that is not enough," Mr. Thompson said. "He cannot be a stranger before the Homeland Security Committee. He is going to have to be fully engaged, and I am going to demand that of him."
<br>Mr. Thompson is likely to be one of the largest burrs in the side of the Bush administration, as is California Rep. Henry Waxman, who will run the House Government Reform Committee. Mr. Waxman, an unrelenting critic of the White House, said he will boost oversight of the Bush administration and broad swaths of corporate America, with a particular focus on prescription-drug prices, oil-company profits and <strong>Halliburton</strong> Co.'s contracting work in Iraq.
<br>The Democrats' choices about how to use their expanded oversight powers, which enable them to subpoena information, call hearings and compel witnesses to appear, will shape the next two years in Washington.
<br>But Democrats will face internal divisions as they decide where to focus their investigative muscle. Liberal Democrats such as the membership of the activist organization MoveOn.org want the party to investigate the administration's case for the Iraq war and instances of possible corporate misconduct. By contrast, centrist and conservative Democrats like New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and many of the newly elected lawmakers from Southern and Western states argue the party should avoid taking too harsh a stance against big business or the Bush administration.
<img height="267" alt="[B T]" hspace="0" src="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/HC-GI832_Thomps_20061109151645.gif" width="136" align="right" border="0" />
<br>Democrats already are signaling they will proceed cautiously on Iraq. A spokeswoman says Mr. Rockefeller "will press to complete the remaining sections of the committee's Iraq review," but noted the lawmaker also was aware the panel "has other pressing issues that must be a priority going forward."
<br>The reports concern one of the most controversial aspects of the Bush administration's years in power, its prewar case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and an active nuclear-weapons program.
<br>When no weapons were found, the outgoing chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, Kansas Republican Pat Roberts, agreed in 2004 to conduct a five-part study of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
<br>Two parts of the study were made public in September, including one that criticized Bush administration efforts to link Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. But the most politically sensitive sections of the reports, say officials involved in them, have yet to be completed.
<br>One will contrast prewar statements made by Mr. Bush and other senior administration officials about Iraq's military and terrorist capabilities with the underlying intelligence available at the time. Another looks into the work of Douglas Feith's office; at the time, Mr. Feith was a senior political appointee to the Pentagon, and his office promoted intelligence linking Iraq to al Qaeda.
<br>Mr. Rockefeller's decision about how fast to proceed with the Iraq investigations will be watched by his fellow Democrats, many of whom believe the Bush administration willfully misled Congress and the American people in the run-up to the war. Mr. Rockefeller also will face intraparty pressure to conduct inquires into the Central Intelligence Agency's secret-prison programs for al Qaeda suspects and the White House's efforts to monitor telephone calls without seeking warrants. An aide to Mr. Rockefeller said those "are two areas that are ripe for aggressive oversight."
<br>In the House, Democrats like Mr. Thompson will oversee domestic security for the first time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Party officials said the Democrats are going to set the agenda on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to improved support for local responders. But their intentions to close the gaps in the nation's defenses are almost certain to go hand in hand with their desire to use their new power to bash the administration's security failures.
<br>Mr. Thompson's legislative staff already is crafting bills designed to boost the counterterrorism skills of the nation's police departments through the creation of training centers and grants allowing the departments to send liaison officers to work overseas. Democrats have also vowed to move legislation for greater rail and mass-transit security, as well as allocate additional money to inspect cargo carried on commercial airliners.
<br>The ambitions, however, go far beyond bolstering hometown police and helping secure railways. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she plans to pass all 41 of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations within 100 legislative hours of the Democratic takeover of the House. While Republicans' failures to embrace all the report's proposals have provided the Democrats with political fodder, the party doesn't have a bill drawn up to carry out Ms. Pelosi's plan or estimates of the costs.
<br>Mr. Thompson said he will work with Mr. Chertoff and the Republicans on his panel to find solutions to pressing homeland-security issues, but makes clear he is prepared to go it alone if consensus proves elusive.
<br>"If the secretary has some ideas, then he needs to lay them out," he said. "If not, I am convinced that our committee will step forward and provide some ideas for him."
<br><strong>Write to </strong>Yochi J. Dreazen at <a href="mailto:yochi.dreazen@wsj.com">yochi.dreazen@wsj.com</a>10, Jay Solomon at <a href="mailto:jay.solomon@wsj.com">jay.solomon@wsj.com</a>11 and Robert Block at <a href="mailto:bobby.block@wsj.com">bobby.block@wsj.com</a>12</font>
<font size="5"><center>Executive Compensation:
A Bridge Over the Wealth Gap?</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>The political shift in Washington that has given Democrats
a majority in both houses of Congress inevitably will be felt
in dozens of policy areas -- including business regulations.</font size></center>
STRATFOR
November 10, 2006 1815 GMT
By Dan Kornfield
The political shift in Washington that has given Democrats a majority in both houses of Congress inevitably will be felt in dozens of policy areas -- including business regulations. The Sarbanes-Oxley law, the corrective action Congress passed in the wake of the Enron Corp. debacle, most certainly will come under scrutiny. Given widespread sentiment that the law, in its original form, is too stringent and needs to be eased in some respects, this would have been the case even if the Republicans had retained congressional power. However, now that Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio) will be forced to give up his chairmanship of the House Committee on Financial Services, the changes are likely to be more sweeping.
The lawmaker most likely to replace Oxley at the committee's helm is Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Frank has pledged to re-energize legislation that would give shareholders more control over executive compensation -- an issue that currently is receiving a fair amount of attention from survey groups, the press and policy activists. Arguments by social justice, labor and other activist groups, which say executive pay is excessive in comparison to the average worker's wages, have gained some public credence. In response, there likely will be a number of shareholder proposals next spring that seek to tie executive compensation more closely to performance.
The most interesting aspect of the executive compensation issue, however, is not which high-flying CEOs are destined to have their wings clipped -- or by how much -- but rather, what might be done with the profits that will not be going into their pockets. A movement is emerging that views corporate profit-sharing as a way to address income gaps and poverty issues around the world, and seeks to buttress the allegedly stagnating American middle class. There will be significant movement by corporate boards, and perhaps some corresponding legislation, to amend executive pay structures during the next two years, but once that debate has run its course, the social justice question in the background likely will surge to the forefront -- with far-reaching implications.
Executive Pay: The Current Debate
With more than 140 companies conducting internal reviews -- or being subjected to government investigations -- for backdating stock options, executive compensation is frequently mentioned in business news coverage. Last week, the Financial Times released a study showing that the median pay package (including salary, bonuses and exercised options) of Standard & Poor's 500 CEOs rose 20 percent during the past fiscal year, to about $5 million, but net profits increased by an average of only 15 percent and shareholder returns by a mere 9 percent. Investors and activists have voiced concern that executive compensation is excessive, and that it is detached from the actual performance of the company an executive leads.
These concerns are not merely theoretical debates. According to Institutional Shareholder Services, there were votes on 103 (nonbinding) resolutions -- filed by shareholders who demanded action on executive compensation issues -- at the annual meetings of corporate boards during the past two years. To put that into some context, the most frequently balloted governance issue, takeover bids, garnered 190 resolutions during that period.
Some companies are now beginning to incorporate their executive pay policies into their overall brand image. For example, some have capped executive salaries at a specific ratio, pegged to the average or lowest salary of their employees. Ben & Jerry's pioneered this concept by maintaining a 7:1 ratio between the highest and lowest salaries at the company for 10 years, beginning in the mid-1980s. Whole Foods currently caps its salaries using a ratio (which the company's board recently voted to increase to 19:1 from 14:1). It is not yet clear whether the choice of ratio caps will go mainstream, but several of the shareholder resolutions filed this year demanded that companies report on or set targets for executive pay in relation to other workers' wages.
Addressing the Income Gap
Though activist campaigns likely will continue for some time, public interest in the executive compensation issue probably has already peaked. If it had not, there would have been a serious outcry during the spring, when environmental groups were trying to drum up outrage over ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond's retirement package of almost $400 million -- which was hitting the news at a time when oil prices were soaring. The public outrage never really broke out, though, and it is difficult to imagine a case with more populist appeal. That is an indication that, at the end of the day, Americans believe success should be rewarded, and that extraordinary success should be rewarded extraordinarily.
Nonetheless, away from the public eye, activity is brewing. Over the next two years, we expect corporate governance experts to be hammering out new best practices related to executive compensation. But as that issue dies down, another will emerge -- probably around the time of the 2008 election.
Flipping the issue around somewhat, the next argument likely will not be that corporate executives are earning too much, but that the average Joe is earning too little. According to the most recent survey by United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and Institute for Policy Studies -- longtime critics of corporations in general and corporate managers in particular -- the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in the United States went from 42:1 in 1980 to 107:1 in 1991 and 411:1 in 2005.
Groups concerned that there is a growing gap between the very wealthy and the poor in the United States frequently cite reports such as the Economic Policy Institute's analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, which concludes that family income rose by 3 percent from 1979 to 2001 for the lowest-paid 20 percent of Americans, while it rose by 53 percent for the top 20 percent. Other statistics are cited to indicate that not only are the rich getting richer and the poor getting (only relatively) poorer, but that there is a gradual hollowing-out of the center of the middle class. Statistics always can be manipulated, of course, to serve a particular end, but for the purposes of policy movement, it is the public perception rather than the reality that counts. In the United States, the concern is not so much over people's absolute standard of living -- although that is a related issue -- so much as the degree to which society cleaves into very distinct and increasingly polarized classes, and that social mobility is significantly hampered by the entrenched advantages of the upper class. For some, this is a violation of a moral egalitarian ideal; for others, it represents a risk to social harmony.
So far, these arguments have not gained much political traction among Americans, but this could change now that the Democratic Party is in power -- and in the midst of its own attempt to define the party's core values. A mild downturn in the U.S. economy during the first half of 2007, which we anticipate, could make that shift more pronounced as well. Increasingly, Democratic campaign rhetoric pits the "interests of the middle class" against the Republicans' alleged devotion to the "interests of the wealthy." This line of argument helped John Edwards put forth a good showing as a young candidate in 2004, and it might have helped the Democrats take back the House (although this argument certainly was not the key issue in the Nov. 7 election). Moreover, this is a line that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., increasingly has been using, and it likely will be a rhetorical foundation for the Democrats as they seek to reorient the party before 2008.
Other groups that could make wage structure and profit-sharing arguments in the United States over the next couple of years include labor unions, wealthy philanthropists and those concerned with income disparities between racial groups. Service Employees International Union and its new Change to Win Coalition are looking for ways to lock their service professionals into a system that maintains competitive wages for medium-skilled employees. On the other side of the socioeconomic spectrum, Responsible Wealth -- a project of UFE that is currently focused on tax policy advocacy -- might begin to pitch profit-sharing reforms as the logical next step in the responsible allocation of society's resources.
The income gap presents more immediate problems outside the United States. In developing nations such as China, India and Brazil -- which many multinational corporations already view as important bases of production and hope eventually to count as significant markets for their products or services -- the income gap is not an abstract future problem but a gritty, stark reality. The extent of the income gap in these countries creates a problem that is even more serious than the lack of middle-class market demand. That problem is the skepticism of the economically disenfranchised toward the premise that liberal democracies and market economies are really the best political and economic system.
In Latin America, for example, it could be argued that the region took a turn to the left -- even though socialism had seemed dead in the 1990s -- because entrenched poverty remained even after the painful birthing of democratic systems, capitalism and structural adjustments imposed by the International Monetary Fund. Similarly, China is currently trying to avert serious civil strife stemming from dissatisfaction with the unequal distribution of wealth and power following the economic growth of recent years.
The Private Sector and Social Problems
Among Americans, any suggestions that corporations ought to adjust wage structures in efforts to address a macro-level income gap typically produce one of three reactions:
These are all valid reactions, but corporate culture is not as wedded to the first objection -- and American culture is not as wedded to the second objection -- as one might think. Let's consider these in turn.
The idea that addressing serious social problems is the responsibility of the public rather than private sector has come under significant stress. Currently, the mantra used by both activists and industry groups on issues such as human rights is that governments bear the primary responsibility for upholding rights. This choice of words implies that corporations can bear a secondary responsibility -- the parameters of which are still being defined.
This is a notion that corporations themselves have begun to adopt as well, through voluntary action on issues -- such as poverty, AIDS and climate change -- that governments cannot handle on their own. In February, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development's "Tomorrow's Leaders" group, which includes executives from major corporations such as BP, Swiss Re and Adidas-Salomon, issued a report titled "The Role of Business in Tomorrow's Society." The report focuses on developing private-sector strategies to tackle "the big issues: poverty, environment, population, globalization." Similarly, some companies are starting to assess their contributions to the U.N. Millennium Development Goals -- eight humanitarian goals, such as measurably reducing child mortality rates, to be achieved by 2015. In short, whether as a result of the normative culture created by notions of corporate social responsibility or because of the complex challenges of operating globally, often in weakly governed areas, corporations are admitting they have a role to play.
As to the second reaction -- the assumption that capitalism and market forces should not be meddled with -- there are two points worth bearing in mind. The first is that many governments, including that in Washington, already "tamper" with market forces through the use of minimum wage laws. Moreover, there is growing public support for raising the minimum wage in the United States and indexing it with inflation in many countries abroad. Also, Howard Dean has made the more radical concept of a "living wage" part of the Democratic Party's platform. Between de jure or de facto limits on minimum wage and executive compensation lies the open playing field of wage structure generally.
The second point is that the free market actually might encourage some form of wage restructuring -- particularly in the highly skilled segment of the labor force. As corporations compete for top talent, they already find themselves increasingly offering an explicit share in the company's success. These alternative compensation strategies, challenged by concerns about equal treatment, could eventually be expanded to all employees in some companies -- albeit likely offering much smaller shares in profits for less-skilled workers.
None of this is meant to argue that wage structure policies designed to address larger social issues are either a good or bad idea. However, the logic outlined here is why we believe there will be further movement on these issues in the public policy arena.
Each of these arguments will find its adherents. The real question, however, will not be whether the general public, as a majority, will reach one of these conclusions and enact it as public policy. Rather, the question is how companies are likely to respond when their peers begin to tout a new approach to profit-sharing programs -- advertising them as ways to both attract and motivate top-notch employees and to address social concerns about poverty and income gaps.
At that point, wage policies very well might become a new arena of public competition between corporations.
Shareholder resolutions for the large number of companies that will have annual meetings in April are due now, in November. We expect a large number of resolutions on executive compensation, attaining votes in the 30 percent to 40 percent range. But it will come as no surprise if, two years from now, shareholders begin to file resolutions demanding that corporate boards justify wage structures applying to all employees -- not just executives.
`
A Bridge Over the Wealth Gap?</font size></center>
<font size="4"><center>The political shift in Washington that has given Democrats
a majority in both houses of Congress inevitably will be felt
in dozens of policy areas -- including business regulations.</font size></center>
STRATFOR
November 10, 2006 1815 GMT
By Dan Kornfield
The political shift in Washington that has given Democrats a majority in both houses of Congress inevitably will be felt in dozens of policy areas -- including business regulations. The Sarbanes-Oxley law, the corrective action Congress passed in the wake of the Enron Corp. debacle, most certainly will come under scrutiny. Given widespread sentiment that the law, in its original form, is too stringent and needs to be eased in some respects, this would have been the case even if the Republicans had retained congressional power. However, now that Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio) will be forced to give up his chairmanship of the House Committee on Financial Services, the changes are likely to be more sweeping.
The lawmaker most likely to replace Oxley at the committee's helm is Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Frank has pledged to re-energize legislation that would give shareholders more control over executive compensation -- an issue that currently is receiving a fair amount of attention from survey groups, the press and policy activists. Arguments by social justice, labor and other activist groups, which say executive pay is excessive in comparison to the average worker's wages, have gained some public credence. In response, there likely will be a number of shareholder proposals next spring that seek to tie executive compensation more closely to performance.
The most interesting aspect of the executive compensation issue, however, is not which high-flying CEOs are destined to have their wings clipped -- or by how much -- but rather, what might be done with the profits that will not be going into their pockets. A movement is emerging that views corporate profit-sharing as a way to address income gaps and poverty issues around the world, and seeks to buttress the allegedly stagnating American middle class. There will be significant movement by corporate boards, and perhaps some corresponding legislation, to amend executive pay structures during the next two years, but once that debate has run its course, the social justice question in the background likely will surge to the forefront -- with far-reaching implications.
Executive Pay: The Current Debate
With more than 140 companies conducting internal reviews -- or being subjected to government investigations -- for backdating stock options, executive compensation is frequently mentioned in business news coverage. Last week, the Financial Times released a study showing that the median pay package (including salary, bonuses and exercised options) of Standard & Poor's 500 CEOs rose 20 percent during the past fiscal year, to about $5 million, but net profits increased by an average of only 15 percent and shareholder returns by a mere 9 percent. Investors and activists have voiced concern that executive compensation is excessive, and that it is detached from the actual performance of the company an executive leads.
These concerns are not merely theoretical debates. According to Institutional Shareholder Services, there were votes on 103 (nonbinding) resolutions -- filed by shareholders who demanded action on executive compensation issues -- at the annual meetings of corporate boards during the past two years. To put that into some context, the most frequently balloted governance issue, takeover bids, garnered 190 resolutions during that period.
Some companies are now beginning to incorporate their executive pay policies into their overall brand image. For example, some have capped executive salaries at a specific ratio, pegged to the average or lowest salary of their employees. Ben & Jerry's pioneered this concept by maintaining a 7:1 ratio between the highest and lowest salaries at the company for 10 years, beginning in the mid-1980s. Whole Foods currently caps its salaries using a ratio (which the company's board recently voted to increase to 19:1 from 14:1). It is not yet clear whether the choice of ratio caps will go mainstream, but several of the shareholder resolutions filed this year demanded that companies report on or set targets for executive pay in relation to other workers' wages.
Addressing the Income Gap
Though activist campaigns likely will continue for some time, public interest in the executive compensation issue probably has already peaked. If it had not, there would have been a serious outcry during the spring, when environmental groups were trying to drum up outrage over ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond's retirement package of almost $400 million -- which was hitting the news at a time when oil prices were soaring. The public outrage never really broke out, though, and it is difficult to imagine a case with more populist appeal. That is an indication that, at the end of the day, Americans believe success should be rewarded, and that extraordinary success should be rewarded extraordinarily.
Nonetheless, away from the public eye, activity is brewing. Over the next two years, we expect corporate governance experts to be hammering out new best practices related to executive compensation. But as that issue dies down, another will emerge -- probably around the time of the 2008 election.
Flipping the issue around somewhat, the next argument likely will not be that corporate executives are earning too much, but that the average Joe is earning too little. According to the most recent survey by United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and Institute for Policy Studies -- longtime critics of corporations in general and corporate managers in particular -- the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in the United States went from 42:1 in 1980 to 107:1 in 1991 and 411:1 in 2005.
Groups concerned that there is a growing gap between the very wealthy and the poor in the United States frequently cite reports such as the Economic Policy Institute's analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, which concludes that family income rose by 3 percent from 1979 to 2001 for the lowest-paid 20 percent of Americans, while it rose by 53 percent for the top 20 percent. Other statistics are cited to indicate that not only are the rich getting richer and the poor getting (only relatively) poorer, but that there is a gradual hollowing-out of the center of the middle class. Statistics always can be manipulated, of course, to serve a particular end, but for the purposes of policy movement, it is the public perception rather than the reality that counts. In the United States, the concern is not so much over people's absolute standard of living -- although that is a related issue -- so much as the degree to which society cleaves into very distinct and increasingly polarized classes, and that social mobility is significantly hampered by the entrenched advantages of the upper class. For some, this is a violation of a moral egalitarian ideal; for others, it represents a risk to social harmony.
So far, these arguments have not gained much political traction among Americans, but this could change now that the Democratic Party is in power -- and in the midst of its own attempt to define the party's core values. A mild downturn in the U.S. economy during the first half of 2007, which we anticipate, could make that shift more pronounced as well. Increasingly, Democratic campaign rhetoric pits the "interests of the middle class" against the Republicans' alleged devotion to the "interests of the wealthy." This line of argument helped John Edwards put forth a good showing as a young candidate in 2004, and it might have helped the Democrats take back the House (although this argument certainly was not the key issue in the Nov. 7 election). Moreover, this is a line that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., increasingly has been using, and it likely will be a rhetorical foundation for the Democrats as they seek to reorient the party before 2008.
Other groups that could make wage structure and profit-sharing arguments in the United States over the next couple of years include labor unions, wealthy philanthropists and those concerned with income disparities between racial groups. Service Employees International Union and its new Change to Win Coalition are looking for ways to lock their service professionals into a system that maintains competitive wages for medium-skilled employees. On the other side of the socioeconomic spectrum, Responsible Wealth -- a project of UFE that is currently focused on tax policy advocacy -- might begin to pitch profit-sharing reforms as the logical next step in the responsible allocation of society's resources.
The income gap presents more immediate problems outside the United States. In developing nations such as China, India and Brazil -- which many multinational corporations already view as important bases of production and hope eventually to count as significant markets for their products or services -- the income gap is not an abstract future problem but a gritty, stark reality. The extent of the income gap in these countries creates a problem that is even more serious than the lack of middle-class market demand. That problem is the skepticism of the economically disenfranchised toward the premise that liberal democracies and market economies are really the best political and economic system.
In Latin America, for example, it could be argued that the region took a turn to the left -- even though socialism had seemed dead in the 1990s -- because entrenched poverty remained even after the painful birthing of democratic systems, capitalism and structural adjustments imposed by the International Monetary Fund. Similarly, China is currently trying to avert serious civil strife stemming from dissatisfaction with the unequal distribution of wealth and power following the economic growth of recent years.
The Private Sector and Social Problems
Among Americans, any suggestions that corporations ought to adjust wage structures in efforts to address a macro-level income gap typically produce one of three reactions:
1. Addressing poverty is the responsibility of government, not the private sector.
2. Addressing poverty is no one's responsibility: Market forces should be allowed to work without interference in determining the allocation of wealth.
3. It is a good idea for companies to re-examine the ways profits are distributed throughout their labor force, since more equal sharing is a way of motivating employees and ensuring corporate success in the market.
2. Addressing poverty is no one's responsibility: Market forces should be allowed to work without interference in determining the allocation of wealth.
3. It is a good idea for companies to re-examine the ways profits are distributed throughout their labor force, since more equal sharing is a way of motivating employees and ensuring corporate success in the market.
These are all valid reactions, but corporate culture is not as wedded to the first objection -- and American culture is not as wedded to the second objection -- as one might think. Let's consider these in turn.
The idea that addressing serious social problems is the responsibility of the public rather than private sector has come under significant stress. Currently, the mantra used by both activists and industry groups on issues such as human rights is that governments bear the primary responsibility for upholding rights. This choice of words implies that corporations can bear a secondary responsibility -- the parameters of which are still being defined.
This is a notion that corporations themselves have begun to adopt as well, through voluntary action on issues -- such as poverty, AIDS and climate change -- that governments cannot handle on their own. In February, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development's "Tomorrow's Leaders" group, which includes executives from major corporations such as BP, Swiss Re and Adidas-Salomon, issued a report titled "The Role of Business in Tomorrow's Society." The report focuses on developing private-sector strategies to tackle "the big issues: poverty, environment, population, globalization." Similarly, some companies are starting to assess their contributions to the U.N. Millennium Development Goals -- eight humanitarian goals, such as measurably reducing child mortality rates, to be achieved by 2015. In short, whether as a result of the normative culture created by notions of corporate social responsibility or because of the complex challenges of operating globally, often in weakly governed areas, corporations are admitting they have a role to play.
As to the second reaction -- the assumption that capitalism and market forces should not be meddled with -- there are two points worth bearing in mind. The first is that many governments, including that in Washington, already "tamper" with market forces through the use of minimum wage laws. Moreover, there is growing public support for raising the minimum wage in the United States and indexing it with inflation in many countries abroad. Also, Howard Dean has made the more radical concept of a "living wage" part of the Democratic Party's platform. Between de jure or de facto limits on minimum wage and executive compensation lies the open playing field of wage structure generally.
The second point is that the free market actually might encourage some form of wage restructuring -- particularly in the highly skilled segment of the labor force. As corporations compete for top talent, they already find themselves increasingly offering an explicit share in the company's success. These alternative compensation strategies, challenged by concerns about equal treatment, could eventually be expanded to all employees in some companies -- albeit likely offering much smaller shares in profits for less-skilled workers.
None of this is meant to argue that wage structure policies designed to address larger social issues are either a good or bad idea. However, the logic outlined here is why we believe there will be further movement on these issues in the public policy arena.
Each of these arguments will find its adherents. The real question, however, will not be whether the general public, as a majority, will reach one of these conclusions and enact it as public policy. Rather, the question is how companies are likely to respond when their peers begin to tout a new approach to profit-sharing programs -- advertising them as ways to both attract and motivate top-notch employees and to address social concerns about poverty and income gaps.
At that point, wage policies very well might become a new arena of public competition between corporations.
Shareholder resolutions for the large number of companies that will have annual meetings in April are due now, in November. We expect a large number of resolutions on executive compensation, attaining votes in the 30 percent to 40 percent range. But it will come as no surprise if, two years from now, shareholders begin to file resolutions demanding that corporate boards justify wage structures applying to all employees -- not just executives.
`
<font size="5"><center>Democrats probe billions
lost to Baghdad's corruption</font size></center>
The Sunday Times -
Sarah Baxter, Washington
November 19, 2006
WHEN an American adventurer and arms dealer was gunned down in his black BMW near the banks of the Tigris river in 2004, his murder was blamed on an obscure group of Islamic terrorists.
As Baghdad’s body count rises, Dale Stoffel, 43, is barely remembered today but his name is certain to be revived as the Democrats prepare for a barrage of congressional investigations into corruption in Iraq.
Stoffel, a former intelligence analyst, had hoped to make a fortune by selling ex-Soviet military parts to refit Saddam Hussein’s abandoned tanks and armoured vehicles for the new Iraqi army. But he was also an idealist who turned whistleblower when he learnt that Iraqis in the defence ministry and arms industry expected huge kickbacks for their help.
In a prophetic e-mail, Stoffel wrote to an American colonel he knew in Iraq: “If we proceed down the road we are currently on, there will be serious legal issues that will land us all in jail. There is no oversight of the money and if/when something goes wrong, regardless of how clean our hands are, heads will roll and it will be the heads of those that are reachable, and the people who are supposed to know better (US — citizens, military etc.)”
Three days before his death he met John Shaw, then a senior Pentagon official, whose office was investigating fraud in Iraq. Shaw describes the Stoffel case as “the first public indication of the seriousness and institutional depth of corruption in Iraq”. Shaw is convinced that “in time, we will discover a pervasive pattern of cover-ups along with revelations of corruption”.
American taxpayers have spent $36 billion (£19 billion) on reconstruction in Iraq, much of it unaccounted for. A further $22 billion of Iraq’s own money, derived mainly from oil, has been largely squandered, with little scrutiny.
The Democrats intend to use their new power in the Senate and House of Representatives to harass the Bush administration over the war. The issue of corruption is the most politically appealing as it avoids judgments about the decision to invade and whether to withdraw.
“There is going to be a hefty set of hearings, you can count on it,” said Gordon Adams of the Woodrow Wilson International Center, who oversaw the national security budget at the White House during Bill Clinton’s presidency. “This is career-building for congressmen.”
Henry Waxman, who is to chair the House government reform committee, is promising ruthless scrutiny of the money that was shipped to Iraq. During the first year, nearly $12 billion in cash was transferred, much of it shrink wrapped and flown out at $2 billion a time.
Ike Skelton, the incoming chairman of the House armed services committee, is promising to follow the example of Harry Truman, who headed a commission to investigate military contractor corruption during the second world war. There is an even older precedent. “During Lincoln’s day, Congress had a committee on the conduct of war,” Skelton said.
One of the first acts of Congress last week after the midterm elections was to reverse a decision to shut the office of Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. An old friend of President George W Bush, Bowen had turned out to be doing an unexpectedly good job of investigating corruption, waste and fraud.
He recently reported to Congress on a new police academy in Baghdad, which cost US taxpayers $75m but was so badly built that human waste was oozing through the ceilings. Bowen has also highlighted lax scrutiny of multi-million-dollar contracts involving Halliburton, the energy services company, and several American occupation officials have been prosecuted for bribery.
But the real scandal, according to Pentagon sources, is that the opportunity to rebuild the Iraqi army and security services in the first two years of the US occupation was squandered, leaving sectarian militias to multiply.
The murder of Stoffel is part of that jigsaw. His body was found in a festering suburb of Baghdad with that of Joseph Wemple, 49, a friend and business associate. An obscure jihadist group claimed responsibility.
Pieces of video began to surface from the group, called Rafidan, which were not standard jihadist fare. According to Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism consultant, they were obsessed with Stoffel’s defence contracting links to senior Iraqi officials and contained documents from his laptop.
“I didn’t see anything to convince me that a genuine insurgent group was responsible for their deaths,” Kohlmann said. “Given the problems that Dale was having in Iraq, the greatest threat to his life came from individuals he knew.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2460034,00.html
lost to Baghdad's corruption</font size></center>
The Sunday Times -
Sarah Baxter, Washington
November 19, 2006
WHEN an American adventurer and arms dealer was gunned down in his black BMW near the banks of the Tigris river in 2004, his murder was blamed on an obscure group of Islamic terrorists.
As Baghdad’s body count rises, Dale Stoffel, 43, is barely remembered today but his name is certain to be revived as the Democrats prepare for a barrage of congressional investigations into corruption in Iraq.
Stoffel, a former intelligence analyst, had hoped to make a fortune by selling ex-Soviet military parts to refit Saddam Hussein’s abandoned tanks and armoured vehicles for the new Iraqi army. But he was also an idealist who turned whistleblower when he learnt that Iraqis in the defence ministry and arms industry expected huge kickbacks for their help.
In a prophetic e-mail, Stoffel wrote to an American colonel he knew in Iraq: “If we proceed down the road we are currently on, there will be serious legal issues that will land us all in jail. There is no oversight of the money and if/when something goes wrong, regardless of how clean our hands are, heads will roll and it will be the heads of those that are reachable, and the people who are supposed to know better (US — citizens, military etc.)”
Three days before his death he met John Shaw, then a senior Pentagon official, whose office was investigating fraud in Iraq. Shaw describes the Stoffel case as “the first public indication of the seriousness and institutional depth of corruption in Iraq”. Shaw is convinced that “in time, we will discover a pervasive pattern of cover-ups along with revelations of corruption”.
American taxpayers have spent $36 billion (£19 billion) on reconstruction in Iraq, much of it unaccounted for. A further $22 billion of Iraq’s own money, derived mainly from oil, has been largely squandered, with little scrutiny.
The Democrats intend to use their new power in the Senate and House of Representatives to harass the Bush administration over the war. The issue of corruption is the most politically appealing as it avoids judgments about the decision to invade and whether to withdraw.
“There is going to be a hefty set of hearings, you can count on it,” said Gordon Adams of the Woodrow Wilson International Center, who oversaw the national security budget at the White House during Bill Clinton’s presidency. “This is career-building for congressmen.”
Henry Waxman, who is to chair the House government reform committee, is promising ruthless scrutiny of the money that was shipped to Iraq. During the first year, nearly $12 billion in cash was transferred, much of it shrink wrapped and flown out at $2 billion a time.
Ike Skelton, the incoming chairman of the House armed services committee, is promising to follow the example of Harry Truman, who headed a commission to investigate military contractor corruption during the second world war. There is an even older precedent. “During Lincoln’s day, Congress had a committee on the conduct of war,” Skelton said.
One of the first acts of Congress last week after the midterm elections was to reverse a decision to shut the office of Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. An old friend of President George W Bush, Bowen had turned out to be doing an unexpectedly good job of investigating corruption, waste and fraud.
He recently reported to Congress on a new police academy in Baghdad, which cost US taxpayers $75m but was so badly built that human waste was oozing through the ceilings. Bowen has also highlighted lax scrutiny of multi-million-dollar contracts involving Halliburton, the energy services company, and several American occupation officials have been prosecuted for bribery.
But the real scandal, according to Pentagon sources, is that the opportunity to rebuild the Iraqi army and security services in the first two years of the US occupation was squandered, leaving sectarian militias to multiply.
The murder of Stoffel is part of that jigsaw. His body was found in a festering suburb of Baghdad with that of Joseph Wemple, 49, a friend and business associate. An obscure jihadist group claimed responsibility.
Pieces of video began to surface from the group, called Rafidan, which were not standard jihadist fare. According to Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism consultant, they were obsessed with Stoffel’s defence contracting links to senior Iraqi officials and contained documents from his laptop.
“I didn’t see anything to convince me that a genuine insurgent group was responsible for their deaths,” Kohlmann said. “Given the problems that Dale was having in Iraq, the greatest threat to his life came from individuals he knew.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2460034,00.html
[hide]Democrats' Victory Is Felt On K Street
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 23, 2006; Page A01
The Democrats' takeover of Congress this month has turned official Washington upside down.
Labor and environmental representatives, once also-rans in congressional influence, are meeting frequently with Capitol Hill's incoming Democratic leaders. Corporations that once boasted about their Republican ties are busily hiring Democratic lobbyists. And industries worried about reprisals from the new Democrats-in-charge, especially the pharmaceutical industry, are sending out woe-is-me memos and hoping their GOP connections will protect them in the crunch.
"Change is in the air," said Melinda Pierce, a senior lobbyist for the Sierra Club. She had never even been invited to meet with Republican House leaders, but since Election Day, Democrats have welcomed her advice.
Dan Danner sees change in the opposite direction. The top lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business has attended meetings with Republican leaders at least twice a month for the past 12 years. But he has yet to see any of the new Democratic crowd and doesn't expect to anytime soon. "That's a significant difference," he said.
Access is tantamount to influence in Congress. Individuals and organizations with entree to lawmakers in the majority are the ones with the best chance of getting things done. In January, when the 110th Congress convenes, Democrats will control that inside track for the first time since Republicans began their reign on Capitol Hill a dozen years ago.
Companies caught in the Democrats' cross hairs, such as oil and drug firms, are hiring Democratic lobbyists, but they're holding on to their Republican lobbyists. They reason that they will need to persuade Republican lawmakers to block bills they dislike in the Senate, where 60 out of 100 votes are required to pass anything of consequence. Democrats hold only a 51 to 49 majority.
In addition, in a move that is raising ethical questions, some Democratic lobbyists are planning to take congressional staff jobs, attracted by the chance to wield real clout.
Despite this focus on gaining access to authority, Democratic congressional leaders have expressed disdain for their predecessors' fealty to "special interests." That is why they are planning an elaborate assault on lobbyists during their first week in session. Through changes in laws and in House rules, Democrats hope to ban lobbyist-provided gifts and travel to lawmakers and to create an Office of Public Integrity to oversee the disclosures that lobbyists must make about clients and fees.
Yet the biggest change in downtown Washington since the midterm elections Nov. 7 has been the rush of companies and trade associations to retain Democrats. "There are more opportunities for Democrats than there have been in many years," said Anthony T. Podesta, a prominent Democratic lobbyist.
Democratic lobbyists prospected for new clients on the very night last week that House Democrats elected their leaders on an anti-lobbyist platform. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) were feted on the 10th and ninth floors, respectively, at 101 Constitution Ave. NW, a premier lobbying venue at the foot of Capitol Hill. Some of the city's top firms are in that building, including the lobbying arm of Goldman Sachs, the American Council of Life Insurers, Clark Consulting Federal Policy Group and Van Scoyoc Associates.
Hoyer's political action committee financed his reception in a room routinely used for lobbying and other events, but Clyburn's was paid for by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, a South Carolina-based law firm that lobbies extensively in Washington on health care and other issues and has offices in that building.
Dozens of lobbyists attended both functions and shuttled from one party to the other. "The elevators were jammed," said Gwen Mellor, a Democrat at the lobbying firm PodestaMattoon, who collected business cards that evening.
Companies' eagerness to hire Democrats began before the elections. Podesta said he had already signed up Wal-Mart and British Petroleum in anticipation of a Democratic victory. Now he is even busier fielding offers from other potential clients. "I've got a fairly full schedule of marketing meetings that are real," he said. "I did some right after the election, and I have four or five set up for next week."
Drug companies are particularly hungry for Democratic help, including the industry's trade association. "We woke up the day after the election to a new world," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "We're going to have tough days ahead of us."
A post-election e-mail to executives at the drug company GlaxoSmithKline details just how tough. "We now have fewer allies in the Senate," says the internal memo, obtained by The Washington Post. "Thus, there is greater risk over the next two years that bad amendments will be offered to pending legislation." The company's primary concerns are bills that would allow more imported drugs and would force price competition for drugs bought under Medicare.
The defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) "creates a big hole we will need to fill," the e-mail says. Sen.-elect Jon Tester (D-Mont.) "is expected to be a problem," it says, and the elevation to the Senate of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) "will strengthen his ability to challenge us."
The e-mail also mentions that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) "has worked closely" with the company and that the firm's PAC had supported six Democratic senators who faced reelection. "These relationships should help us moderate proposals offered by Senate Democrats," the e-mail says.
Explaining the memo, GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman Patricia Seif said: "It's important that we're knowledgeable about the positions of the members of the next Congress."
Even as additional Democratic lobbyists are hired, Republican lobbyists don't expect much falloff in business because GOP lawmakers will be key to stopping legislation that corporations oppose. "You may need to bring other voices to the table as well, but it's not like a light switch being thrown when someone else is in control," said GOP lobbyist Mark Isakowitz of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock.
In fact, lobbying overall is likely to increase. "With a closely divided Congress, you're going to have both sides spending more," said Kent Cooper of PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan research group. "It will be like an arms race."
But not every lobbyist will cash in. A sizable number of Democrats plan to take lower-paying staff jobs in Congress as a way to serve in the government and to exercise the power of the majority for a change. On one important panel, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both top aides will be ex-lobbyists.
Dennis Fitzgibbons, the panel's incoming chief of staff, has worked for DaimlerChrysler since 2000 and before that was on the committee's staff for 12 years. The panel's new chief counsel, Gregg Rothschild, is also a former congressional aide and was a lobbyist for Verizon for two years.
"This is an historic opportunity," Rothschild said about his return to Capitol Hill. Watchdog groups, however, are concerned about the trend. "I worry that they might not be as tough on the industries they used to work for," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
But interest groups, in general, are not concerned about the changes the election has brought. "We lost many friends in this election," said Steven C. Anderson, president of the Republican-leaning National Restaurant Association. "But that doesn't mean we can't make new friends, and that's what we'll do."[/hide]
[frame]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201940.html?referrer=email[/frame]
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 23, 2006; Page A01
The Democrats' takeover of Congress this month has turned official Washington upside down.
Labor and environmental representatives, once also-rans in congressional influence, are meeting frequently with Capitol Hill's incoming Democratic leaders. Corporations that once boasted about their Republican ties are busily hiring Democratic lobbyists. And industries worried about reprisals from the new Democrats-in-charge, especially the pharmaceutical industry, are sending out woe-is-me memos and hoping their GOP connections will protect them in the crunch.
"Change is in the air," said Melinda Pierce, a senior lobbyist for the Sierra Club. She had never even been invited to meet with Republican House leaders, but since Election Day, Democrats have welcomed her advice.
Dan Danner sees change in the opposite direction. The top lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business has attended meetings with Republican leaders at least twice a month for the past 12 years. But he has yet to see any of the new Democratic crowd and doesn't expect to anytime soon. "That's a significant difference," he said.
Access is tantamount to influence in Congress. Individuals and organizations with entree to lawmakers in the majority are the ones with the best chance of getting things done. In January, when the 110th Congress convenes, Democrats will control that inside track for the first time since Republicans began their reign on Capitol Hill a dozen years ago.
Companies caught in the Democrats' cross hairs, such as oil and drug firms, are hiring Democratic lobbyists, but they're holding on to their Republican lobbyists. They reason that they will need to persuade Republican lawmakers to block bills they dislike in the Senate, where 60 out of 100 votes are required to pass anything of consequence. Democrats hold only a 51 to 49 majority.
In addition, in a move that is raising ethical questions, some Democratic lobbyists are planning to take congressional staff jobs, attracted by the chance to wield real clout.
Despite this focus on gaining access to authority, Democratic congressional leaders have expressed disdain for their predecessors' fealty to "special interests." That is why they are planning an elaborate assault on lobbyists during their first week in session. Through changes in laws and in House rules, Democrats hope to ban lobbyist-provided gifts and travel to lawmakers and to create an Office of Public Integrity to oversee the disclosures that lobbyists must make about clients and fees.
Yet the biggest change in downtown Washington since the midterm elections Nov. 7 has been the rush of companies and trade associations to retain Democrats. "There are more opportunities for Democrats than there have been in many years," said Anthony T. Podesta, a prominent Democratic lobbyist.
Democratic lobbyists prospected for new clients on the very night last week that House Democrats elected their leaders on an anti-lobbyist platform. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) were feted on the 10th and ninth floors, respectively, at 101 Constitution Ave. NW, a premier lobbying venue at the foot of Capitol Hill. Some of the city's top firms are in that building, including the lobbying arm of Goldman Sachs, the American Council of Life Insurers, Clark Consulting Federal Policy Group and Van Scoyoc Associates.
Hoyer's political action committee financed his reception in a room routinely used for lobbying and other events, but Clyburn's was paid for by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, a South Carolina-based law firm that lobbies extensively in Washington on health care and other issues and has offices in that building.
Dozens of lobbyists attended both functions and shuttled from one party to the other. "The elevators were jammed," said Gwen Mellor, a Democrat at the lobbying firm PodestaMattoon, who collected business cards that evening.
Companies' eagerness to hire Democrats began before the elections. Podesta said he had already signed up Wal-Mart and British Petroleum in anticipation of a Democratic victory. Now he is even busier fielding offers from other potential clients. "I've got a fairly full schedule of marketing meetings that are real," he said. "I did some right after the election, and I have four or five set up for next week."
Drug companies are particularly hungry for Democratic help, including the industry's trade association. "We woke up the day after the election to a new world," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. "We're going to have tough days ahead of us."
A post-election e-mail to executives at the drug company GlaxoSmithKline details just how tough. "We now have fewer allies in the Senate," says the internal memo, obtained by The Washington Post. "Thus, there is greater risk over the next two years that bad amendments will be offered to pending legislation." The company's primary concerns are bills that would allow more imported drugs and would force price competition for drugs bought under Medicare.
The defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) "creates a big hole we will need to fill," the e-mail says. Sen.-elect Jon Tester (D-Mont.) "is expected to be a problem," it says, and the elevation to the Senate of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) "will strengthen his ability to challenge us."
The e-mail also mentions that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) "has worked closely" with the company and that the firm's PAC had supported six Democratic senators who faced reelection. "These relationships should help us moderate proposals offered by Senate Democrats," the e-mail says.
Explaining the memo, GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman Patricia Seif said: "It's important that we're knowledgeable about the positions of the members of the next Congress."
Even as additional Democratic lobbyists are hired, Republican lobbyists don't expect much falloff in business because GOP lawmakers will be key to stopping legislation that corporations oppose. "You may need to bring other voices to the table as well, but it's not like a light switch being thrown when someone else is in control," said GOP lobbyist Mark Isakowitz of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock.
In fact, lobbying overall is likely to increase. "With a closely divided Congress, you're going to have both sides spending more," said Kent Cooper of PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan research group. "It will be like an arms race."
But not every lobbyist will cash in. A sizable number of Democrats plan to take lower-paying staff jobs in Congress as a way to serve in the government and to exercise the power of the majority for a change. On one important panel, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both top aides will be ex-lobbyists.
Dennis Fitzgibbons, the panel's incoming chief of staff, has worked for DaimlerChrysler since 2000 and before that was on the committee's staff for 12 years. The panel's new chief counsel, Gregg Rothschild, is also a former congressional aide and was a lobbyist for Verizon for two years.
"This is an historic opportunity," Rothschild said about his return to Capitol Hill. Watchdog groups, however, are concerned about the trend. "I worry that they might not be as tough on the industries they used to work for," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
But interest groups, in general, are not concerned about the changes the election has brought. "We lost many friends in this election," said Steven C. Anderson, president of the Republican-leaning National Restaurant Association. "But that doesn't mean we can't make new friends, and that's what we'll do."[/hide]
[frame]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/22/AR2006112201940.html?referrer=email[/frame]
Whistleblower Stephen Heller Says 'Diebold Cannot be Trusted to Run Elections in America'
Plea Deal for 'Wobbly Felony' Conviction, 3-Years Probation, May be Reduced to Misdemeanor after One Year of Good Behavior
In an exclusive statement sent to The BRAD BLOG earlier today excoriating the privatization of America's voting system, whistleblower Stephen Heller says, "Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America."
He oughta know.
As we reported last night, Heller pled guilty yesterday in an agreement with Los Angeles prosecutors, after his arrest earlier this year on felony charges related to his release of attorney-client privileged documents he obtained while working as a temporary word-processor at Diebold's law firm, Jones Day.
The agreement, which required him to sign an apology, pay $10,000 in restitution, and not discuss the documents he released, may also allow Heller's felony conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor charge after one year of "good behavior."
As well, in exchange for Heller's signed apology and commitment not to discuss the documents themselves (which are already publicly available since he released them originally to both the media and Election Integrity activists), Jones Day signed an agreement that they would not sue him in civil court in the matter.
In a phone call this afternoon, Heller explained Diebold's enormously powerful law firm — where he had worked at night while pursuing an acting career by day — had informed him that they'd planned to convert any criminal felony conviction in the case into a civil suit. Had the case gone to trial, he explained, and been successful, Jones Day had promised a lawsuit claiming losses of "well over a million dollars." Such a suit "would have left my wife and I impoverished for the rest of our lives," Heller says.
He went on to tell us that the plea deal conviction was characterized by his attorneys as a "wobbly felony" — one that will likely be reduced to a misdemeanor after a year, as long as he "doesn't do anything bad." He quickly added, "which I have no intention of doing."
A court date of Nov. 15th, 2007, has been set to review the case in order to determine if the sentence will be reduced and, among other things, allow Heller to have his right to vote in California restored!
"Yes, I am now a disenfranchised voter as a convicted felon," he told us today with no small amount of irony in his voice.
Despite California having decertified Diebold voting systems in 2004 after Heller's release of documents showing the voting machine company had violated state law and that they may have been planning to lie about it to state officials — and even after the state and election watchdog BlackBoxVoting.org eventually agreed to settle a fraud complaint with Diebold for $2.8 million dollars in the bargain — Heller is, for the moment, unable to vote in the Golden State due to his conviction.
All of this, of course, despite those who've denounced the arrest of Heller on the grounds that they believe, as we do, that he is an heroic whistleblower who exposed important information — illegally or otherwise — because it was in the best public interest of the country.
California does have a "Whistleblower Law," which prevents employers from exacting retribution against an employee who "has reasonable cause to believe that the information [being released] discloses a violation of state or federal statute." That law, unfortunately, doesn't seem to apply to apparently over-zealous County Prosecutors such as Los Angeles's Steve Cooley.
Heller has promised that he will share "the whole story" with us in a Guest Blog special to The BRAD BLOG after the holidays.
In the meantime, however, his agreement at least does not keep him from speaking his mind about Diebold, electronic voting, or the private corporatization of our public democracy. Earlier today, Heller followed up on his promise of last night and emailed us the following statement with his opinions of the current state of our electoral system in America:
In my view, Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America. We must not allow a private corporation to run our elections for us in secret, using secret machines and secret software. The only thing secret about our elections should be the secret ballot.
I urge all Americans to insist Congress enact Federal legislation requiring that all voting machines must have a voter verifiable paper ballot, be run on open source software code, be subject to inspection by independent computer experts, and that each election have a random sample ballot recount. Only then will we have a chance of restoring true integrity to American elections.
The BRAD BLOG wishes to express our deepest and most heart-felt gratitude to Heller for his courageous and selfless act of civil disobedience. As bad as our electoral system is now…and make no mistake, it is in tatters…we shudder to ponder the state we'd currently be in without patriots like Heller who continue to fight for free, fair, honest, and transparent elections in America — at no small cost to either themselves or their families.
On behalf of The BRAD BLOG and likely millions of democracy-lovin' Americans: Thank you, Mr. Heller.
BLOGGED BY Brad ON 11/21/2006 4:54PM PT
http://bradblog.com/
Plea Deal for 'Wobbly Felony' Conviction, 3-Years Probation, May be Reduced to Misdemeanor after One Year of Good Behavior
In an exclusive statement sent to The BRAD BLOG earlier today excoriating the privatization of America's voting system, whistleblower Stephen Heller says, "Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America."
He oughta know.
As we reported last night, Heller pled guilty yesterday in an agreement with Los Angeles prosecutors, after his arrest earlier this year on felony charges related to his release of attorney-client privileged documents he obtained while working as a temporary word-processor at Diebold's law firm, Jones Day.
The agreement, which required him to sign an apology, pay $10,000 in restitution, and not discuss the documents he released, may also allow Heller's felony conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor charge after one year of "good behavior."
As well, in exchange for Heller's signed apology and commitment not to discuss the documents themselves (which are already publicly available since he released them originally to both the media and Election Integrity activists), Jones Day signed an agreement that they would not sue him in civil court in the matter.
In a phone call this afternoon, Heller explained Diebold's enormously powerful law firm — where he had worked at night while pursuing an acting career by day — had informed him that they'd planned to convert any criminal felony conviction in the case into a civil suit. Had the case gone to trial, he explained, and been successful, Jones Day had promised a lawsuit claiming losses of "well over a million dollars." Such a suit "would have left my wife and I impoverished for the rest of our lives," Heller says.
He went on to tell us that the plea deal conviction was characterized by his attorneys as a "wobbly felony" — one that will likely be reduced to a misdemeanor after a year, as long as he "doesn't do anything bad." He quickly added, "which I have no intention of doing."
A court date of Nov. 15th, 2007, has been set to review the case in order to determine if the sentence will be reduced and, among other things, allow Heller to have his right to vote in California restored!
"Yes, I am now a disenfranchised voter as a convicted felon," he told us today with no small amount of irony in his voice.
Despite California having decertified Diebold voting systems in 2004 after Heller's release of documents showing the voting machine company had violated state law and that they may have been planning to lie about it to state officials — and even after the state and election watchdog BlackBoxVoting.org eventually agreed to settle a fraud complaint with Diebold for $2.8 million dollars in the bargain — Heller is, for the moment, unable to vote in the Golden State due to his conviction.
All of this, of course, despite those who've denounced the arrest of Heller on the grounds that they believe, as we do, that he is an heroic whistleblower who exposed important information — illegally or otherwise — because it was in the best public interest of the country.
California does have a "Whistleblower Law," which prevents employers from exacting retribution against an employee who "has reasonable cause to believe that the information [being released] discloses a violation of state or federal statute." That law, unfortunately, doesn't seem to apply to apparently over-zealous County Prosecutors such as Los Angeles's Steve Cooley.
Heller has promised that he will share "the whole story" with us in a Guest Blog special to The BRAD BLOG after the holidays.
In the meantime, however, his agreement at least does not keep him from speaking his mind about Diebold, electronic voting, or the private corporatization of our public democracy. Earlier today, Heller followed up on his promise of last night and emailed us the following statement with his opinions of the current state of our electoral system in America:
In my view, Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America. We must not allow a private corporation to run our elections for us in secret, using secret machines and secret software. The only thing secret about our elections should be the secret ballot.
I urge all Americans to insist Congress enact Federal legislation requiring that all voting machines must have a voter verifiable paper ballot, be run on open source software code, be subject to inspection by independent computer experts, and that each election have a random sample ballot recount. Only then will we have a chance of restoring true integrity to American elections.
The BRAD BLOG wishes to express our deepest and most heart-felt gratitude to Heller for his courageous and selfless act of civil disobedience. As bad as our electoral system is now…and make no mistake, it is in tatters…we shudder to ponder the state we'd currently be in without patriots like Heller who continue to fight for free, fair, honest, and transparent elections in America — at no small cost to either themselves or their families.
On behalf of The BRAD BLOG and likely millions of democracy-lovin' Americans: Thank you, Mr. Heller.
BLOGGED BY Brad ON 11/21/2006 4:54PM PT
http://bradblog.com/
<font size="5"><center>Waxman Has Bush Administration in Sights</font size></center>
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., comments on
his new role at his office in Los Angeles, in
this Nov. 10, 2006 file photo. The Democratic
congressman who will investigate the Bush
administration's running of the government
says there are so many areas of possible
wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding
which ones to pursue. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)
Nov 25, 2:12 PM (ET)
By ERICA WERNER
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The lawmaker poised to cause the Bush administration's biggest headaches when Democrats take control of Congress may just be a grocer's son from Watts who's hardly a household name off Capitol Hill.
Rep. Henry Waxman has spent the last six years waging a guerrilla campaign against the White House and its corporate allies, launching searing investigations into everything from military contracts to Medicare prices from his perch on the Government Reform Committee.
In January, Waxman becomes committee chairman - and thus the lead congressional hound of an administration many Democrats feel has blundered badly as it expanded the power of the executive branch.
Waxman's biggest challenge as he mulls what to probe?
"The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose," he said.
The choices he makes could help define Bush's legacy.
"There is just no question that life is going to be different for the administration," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the current committee chairman. "Henry is going to be tough. ... And he's been waiting a long time to be able to do this."
Waxman, 67, is in his 16th term representing a Los Angeles district that has migrated west over the years to take in some of the country's most exclusive real estate: Bel Air, Malibu, Beverly Hills. It's worlds from the apartment he grew up in over his father's grocery store, in a predominantly black neighborhood where, he said, "There was one other Jewish kid - my sister."
The glitz of his district hasn't rubbed off. He remarks wryly that Malibu's celebrity beach-access disputes are, luckily, not a federal issue. And he's never been to the Oscars.
At first he wasn't invited, and now, "I have this reputation of never having gone." Why ruin it?
Balding, and quiet-spoken, with glasses, a snub-nose and a mustache, the 5-foot-5-inch Waxman isn't an in-your-face political bruiser. But he doesn't shrink from a fight.
At age 28 he challenged and beat a Democratic incumbent to win a seat in the state Assembly. Once in Congress, he muscled aside a more senior lawmaker to become chairman of an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, using the post to summon the heads of big tobacco to the famous 1994 hearing, depicted in the movie "The Insider," at which they testified that nicotine wasn't addictive.
"One of the biggest miscalculations of corporate America," Waxman now calls that.
Waxman also protected and strengthened the Clean Air Act, expanded Medicaid coverage for poor children and wrote a landmark AIDS care bill. Then Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994.
The minority party in the House has few rights, and Democrats have complained that GOP leaders completely shut them out from writing legislation.
So, Waxman said, "I recreated myself as an investigator."
The makeover was a success.
When he became top Democrat of the Government Reform Committee in 1997, Waxman realized that he didn't have to settle for playing defense like most in the House minority. He took advantage of the committee's large staff to hire talented investigators to pursue projects large and small.
His targets have ranged from why the Taekwondo Union was allowing 12- and 13-year-olds to kick opponents in the head, to Medicare drug costs and baseball steroid use, to abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and government contracts given to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton.
After agitating by Waxman, the State Department had to revise a report claiming terrorism had decreased in 2003, to reflect that it actually had increased.
Waxman found overbilling on Katrina contracts and overbilling by Halliburton in Iraq. He revealed that seniors wouldn't really save on premiums by switching to the government's Medicare drug plan. With Davis, he issued a report documenting extensive contacts between the White House and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Taekwondo Union agreed to prohibit head kicks by anyone under 14.
And when Bush administration resistance meant he didn't get results, Waxman got headlines for trying.
As Government Reform chairman, Waxman will aim to reassert congressional checks on the executive branch. A priority are government contracts: for Hurricane Katrina cleanup, homeland security and the Iraq war.
Contrary to Republican portrayals, Waxman said he doesn't plan to issue scattershot subpoenas. He said he has little interest in revisiting Bush administration failures that are already well known, such as Iraq war intelligence.
He wants to do it all with the help of Republicans.
"We want to return to civility and bipartisanship," Waxman said. "Legislation ought to be based on evidence, not ideology."
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061125/D8LK9BHG1.html
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., comments on
his new role at his office in Los Angeles, in
this Nov. 10, 2006 file photo. The Democratic
congressman who will investigate the Bush
administration's running of the government
says there are so many areas of possible
wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding
which ones to pursue. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)
Nov 25, 2:12 PM (ET)
By ERICA WERNER
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The lawmaker poised to cause the Bush administration's biggest headaches when Democrats take control of Congress may just be a grocer's son from Watts who's hardly a household name off Capitol Hill.
Rep. Henry Waxman has spent the last six years waging a guerrilla campaign against the White House and its corporate allies, launching searing investigations into everything from military contracts to Medicare prices from his perch on the Government Reform Committee.
In January, Waxman becomes committee chairman - and thus the lead congressional hound of an administration many Democrats feel has blundered badly as it expanded the power of the executive branch.
Waxman's biggest challenge as he mulls what to probe?
"The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose," he said.
The choices he makes could help define Bush's legacy.
"There is just no question that life is going to be different for the administration," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the current committee chairman. "Henry is going to be tough. ... And he's been waiting a long time to be able to do this."
Waxman, 67, is in his 16th term representing a Los Angeles district that has migrated west over the years to take in some of the country's most exclusive real estate: Bel Air, Malibu, Beverly Hills. It's worlds from the apartment he grew up in over his father's grocery store, in a predominantly black neighborhood where, he said, "There was one other Jewish kid - my sister."
The glitz of his district hasn't rubbed off. He remarks wryly that Malibu's celebrity beach-access disputes are, luckily, not a federal issue. And he's never been to the Oscars.
At first he wasn't invited, and now, "I have this reputation of never having gone." Why ruin it?
Balding, and quiet-spoken, with glasses, a snub-nose and a mustache, the 5-foot-5-inch Waxman isn't an in-your-face political bruiser. But he doesn't shrink from a fight.
At age 28 he challenged and beat a Democratic incumbent to win a seat in the state Assembly. Once in Congress, he muscled aside a more senior lawmaker to become chairman of an Energy and Commerce subcommittee, using the post to summon the heads of big tobacco to the famous 1994 hearing, depicted in the movie "The Insider," at which they testified that nicotine wasn't addictive.
"One of the biggest miscalculations of corporate America," Waxman now calls that.
Waxman also protected and strengthened the Clean Air Act, expanded Medicaid coverage for poor children and wrote a landmark AIDS care bill. Then Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994.
The minority party in the House has few rights, and Democrats have complained that GOP leaders completely shut them out from writing legislation.
So, Waxman said, "I recreated myself as an investigator."
The makeover was a success.
When he became top Democrat of the Government Reform Committee in 1997, Waxman realized that he didn't have to settle for playing defense like most in the House minority. He took advantage of the committee's large staff to hire talented investigators to pursue projects large and small.
His targets have ranged from why the Taekwondo Union was allowing 12- and 13-year-olds to kick opponents in the head, to Medicare drug costs and baseball steroid use, to abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and government contracts given to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton.
After agitating by Waxman, the State Department had to revise a report claiming terrorism had decreased in 2003, to reflect that it actually had increased.
Waxman found overbilling on Katrina contracts and overbilling by Halliburton in Iraq. He revealed that seniors wouldn't really save on premiums by switching to the government's Medicare drug plan. With Davis, he issued a report documenting extensive contacts between the White House and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Taekwondo Union agreed to prohibit head kicks by anyone under 14.
And when Bush administration resistance meant he didn't get results, Waxman got headlines for trying.
As Government Reform chairman, Waxman will aim to reassert congressional checks on the executive branch. A priority are government contracts: for Hurricane Katrina cleanup, homeland security and the Iraq war.
Contrary to Republican portrayals, Waxman said he doesn't plan to issue scattershot subpoenas. He said he has little interest in revisiting Bush administration failures that are already well known, such as Iraq war intelligence.
He wants to do it all with the help of Republicans.
"We want to return to civility and bipartisanship," Waxman said. "Legislation ought to be based on evidence, not ideology."
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061125/D8LK9BHG1.html
Personally I'm glad Dems will have more influence with Supreme Court Nominations the thought of another neocon judge scared the shit outta me. I also think Dems will hold oil companies accountable so look for price hikes before they take office in Jan. But ultimately I think the 2006 mid-term election showed a frightened public who see a Emperor presiding in the Oval Office.
Now here's one WE can agree on. I've been really concerned with the direction of the Supreme Court. Its as if many of US seem not to realize the significance of the Supreme Court upon OUR lives. I'd like to see more middle of the road justices appointed to the court (though I haven't analyzed how many, if any, appointments GW may make in the remainder of his term).nittie said:
QueEx
I'm afraid he'll appoint at least 1 more but I think a Democratic Congress can temper his selection. What really bothers me though is neither party will confront big business. Murtha thought ethics reform was a bunch of baloney, Hastings being appointed as a Committee chair is another concern.
B
Blkvoz
Guest
I am a Dem, I have never voted for the GOP, having said that.QueEx said:
I don't expect for there to be too big a difference in government under Democratic control. Remember just over 12 years ago, the Dem were in control.
The new speaker of the house was stupid enough to cause an open conflict even before she steeped into her new position. If the Dems cannot get along before taking over, how in the hell can they ever hope to ever bring about any real change. Which I doubt they can or will. Hopefully I am wrong..
As far as judicial appointments, the Dem now have a strong voice in the appointment of fed judges, particularly in the lower federal courts. But in no way will they be able to Bogart Bush in selecting moderate or liberal judges. One GOP sen has already said the dems do not have the required 60 votes to cut off filibusters.
The GOP will no doubt rant and rave about obstructionism when the Dems block some appointments. Forgetting all about the 11 federal appointments left open when the GOP controlled the Senate during the Clinton Administration. Unless they find some balls, the Dems will just back off and lick their wounds when chastised by the GOP, and no doubt make some concessions just so as to not be seen as bullies blocking the function of Government.
Then there is the old adage about power corrupting.
Let us not forget, Lieberman The dem that was kicked to the curb in his state He is still a Bush man. When he casts his lot with the GOP, that can and will cause a tie, you know the drill.
Equally ominous is the Conservative bloc in the Dem party, which is another reason the speaker elect will have a hard time bringing the party together. It can be done, I personally do not think she will be able to do it, particularly when you condsider she lost her bid to seat her selection for second banana.
I look for the Dems to loose control in four to six years or less. I really do hope I am wrong.
If on the other hand they take up the cause of the common man, They can take control forever. Min wage, drugs for the aged, gas prices, the borders, Lobby reform, there is plenty for them to do if they really want to make a difference, things they can do if the will is present.
As for me, I doubt it.
Presidential Tyranny Untamed by Election Defeat
t r u t h o u t | December 13, 2006
Chris Floyd
I. Genetic Modification
Like the two entwining strands of the double helix, law and power form the genetic structure of government. Law is nothing but empty verbiage without power to back it up, enforce it, embody it. And power without law is nothing but a mad ape, baring its teeth, thumping its chest, raping and beating where it pleases, taking what it wants: a bestial thing, born in the muddy swamp of our lowest, blindest, rawest biochemical impulses. Disconnect these strands and things fall apart, as Yeats says; the center literally cannot hold, and the blood-dimmed tide is loosed upon the world.
We have seen the proof of this in our time. When law - understood here as agreed-upon principles of justice and commonweal - is treated as a filthy rag or a "quaint" relic or a cynical sham by those in power, the result is an ever-growing suppuration of greed, lies, brutality and violence. Its starkest form is evident in Iraq, where a lawless invasion based on deceit has created a hell beyond imagining, and beyond control. At home, unfettered power has stripped Americans of their essential liberties and human rights, which are now no longer unalienable and inviolable but are instead the gift of the "unitary executive," to bestow - or withhold - as he sees fit.
For those who hoped that November's elections might bring some essential alteration in our degraded estate, some repair of the broken strands, recent events have been dispiriting indeed. Two in particular stand out as exemplary of the ugly reality behind the bright rhetoric of "change" and "moderation" now twinkling in the Beltway air. Although apparently unrelated, they are in fact part of the same malignant process that has been devouring the structure - and substance - of the Republic for years.
One strand of this revealing juxtaposition involves the release of a video showing the nightmarish treatment meted out to Jose Padilla - an American citizen seized on American soil and subjected to torture under indefinite detention without charges or trial, and who was subsequently revealed by the Bush administration itself to have engaged in no conspiracy or act of hostility toward the United States. Now his mind has been broken by years of brutal "interrogation methods," complete isolation and bizarre sensory-deprivation techniques, leaving him incapable of aiding his defense in his trial for the much-reduced - and, according to most legal experts, highly shaky - charges of trying to aid Islamist groups in Chechnya and elsewhere.
The other strand centers on the Senate confirmation of Robert Gates as defense secretary, in which one of the most compromised candidates ever nominated for a major Cabinet post was ushered into power with loving care by a Democratic faction supposedly dedicated to "vigilant oversight" and "asking tough questions" after their triumph at the polls last month.
Taken together, these events represent a kind of photographic negative of the double helix of a healthful state: instead of law and power, we see tyranny and weakness, linked in a destructive downward spiral that shows no sign of ending.
II. A Bulwark Breached
To understand more fully the nature of the atrocity inflicted on Jose Padilla - and the whole penumbra of constitutional and moral issues raised by Bush's liberty-gutting "unitary executive" dictatorship - we must go back precisely 140 years, to December 1866, when the Supreme Court rendered its formal opinion in the case Ex Parte Milligan. It was a decisive ruling against a government that had far overreached its powers, stripping away essential liberties in the name of national security. The justice who authored the unanimous majority opinion was a Republican, an old friend and political crony of the president who had appointed him. Even so, his ruling struck hard at the abuses set in train by his patron. He stood upon the law, he stood upon the Constitution, even in the aftermath of a shattering blow that had killed more than 600,000 Americans and almost destroyed the nation itself.
This is what the Court decided: "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence."
The author was Justice David Davis, an Illinois lawyer appointed by Abraham Lincoln after helping run the campaign that gave his old colleague the presidency in the fateful 1860 election. (Davis was also, by a strange quirk of history, the second cousin of George W. Bush's great-grandfather.) By the time the Court issued its ruling, Lincoln was dead, but the after-effects of his ever-expanding suspension of civil liberties during wartime were still roiling through the courts, and through America's fractured society. The Milligan ruling was, in the words of legal scholar John P. Frank, "one of the truly great documents of the American Constitution," a "bulwark" for civil liberties, expansive and exacting in the constitutional protections it spelled out.
The ruling acknowledged that there are times when the writ of habeas corpus may have to be suspended, in an area where hostilities are directly taking place - but even this power, they noted, was highly circumscribed and specifically delegated to Congress, not the president. Lincoln exceeded this authority on numerous occasions, increasing the scope of his powers until the entire Union was essentially under martial law, and anyone arbitrarily deemed guilty of never-defined "disloyal practices" could be arrested or silenced - in the latter case by having their newspaper shut down, for instance. (Lincoln would sometimes - but not always - seek ex post facto Congressional authorization for these acts.) Some parts of the Union that the Lincoln administration thought particularly disloyal were officially put under martial law - like southern Indiana, where anti-war agitator Lambdin Milligan and four others were accused of a plot to free Confederate prisoners, and were summarily tried and sentenced to death by a military tribunal.
It was this case that the Court - five members of which were Lincoln appointees - overturned in such a decided fashion. The ruling is plain: constitutional protections not only apply "equally in war and peace" but also - in a dramatic extension of this legal shield - to "all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." No emergency - not even open civil war - warrants their suspension. Even in wartime, the president's powers, though expanded, are still restrained: "he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws."
All of this - and much more of the ruling besides - is directly applicable to the transparently illicit and unconstitutional regime set up by the Bush administration to prosecute its self-declared "War on Terror." Indefinite detention, torture, military tribunals, the arbitrary creation of novel legal categories such as "unlawful enemy combatant," warrantless surveillance, extrajudicial killings, kidnapping and rendition of uncharged captives, secret prisons - in short, the entire apparatus whose machinations led to the destruction of Jose Padilla's mind - is completely without basis in law, as the US Supreme Court ruled 140 years ago.
In fact, the current Court drew heavily on Milligan in another case involving an American citizen imprisoned in the "War on Terror" (after being captured on the battlefield, unlike Padilla, who was grabbed while walking through the Chicago airport): Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld. It was this 2004 ruling that sent the Bush administration back to Congress for rubberstamp approval of a bill that turned out to be not a limitation of the presidential dictatorship, but its vast expansion, including the permanent loss of habeas corpus rights even by Terror War captives who had not engaged in hostilities against the United States. (Indeed, as administration officials have explicitly stated, these strictures could also apply to people who had unwittingly aided an accused terrorist organization in some fashion.) Many legal experts agree that the deliberately vague language of this new bill - the now-infamous "Military Commissions Act" - includes American citizens among those who can be arbitrarily designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" and held forever without charge or trial at the pleasure of the "unitary executive."
The MCA was regarded by many as the final guttering-out of the Republic's ancient flame. It wholeheartedly accepted the principle of the "unitary executive" and Bush's claim of "inherent powers" which allow him to disregard any part of any law that he doesn't like - despite the fact that such ghostly powers do not exist in the Constitution, as the Milligan ruling clearly stated. By codifying the principle of presidential dictatorship into "law" - now understood merely as the ratification of the executive's arbitrary decisions - the MCA transformed the fundamental nature of the American state. As noted above, all liberties are now at the mercy of the executive. The abuses of power that this principle has led to are already enormous; the potential for further abuses under this new-style state is virtually without limit.
But suddenly, in the Republic's darkest hour, came a ray of light: against all odds - and a vast GOP vote-fixing operation that shaved off at least three or four million likely Democratic votes, as Greg Palast has documented - the American people ousted Bush's willing executioners of liberty from their stranglehold on Congress. Hopes long quelled by years of unanswered outrages sprang back to life: Surely now will come a day of reckoning. Now will come a restoration. Now the great double helix of law and power will be stitched back together again.
But will it?
III. The Party of Surrender
The hope of a return to at least a semblance of constitutional government rests on the Democrats' newly-acquired majority. It is perhaps a mark of how very desperate the nation's condition has become that this particular group of national Democratic leaders could actually inspire hopes for substantial change. Their record over the past five years has been one of accommodation, cowardice, confusion and weakness. No issue - with the possible exception of Social Security privatization - was worth a concerted fight, a filibuster, or even tough questioning: not even a war of aggression launched while UN inspectors were in the process of determining the veracity of the casus belli. The president wanted his war no matter what; they gave him a blank check for it - and they keep on cashing it.
From the Patriot Act to the "Authorization to Use Military Force" against Iraq - which has become the Bush administration's repeatedly invoked "Enabling Act" to "justify" its authoritarian dictates - the Congressional Democrats (aside from a handful of honorable exceptions) have offered, at best, only token, tepid opposition to Bush's relentless encroachments and blood-soaked follies. Indeed, many of them have often been enthusiastic partners in the excesses. Very few have dissented from the underlying principles of Bush's policies (war, war profiteering, "full-spectrum dominance" of world affairs, corporate hegemony of American society, the diminution of liberty, etc.); they have only taken issue with tactical questions of how these polices have been pursued. They could not even summon up the guts to filibuster the MCA, to go down fighting for the Republic with every tool at their disposal.
And yet still it is hoped that the strong support of the American people in the November elections will somehow transform this gaggle of timorous geese into bold champions of liberty when they assume the mantle of majorityship in January. Well, it may be so; stranger things have happened in the world. But if their recent performance during the Gates confirmation process is any indication, essentially nothing will change at all: the horror in Iraq will rage on and on, and there will be no legal reckoning for the perpetrators of unjust war, barbarous practices and the unlawful exercise of arbitrary rule.
Gates had been raked over hot coals during his last confirmation, as CIA director in 1991: four months of hearings, with hundreds of witnesses, thousands of documents and four days on the grill for Gates himself, as the New York Times notes. Much of the probe centered on Gates's role in the Iran-Contra affair. ("Affair" being the somewhat light-hearted word for an operation that involved shipping arms illegally to the "Islamofascist" mullahs of Iran, running a terrorist war against Nicaragua, waging "psy-ops" war on the American people and systematically lying to Congress.) And even more details of Gates's murky past in the shadowlands of covert ops and backroom deals have come to light in subsequent years, as the indefatigable Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com reports. These include:
Highly credible allegations of Gates's role in the secret funneling of weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, at the behest of the Reagan-Bush administration;
Highly credible allegations of his role in the "October Surprise" plot of 1980, which saw top Reagan-Bush campaign officials (and most likely Bush I himself) negotiating with Iranian leaders to keep the American hostages in Tehran held captive until after the election (an act of high treason, by the way);
His blatant skewing of intelligence data to serve partisan political purposes, in particular helping the Reagan-Bush team craft baseless, fearmongering scare stories about the "Soviet menace";
His bellicose, hair-trigger plans for bombing Nicaragua and launching an all-out invasion of Libya, which alarmed even his hardcore, hard-Right mentors like Bill Casey.
Matters worth a question or two, you might think, before giving a man control over the most gargantuan military machine in the history of the world, along with its ever-expanding intelligence tentacles (both at home and abroad) and hydra-headed covert operations. Yet none of these uncomfortable topics were broached during the perfunctory, one-day hearing on Gates's acquisition of the Pentagon. Even old Democratic lions like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd purred like kittens as the chubby-cheeked Beltway operator offered up a few well-scripted "moderate" noises. Instead of an exercise in serious oversight, the hearing was a "day of compliments and warm chuckles," as the NYT described it.
But the past wasn't the only thing being avoided by the ever-polite "opposition" party; they gave Gates a pass on the present as well. As Parry astutely notes, the Democrats failed "to nail down the nominee's precise thinking on any aspect of the war strategy or even to secure a guarantee that the Pentagon would turn over documents for future oversight hearings. Among many gaps in the questioning, the Democrats didn't press Gates on whether he shared the neo-conservative vision of violently remaking the Middle East, whether he endorsed the Military Commissions Act's elimination of habeas corpus rights to fair trials, whether he supports warrantless eavesdropping by the Pentagon's National Security Agency, whether he agrees with Bush's claim of "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as a commander in chief who can override laws and the US Constitution."
And so Gates, a long-time Bush Family factotum - in fact, even more of a compliant "Family" member than the ever-prickly Donald Rumsfeld - is in like Flynn. Not a single Democrat voted against him. They have clearly begun this "new era" as they mean to go on. They have already surrendered the biggest weapon in their arsenal that might induce genuine change in the Bush administration's disastrous policies and force the White House to cooperate with Congressional investigations: the threat of impeachment for the many high crimes and misdemeanors that Bush and Dick Cheney could very plausibly be charged with. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has firmly ruled out any moves toward such actual accountability.
What's more, the Democrats have also surrendered the most effective tool for bringing the murderous, illicit war in Iraq to an end: the power of the purse, which an earlier Congress used to cut off funds for the Vietnam War. Today's Democratic leaders swiftly rejected the call by Congressman Dennis Kucinich for similar action. In fact, the newly-selected House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, echoes warhawk Senator John McCain in calling for even more troops and more money to be thrown into the Iraqi fire.
Yes, there will be cosmetic changes when the Democrats take the reins. There will be more investigations - largely toothless, with the White House stonewalling and running out the clock, although a few low-hanging "bad apples" might be picked off here and there. There will be symbolic gestures, such as the recently introduced bill to rescind the MCA - a piece of pure political theater that has no chance of becoming law: the Democratic majority will be too small to override the inevitable veto. In fact, the entire "progressive agenda" - which anxious moderates fret will be "threatened" if the Democrats actually try to carry out their public mandate of holding the administration responsible for its actions - will be hobbled in any case by Bush's ironclad veto, no matter how many warm chuckles the Dems share with administration minions. Spineless in opposition, the Democrats have already disarmed themselves before taking a share of power - and so power will remain in the lawless hands of the "unitary executive."
Where then is the end of the downward spiral, the "widening gyre" as law and power spin farther and farther apart? And what rough beast, sprung from this new genetic code of tyranny and weakness, is even now slouching toward Bethlehem - or Babylon - to be born?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121206J.shtml
t r u t h o u t | December 13, 2006
Chris Floyd
I. Genetic Modification
Like the two entwining strands of the double helix, law and power form the genetic structure of government. Law is nothing but empty verbiage without power to back it up, enforce it, embody it. And power without law is nothing but a mad ape, baring its teeth, thumping its chest, raping and beating where it pleases, taking what it wants: a bestial thing, born in the muddy swamp of our lowest, blindest, rawest biochemical impulses. Disconnect these strands and things fall apart, as Yeats says; the center literally cannot hold, and the blood-dimmed tide is loosed upon the world.
We have seen the proof of this in our time. When law - understood here as agreed-upon principles of justice and commonweal - is treated as a filthy rag or a "quaint" relic or a cynical sham by those in power, the result is an ever-growing suppuration of greed, lies, brutality and violence. Its starkest form is evident in Iraq, where a lawless invasion based on deceit has created a hell beyond imagining, and beyond control. At home, unfettered power has stripped Americans of their essential liberties and human rights, which are now no longer unalienable and inviolable but are instead the gift of the "unitary executive," to bestow - or withhold - as he sees fit.
For those who hoped that November's elections might bring some essential alteration in our degraded estate, some repair of the broken strands, recent events have been dispiriting indeed. Two in particular stand out as exemplary of the ugly reality behind the bright rhetoric of "change" and "moderation" now twinkling in the Beltway air. Although apparently unrelated, they are in fact part of the same malignant process that has been devouring the structure - and substance - of the Republic for years.
One strand of this revealing juxtaposition involves the release of a video showing the nightmarish treatment meted out to Jose Padilla - an American citizen seized on American soil and subjected to torture under indefinite detention without charges or trial, and who was subsequently revealed by the Bush administration itself to have engaged in no conspiracy or act of hostility toward the United States. Now his mind has been broken by years of brutal "interrogation methods," complete isolation and bizarre sensory-deprivation techniques, leaving him incapable of aiding his defense in his trial for the much-reduced - and, according to most legal experts, highly shaky - charges of trying to aid Islamist groups in Chechnya and elsewhere.
The other strand centers on the Senate confirmation of Robert Gates as defense secretary, in which one of the most compromised candidates ever nominated for a major Cabinet post was ushered into power with loving care by a Democratic faction supposedly dedicated to "vigilant oversight" and "asking tough questions" after their triumph at the polls last month.
Taken together, these events represent a kind of photographic negative of the double helix of a healthful state: instead of law and power, we see tyranny and weakness, linked in a destructive downward spiral that shows no sign of ending.
II. A Bulwark Breached
To understand more fully the nature of the atrocity inflicted on Jose Padilla - and the whole penumbra of constitutional and moral issues raised by Bush's liberty-gutting "unitary executive" dictatorship - we must go back precisely 140 years, to December 1866, when the Supreme Court rendered its formal opinion in the case Ex Parte Milligan. It was a decisive ruling against a government that had far overreached its powers, stripping away essential liberties in the name of national security. The justice who authored the unanimous majority opinion was a Republican, an old friend and political crony of the president who had appointed him. Even so, his ruling struck hard at the abuses set in train by his patron. He stood upon the law, he stood upon the Constitution, even in the aftermath of a shattering blow that had killed more than 600,000 Americans and almost destroyed the nation itself.
This is what the Court decided: "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence."
The author was Justice David Davis, an Illinois lawyer appointed by Abraham Lincoln after helping run the campaign that gave his old colleague the presidency in the fateful 1860 election. (Davis was also, by a strange quirk of history, the second cousin of George W. Bush's great-grandfather.) By the time the Court issued its ruling, Lincoln was dead, but the after-effects of his ever-expanding suspension of civil liberties during wartime were still roiling through the courts, and through America's fractured society. The Milligan ruling was, in the words of legal scholar John P. Frank, "one of the truly great documents of the American Constitution," a "bulwark" for civil liberties, expansive and exacting in the constitutional protections it spelled out.
The ruling acknowledged that there are times when the writ of habeas corpus may have to be suspended, in an area where hostilities are directly taking place - but even this power, they noted, was highly circumscribed and specifically delegated to Congress, not the president. Lincoln exceeded this authority on numerous occasions, increasing the scope of his powers until the entire Union was essentially under martial law, and anyone arbitrarily deemed guilty of never-defined "disloyal practices" could be arrested or silenced - in the latter case by having their newspaper shut down, for instance. (Lincoln would sometimes - but not always - seek ex post facto Congressional authorization for these acts.) Some parts of the Union that the Lincoln administration thought particularly disloyal were officially put under martial law - like southern Indiana, where anti-war agitator Lambdin Milligan and four others were accused of a plot to free Confederate prisoners, and were summarily tried and sentenced to death by a military tribunal.
It was this case that the Court - five members of which were Lincoln appointees - overturned in such a decided fashion. The ruling is plain: constitutional protections not only apply "equally in war and peace" but also - in a dramatic extension of this legal shield - to "all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances." No emergency - not even open civil war - warrants their suspension. Even in wartime, the president's powers, though expanded, are still restrained: "he is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws."
All of this - and much more of the ruling besides - is directly applicable to the transparently illicit and unconstitutional regime set up by the Bush administration to prosecute its self-declared "War on Terror." Indefinite detention, torture, military tribunals, the arbitrary creation of novel legal categories such as "unlawful enemy combatant," warrantless surveillance, extrajudicial killings, kidnapping and rendition of uncharged captives, secret prisons - in short, the entire apparatus whose machinations led to the destruction of Jose Padilla's mind - is completely without basis in law, as the US Supreme Court ruled 140 years ago.
In fact, the current Court drew heavily on Milligan in another case involving an American citizen imprisoned in the "War on Terror" (after being captured on the battlefield, unlike Padilla, who was grabbed while walking through the Chicago airport): Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld. It was this 2004 ruling that sent the Bush administration back to Congress for rubberstamp approval of a bill that turned out to be not a limitation of the presidential dictatorship, but its vast expansion, including the permanent loss of habeas corpus rights even by Terror War captives who had not engaged in hostilities against the United States. (Indeed, as administration officials have explicitly stated, these strictures could also apply to people who had unwittingly aided an accused terrorist organization in some fashion.) Many legal experts agree that the deliberately vague language of this new bill - the now-infamous "Military Commissions Act" - includes American citizens among those who can be arbitrarily designated as "unlawful enemy combatants" and held forever without charge or trial at the pleasure of the "unitary executive."
The MCA was regarded by many as the final guttering-out of the Republic's ancient flame. It wholeheartedly accepted the principle of the "unitary executive" and Bush's claim of "inherent powers" which allow him to disregard any part of any law that he doesn't like - despite the fact that such ghostly powers do not exist in the Constitution, as the Milligan ruling clearly stated. By codifying the principle of presidential dictatorship into "law" - now understood merely as the ratification of the executive's arbitrary decisions - the MCA transformed the fundamental nature of the American state. As noted above, all liberties are now at the mercy of the executive. The abuses of power that this principle has led to are already enormous; the potential for further abuses under this new-style state is virtually without limit.
But suddenly, in the Republic's darkest hour, came a ray of light: against all odds - and a vast GOP vote-fixing operation that shaved off at least three or four million likely Democratic votes, as Greg Palast has documented - the American people ousted Bush's willing executioners of liberty from their stranglehold on Congress. Hopes long quelled by years of unanswered outrages sprang back to life: Surely now will come a day of reckoning. Now will come a restoration. Now the great double helix of law and power will be stitched back together again.
But will it?
III. The Party of Surrender
The hope of a return to at least a semblance of constitutional government rests on the Democrats' newly-acquired majority. It is perhaps a mark of how very desperate the nation's condition has become that this particular group of national Democratic leaders could actually inspire hopes for substantial change. Their record over the past five years has been one of accommodation, cowardice, confusion and weakness. No issue - with the possible exception of Social Security privatization - was worth a concerted fight, a filibuster, or even tough questioning: not even a war of aggression launched while UN inspectors were in the process of determining the veracity of the casus belli. The president wanted his war no matter what; they gave him a blank check for it - and they keep on cashing it.
From the Patriot Act to the "Authorization to Use Military Force" against Iraq - which has become the Bush administration's repeatedly invoked "Enabling Act" to "justify" its authoritarian dictates - the Congressional Democrats (aside from a handful of honorable exceptions) have offered, at best, only token, tepid opposition to Bush's relentless encroachments and blood-soaked follies. Indeed, many of them have often been enthusiastic partners in the excesses. Very few have dissented from the underlying principles of Bush's policies (war, war profiteering, "full-spectrum dominance" of world affairs, corporate hegemony of American society, the diminution of liberty, etc.); they have only taken issue with tactical questions of how these polices have been pursued. They could not even summon up the guts to filibuster the MCA, to go down fighting for the Republic with every tool at their disposal.
And yet still it is hoped that the strong support of the American people in the November elections will somehow transform this gaggle of timorous geese into bold champions of liberty when they assume the mantle of majorityship in January. Well, it may be so; stranger things have happened in the world. But if their recent performance during the Gates confirmation process is any indication, essentially nothing will change at all: the horror in Iraq will rage on and on, and there will be no legal reckoning for the perpetrators of unjust war, barbarous practices and the unlawful exercise of arbitrary rule.
Gates had been raked over hot coals during his last confirmation, as CIA director in 1991: four months of hearings, with hundreds of witnesses, thousands of documents and four days on the grill for Gates himself, as the New York Times notes. Much of the probe centered on Gates's role in the Iran-Contra affair. ("Affair" being the somewhat light-hearted word for an operation that involved shipping arms illegally to the "Islamofascist" mullahs of Iran, running a terrorist war against Nicaragua, waging "psy-ops" war on the American people and systematically lying to Congress.) And even more details of Gates's murky past in the shadowlands of covert ops and backroom deals have come to light in subsequent years, as the indefatigable Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com reports. These include:
Highly credible allegations of Gates's role in the secret funneling of weapons to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, at the behest of the Reagan-Bush administration;
Highly credible allegations of his role in the "October Surprise" plot of 1980, which saw top Reagan-Bush campaign officials (and most likely Bush I himself) negotiating with Iranian leaders to keep the American hostages in Tehran held captive until after the election (an act of high treason, by the way);
His blatant skewing of intelligence data to serve partisan political purposes, in particular helping the Reagan-Bush team craft baseless, fearmongering scare stories about the "Soviet menace";
His bellicose, hair-trigger plans for bombing Nicaragua and launching an all-out invasion of Libya, which alarmed even his hardcore, hard-Right mentors like Bill Casey.
Matters worth a question or two, you might think, before giving a man control over the most gargantuan military machine in the history of the world, along with its ever-expanding intelligence tentacles (both at home and abroad) and hydra-headed covert operations. Yet none of these uncomfortable topics were broached during the perfunctory, one-day hearing on Gates's acquisition of the Pentagon. Even old Democratic lions like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd purred like kittens as the chubby-cheeked Beltway operator offered up a few well-scripted "moderate" noises. Instead of an exercise in serious oversight, the hearing was a "day of compliments and warm chuckles," as the NYT described it.
But the past wasn't the only thing being avoided by the ever-polite "opposition" party; they gave Gates a pass on the present as well. As Parry astutely notes, the Democrats failed "to nail down the nominee's precise thinking on any aspect of the war strategy or even to secure a guarantee that the Pentagon would turn over documents for future oversight hearings. Among many gaps in the questioning, the Democrats didn't press Gates on whether he shared the neo-conservative vision of violently remaking the Middle East, whether he endorsed the Military Commissions Act's elimination of habeas corpus rights to fair trials, whether he supports warrantless eavesdropping by the Pentagon's National Security Agency, whether he agrees with Bush's claim of "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as a commander in chief who can override laws and the US Constitution."
And so Gates, a long-time Bush Family factotum - in fact, even more of a compliant "Family" member than the ever-prickly Donald Rumsfeld - is in like Flynn. Not a single Democrat voted against him. They have clearly begun this "new era" as they mean to go on. They have already surrendered the biggest weapon in their arsenal that might induce genuine change in the Bush administration's disastrous policies and force the White House to cooperate with Congressional investigations: the threat of impeachment for the many high crimes and misdemeanors that Bush and Dick Cheney could very plausibly be charged with. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has firmly ruled out any moves toward such actual accountability.
What's more, the Democrats have also surrendered the most effective tool for bringing the murderous, illicit war in Iraq to an end: the power of the purse, which an earlier Congress used to cut off funds for the Vietnam War. Today's Democratic leaders swiftly rejected the call by Congressman Dennis Kucinich for similar action. In fact, the newly-selected House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, echoes warhawk Senator John McCain in calling for even more troops and more money to be thrown into the Iraqi fire.
Yes, there will be cosmetic changes when the Democrats take the reins. There will be more investigations - largely toothless, with the White House stonewalling and running out the clock, although a few low-hanging "bad apples" might be picked off here and there. There will be symbolic gestures, such as the recently introduced bill to rescind the MCA - a piece of pure political theater that has no chance of becoming law: the Democratic majority will be too small to override the inevitable veto. In fact, the entire "progressive agenda" - which anxious moderates fret will be "threatened" if the Democrats actually try to carry out their public mandate of holding the administration responsible for its actions - will be hobbled in any case by Bush's ironclad veto, no matter how many warm chuckles the Dems share with administration minions. Spineless in opposition, the Democrats have already disarmed themselves before taking a share of power - and so power will remain in the lawless hands of the "unitary executive."
Where then is the end of the downward spiral, the "widening gyre" as law and power spin farther and farther apart? And what rough beast, sprung from this new genetic code of tyranny and weakness, is even now slouching toward Bethlehem - or Babylon - to be born?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121206J.shtml
<font size="5"><center>Democrats Eye Oil Money for Conservation</font size></center>
Dec 26, 4:50 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats in the first weeks of the new Congress plan to establish a dedicated fund to promote renewable energy and conservation, using money from oil companies. That's only one legislative hit the oil industry is expected to take next year as a Congress run by Democrats is likely to show little sympathy to the cash-rich, high-profile business.
Whether the issue is rolling back tax breaks - some approved by Congress only 18 months ago - pushing for more use of ethanol and other biofuels instead of gasoline, or investigations into shortfalls in royalty payments to the government, oil industry lobbyists will spend most of their time playing defense.
Details of a renewable fuels fund have yet to be worked out. Nonetheless, it's one of the initiatives the House will take up during its first 100 hours in session in January, according to aides to Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. At least some of the money - revenue gained by rolling back some tax breaks - will go to a program to support research into making ethanol from sources other than corn.
"What we'll do is roll back the subsidies to Big Oil and use the resources to invest in a reserve for research in alternative energy," Pelosi, a California Democrat, recently told reporters.
But the oil issue likely to be first out of the legislative block in January concerns the ability of the federal government to recover royalties many lawmakers believe have been unfairly avoided by oil and gas companies drilling in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The Interior Department has been trying to get more than 50 companies to rework 1998-99 drilling leases that allow the companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in royalties because of a government mistake in writing the leases. Recently five companies agreed to a compromise to pay royalties on future production under the leases, but not from oil and gas already taken from the federal waters.
Most of the other companies argue that the leases represent a binding contract and have not even talked to Interior officials about them.
The industry intransigence has upset many in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, who say they want to find a way to force the companies back to negotiations on the flawed leases. One approach is legislation barring companies from bidding on future leases unless they agree to renegotiate the flawed ones.
"There will be a new cop on the beat to force every big oil company that is currently lining its pockets with taxpayer dollars to come back to the negotiating table," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., declared.
Pelosi calls the royalty avoidance from the 1998-99 leases the biggest oil industry subsidy issue she intends to tackle early. Congressional estimates have put the potential royalty loss at as much as $10 billion over the life of the leases.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, has promised to continue pressing the Interior Department on the matter, which also has been the subject of extensive hearings under GOP leadership.
Recently Waxman and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee's departing chairman, asked the Justice Department to review Interior's claim that royalties legally cannot be collected from past production under the leases.
House Democrats also are targeting a handful of oil industry tax breaks for repeal. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers say there is unlikely to be an attempt to push more sweeping measures such a new tax on the oil industry's windfall profits.
Members of both parties have said they also want to make another stab at passing a federal law against oil company price gouging, an issue that will gain momentum should oil and gasoline prices again soar amid huge industry profits.
At the top of the hit list is a tax break that was aimed at promoting U.S. manufacturing but has provided a windfall for the oil industry as well. The provision reduces the corporate tax rate on profits from products made in the United States.
As for oil companies rolling in profits with $60-a-barrel crude, it is "a break they didn't earn, deserve or need," says Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. McDermott tried to eliminate the tax break in May but was unsuccessful. He estimates that oil companies are saving as much as $700 million in taxes a year because of it.
Democrats also are targeting other benefits for refinery investments and for expenditures for certain types of oil and gas exploration. Those measures, passed by Congress last year as part of a broad energy bill, are estimated to cost the government about $1.3 billion over 10 years.
Executives of the largest oil companies have said they don't need those tax breaks and do not oppose their repeal. Congress earlier this year already eliminated the tax incentive on exploration for the five largest companies.
Oil lobbyists, however, are preparing to fight another proposal that would raise taxes on their inventories, a change that could cost oil companies billions of dollars. The inventory tax provisions cover the entire industry and some lawmakers want to repeal them only for the biggest companies.
"That would significantly raise the cost of holding inventory" and cause companies to reduce the amount of oil they keep in storage, said Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry trade group. If that happens "prices will go through the roof" if there is even a modest disruption, he predicted.
The White House is not opposed to rolling back some of the tax breaks that Congress approved last year. President Bush has said the industry doesn't need the subsidies given today's oil prices and industry profits.
But the administration is opposed to tinkering with some of the other tax rollbacks under consideration including the one on inventory taxes. The Interior Department also has said it wants to work with Congress to find ways to deal with the royalty issue, but is worried the proposal to bar companies from future leases could throw the federal offshore leasing program into lengthy litigation.
"Our fear is our (leasing) program would shut down. That would have a multibillion-dollar impact on federal revenues," Assistant Interior Secretary Stephen Allred recently told reporters.
Oil industry lobbyists also expect a Democratic push to further expand production of ethanol as a gasoline additive and don't see that as a threat to their business. A more contentious issue will be attempts to require large oil companies to make available fuel that is 85 percent ethanol, so-called E-85, at some of their retail outlets.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061226/D8M8PID00.html
Dec 26, 4:50 PM (ET)
Associated Press
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats in the first weeks of the new Congress plan to establish a dedicated fund to promote renewable energy and conservation, using money from oil companies. That's only one legislative hit the oil industry is expected to take next year as a Congress run by Democrats is likely to show little sympathy to the cash-rich, high-profile business.
Whether the issue is rolling back tax breaks - some approved by Congress only 18 months ago - pushing for more use of ethanol and other biofuels instead of gasoline, or investigations into shortfalls in royalty payments to the government, oil industry lobbyists will spend most of their time playing defense.
Details of a renewable fuels fund have yet to be worked out. Nonetheless, it's one of the initiatives the House will take up during its first 100 hours in session in January, according to aides to Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. At least some of the money - revenue gained by rolling back some tax breaks - will go to a program to support research into making ethanol from sources other than corn.
"What we'll do is roll back the subsidies to Big Oil and use the resources to invest in a reserve for research in alternative energy," Pelosi, a California Democrat, recently told reporters.
But the oil issue likely to be first out of the legislative block in January concerns the ability of the federal government to recover royalties many lawmakers believe have been unfairly avoided by oil and gas companies drilling in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The Interior Department has been trying to get more than 50 companies to rework 1998-99 drilling leases that allow the companies to avoid paying billions of dollars in royalties because of a government mistake in writing the leases. Recently five companies agreed to a compromise to pay royalties on future production under the leases, but not from oil and gas already taken from the federal waters.
Most of the other companies argue that the leases represent a binding contract and have not even talked to Interior officials about them.
The industry intransigence has upset many in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, who say they want to find a way to force the companies back to negotiations on the flawed leases. One approach is legislation barring companies from bidding on future leases unless they agree to renegotiate the flawed ones.
"There will be a new cop on the beat to force every big oil company that is currently lining its pockets with taxpayer dollars to come back to the negotiating table," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., declared.
Pelosi calls the royalty avoidance from the 1998-99 leases the biggest oil industry subsidy issue she intends to tackle early. Congressional estimates have put the potential royalty loss at as much as $10 billion over the life of the leases.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, has promised to continue pressing the Interior Department on the matter, which also has been the subject of extensive hearings under GOP leadership.
Recently Waxman and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee's departing chairman, asked the Justice Department to review Interior's claim that royalties legally cannot be collected from past production under the leases.
House Democrats also are targeting a handful of oil industry tax breaks for repeal. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers say there is unlikely to be an attempt to push more sweeping measures such a new tax on the oil industry's windfall profits.
Members of both parties have said they also want to make another stab at passing a federal law against oil company price gouging, an issue that will gain momentum should oil and gasoline prices again soar amid huge industry profits.
At the top of the hit list is a tax break that was aimed at promoting U.S. manufacturing but has provided a windfall for the oil industry as well. The provision reduces the corporate tax rate on profits from products made in the United States.
As for oil companies rolling in profits with $60-a-barrel crude, it is "a break they didn't earn, deserve or need," says Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. McDermott tried to eliminate the tax break in May but was unsuccessful. He estimates that oil companies are saving as much as $700 million in taxes a year because of it.
Democrats also are targeting other benefits for refinery investments and for expenditures for certain types of oil and gas exploration. Those measures, passed by Congress last year as part of a broad energy bill, are estimated to cost the government about $1.3 billion over 10 years.
Executives of the largest oil companies have said they don't need those tax breaks and do not oppose their repeal. Congress earlier this year already eliminated the tax incentive on exploration for the five largest companies.
Oil lobbyists, however, are preparing to fight another proposal that would raise taxes on their inventories, a change that could cost oil companies billions of dollars. The inventory tax provisions cover the entire industry and some lawmakers want to repeal them only for the biggest companies.
"That would significantly raise the cost of holding inventory" and cause companies to reduce the amount of oil they keep in storage, said Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry trade group. If that happens "prices will go through the roof" if there is even a modest disruption, he predicted.
The White House is not opposed to rolling back some of the tax breaks that Congress approved last year. President Bush has said the industry doesn't need the subsidies given today's oil prices and industry profits.
But the administration is opposed to tinkering with some of the other tax rollbacks under consideration including the one on inventory taxes. The Interior Department also has said it wants to work with Congress to find ways to deal with the royalty issue, but is worried the proposal to bar companies from future leases could throw the federal offshore leasing program into lengthy litigation.
"Our fear is our (leasing) program would shut down. That would have a multibillion-dollar impact on federal revenues," Assistant Interior Secretary Stephen Allred recently told reporters.
Oil industry lobbyists also expect a Democratic push to further expand production of ethanol as a gasoline additive and don't see that as a threat to their business. A more contentious issue will be attempts to require large oil companies to make available fuel that is 85 percent ethanol, so-called E-85, at some of their retail outlets.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20061226/D8M8PID00.html
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html?referrer=email" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html?referrer=email">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/25/AR2006122500549.html?referrer=email">link</A>
</IFRAME>
Last edited:
<font size="5"><center>
Democrats take home few victories</font size></center>
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
August 3, 2007
WASHINGTON — Democrats promised voters a lot in exchange for winning back the majority in Congress this year: a change of course in Iraq, a return to old-school bipartisanship and a broad domestic agenda.
Seven months later, however, as lawmakers prepare to return to their home states for their first major break — the annual August recess — the results are mixed.
President Bush vetoed the only out-of-Iraq legislation that the Democrats could get through both chambers.
At the same time, Democrats have forced serious discussions about how and when to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops, and have helped drive public opinion their way. Today more Republican lawmakers are publicly questioning the president's approach.
"I would make the case they have begun the process of changing the debate," said Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, an outspoken Republican war critic.
But partisan tensions are still running high.
The Senate is heading toward a record number of filibuster threats that block Democratic legislation. Republicans booed, jeered and stormed off the floor of the House of Representatives late Thursday night and spent much of Friday in protest, accusing Democrats of cheating to quash a vote.
Democrats have passed only a handful of their domestic priorities. They raised the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, and imposed new ethics restrictions on lawmakers. But most of their priorities have stalled, and some appear dead.
Perhaps their most consistent accomplishment has been aggressive oversight of the Bush administration. By Republicans' count, Democrats have initiated 300 investigations, requiring executive branch officials to spend more than 85,000 hours responding to congressional requests.
Meanwhile, many voters who longed for a change last year now appear disgusted with Congress. Several recent national polls have put Congress' job rating in the mid-20s, and 51 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of Congress in a Pew Research Center poll released this week. That's worse than the 46 percent unfavorable rating that Congress scored last fall, when Republicans were still in control.
Democrats can take some comfort from polls showing that it's even worse for Republicans. Last month 31 percent of Americans thought Democrats in Congress were doing an excellent or good job, but only 21 percent thought Republicans were, according to a Harris poll.
"If you really, honestly look at the numbers, people are favoring Democrats over Republicans," said the House Democratic Whip, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina.
Democrats aimed higher than that back in January, when Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., became the first female speaker of the House and everyone promised to be fair and nice to each other.
But soon House Democrats were doing to Republicans what Republicans had done to them: cutting them out of deal-making, limiting debate, forcing through votes even if parliamentary rules had to be bent.
With summertime came scandals for both parties. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted on corruption charges. The FBI searched the home of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, in another corruption probe. The name of Sen. David Vitter, R-La., turned up on the phone list of a high-profile alleged prostitution ring. He apologized publicly.
Democrats blame Republicans for the public's contempt for Congress, saying that the minority party obstructed Democrats from acting.
"We've damn sure tried, haven't we?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We've kept our foot to the throttle. We're satisfied that the American people know how hard we've worked with such limited tools."
Republicans counter that the Democrats are more interested in scoring points with their base supporters than in getting things done.
"It's been a very poisonous atmosphere," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss. "The Democrats have tried to ram things through the Senate, and you can't do that. The Senate doesn't work that way.
"They made a lot of promises on the war which they were wrong about, and they have not been able to get it done. And they're not going to get it done."
Democrats need 60 votes to shut off debate and move to a final vote, but they control the Senate by only 51-49. With one Democrat, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, out recovering from brain surgery, and one of the two independents who caucus with Democrats, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, voting with Republicans on war issues, Reid said, they have even less than a majority.
"It's 50-49, and we're the 49."
That empowers Republicans to block final Senate votes on anything they can close ranks behind.
With her 231-202 majority in the House, Pelosi can have her way so long as she keeps her own troops in line. But that's required appeasing the liberals by considering legislation that has no prospect of passing in the more conservative Senate.
Meanwhile, hundreds of oversight hearings have forced the administration to answer in areas from politicization of science to abuses in war contracting.
But the most high-profile investigations — into the administration's firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year who had enemies among powerful Republicans — have stalled, as Bush has asserted executive privilege to keep his top aides from testifying. Without a compromise, Democrats may have to challenge the White House in court.
Republicans say they were more effective when they ran Congress.
"When you compare when we took over the Congress back in 1995, we actually accomplished a tremendous amount in the Contract with America, got it actually signed into law — the vast majority. What they have done this year is they've gotten almost nothing done, nothing signed into law from the president. It is time for us to start working together for the benefit of the American people, and that is the message," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University, said he thought that the Democrats had been more successful than early results suggested.
"They've changed the debate on the war," he said. "It's only been a few months, and Congress usually takes a lot of time to do anything. It's rare when you have dramatic change in Congress over the course of a few months."
However, Zelizer added: "The Democrats are reaching the point where they're going to have to have some legislative product" to show voters heading into the 2008 elections.
"On Iraq, even if they're not obtaining withdrawal legislation, in September they're going to have to come back with some sort of aggressive benchmark bill or something to show they're moving the war toward a faster conclusion. And I think they do need some other domestic legislation."
<font size="3">CONGRESS' RECORD THIS YEAR:</font size>
Laws passed, actions accomplished:
Poised to pass:
Blocked, vetoed or uncertain:
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18708.html
Democrats take home few victories</font size></center>
By Margaret Talev
McClatchy Newspapers
August 3, 2007
WASHINGTON — Democrats promised voters a lot in exchange for winning back the majority in Congress this year: a change of course in Iraq, a return to old-school bipartisanship and a broad domestic agenda.
Seven months later, however, as lawmakers prepare to return to their home states for their first major break — the annual August recess — the results are mixed.
President Bush vetoed the only out-of-Iraq legislation that the Democrats could get through both chambers.
At the same time, Democrats have forced serious discussions about how and when to begin withdrawing U.S. combat troops, and have helped drive public opinion their way. Today more Republican lawmakers are publicly questioning the president's approach.
"I would make the case they have begun the process of changing the debate," said Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, an outspoken Republican war critic.
But partisan tensions are still running high.
The Senate is heading toward a record number of filibuster threats that block Democratic legislation. Republicans booed, jeered and stormed off the floor of the House of Representatives late Thursday night and spent much of Friday in protest, accusing Democrats of cheating to quash a vote.
Democrats have passed only a handful of their domestic priorities. They raised the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade, and imposed new ethics restrictions on lawmakers. But most of their priorities have stalled, and some appear dead.
Perhaps their most consistent accomplishment has been aggressive oversight of the Bush administration. By Republicans' count, Democrats have initiated 300 investigations, requiring executive branch officials to spend more than 85,000 hours responding to congressional requests.
Meanwhile, many voters who longed for a change last year now appear disgusted with Congress. Several recent national polls have put Congress' job rating in the mid-20s, and 51 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of Congress in a Pew Research Center poll released this week. That's worse than the 46 percent unfavorable rating that Congress scored last fall, when Republicans were still in control.
Democrats can take some comfort from polls showing that it's even worse for Republicans. Last month 31 percent of Americans thought Democrats in Congress were doing an excellent or good job, but only 21 percent thought Republicans were, according to a Harris poll.
"If you really, honestly look at the numbers, people are favoring Democrats over Republicans," said the House Democratic Whip, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina.
Democrats aimed higher than that back in January, when Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., became the first female speaker of the House and everyone promised to be fair and nice to each other.
But soon House Democrats were doing to Republicans what Republicans had done to them: cutting them out of deal-making, limiting debate, forcing through votes even if parliamentary rules had to be bent.
With summertime came scandals for both parties. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted on corruption charges. The FBI searched the home of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, in another corruption probe. The name of Sen. David Vitter, R-La., turned up on the phone list of a high-profile alleged prostitution ring. He apologized publicly.
Democrats blame Republicans for the public's contempt for Congress, saying that the minority party obstructed Democrats from acting.
"We've damn sure tried, haven't we?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We've kept our foot to the throttle. We're satisfied that the American people know how hard we've worked with such limited tools."
Republicans counter that the Democrats are more interested in scoring points with their base supporters than in getting things done.
"It's been a very poisonous atmosphere," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss. "The Democrats have tried to ram things through the Senate, and you can't do that. The Senate doesn't work that way.
"They made a lot of promises on the war which they were wrong about, and they have not been able to get it done. And they're not going to get it done."
Democrats need 60 votes to shut off debate and move to a final vote, but they control the Senate by only 51-49. With one Democrat, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, out recovering from brain surgery, and one of the two independents who caucus with Democrats, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, voting with Republicans on war issues, Reid said, they have even less than a majority.
"It's 50-49, and we're the 49."
That empowers Republicans to block final Senate votes on anything they can close ranks behind.
With her 231-202 majority in the House, Pelosi can have her way so long as she keeps her own troops in line. But that's required appeasing the liberals by considering legislation that has no prospect of passing in the more conservative Senate.
Meanwhile, hundreds of oversight hearings have forced the administration to answer in areas from politicization of science to abuses in war contracting.
But the most high-profile investigations — into the administration's firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year who had enemies among powerful Republicans — have stalled, as Bush has asserted executive privilege to keep his top aides from testifying. Without a compromise, Democrats may have to challenge the White House in court.
Republicans say they were more effective when they ran Congress.
"When you compare when we took over the Congress back in 1995, we actually accomplished a tremendous amount in the Contract with America, got it actually signed into law — the vast majority. What they have done this year is they've gotten almost nothing done, nothing signed into law from the president. It is time for us to start working together for the benefit of the American people, and that is the message," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University, said he thought that the Democrats had been more successful than early results suggested.
"They've changed the debate on the war," he said. "It's only been a few months, and Congress usually takes a lot of time to do anything. It's rare when you have dramatic change in Congress over the course of a few months."
However, Zelizer added: "The Democrats are reaching the point where they're going to have to have some legislative product" to show voters heading into the 2008 elections.
"On Iraq, even if they're not obtaining withdrawal legislation, in September they're going to have to come back with some sort of aggressive benchmark bill or something to show they're moving the war toward a faster conclusion. And I think they do need some other domestic legislation."
<font size="3">CONGRESS' RECORD THIS YEAR:</font size>
Laws passed, actions accomplished:
* Federal minimum-wage increase, to $7.25 an hour.
* New ethics restrictions on lawmaker-lobbyist relations and pet project spending.
* Challenging oversight of Iraq war and on several domestic issues.
* 9-11 commission recommendations.
* Pay-as-you-go budget rules.
* A $2.9 trillion federal budget.
* Emergency troop funding.
* Hurricane Katrina relief money.
* Reporting requirements for benchmarks of progress in Iraq.
* New ethics restrictions on lawmaker-lobbyist relations and pet project spending.
* Challenging oversight of Iraq war and on several domestic issues.
* 9-11 commission recommendations.
* Pay-as-you-go budget rules.
* A $2.9 trillion federal budget.
* Emergency troop funding.
* Hurricane Katrina relief money.
* Reporting requirements for benchmarks of progress in Iraq.
Poised to pass:
* Expansion of children's health-insurance coverage, though President Bush threatens a veto.
* Six-month patch to allow administration's surveillance of suspected overseas terrorists to continue.
* Six-month patch to allow administration's surveillance of suspected overseas terrorists to continue.
Blocked, vetoed or uncertain:
* Withdrawal deadline from Iraq for U.S. troops.
* Increased rest time for troops between deployments.
* Immigration overhaul.
* Lifting restrictions on federal money for embryonic stem-cell research.
* Reduced college-loan rates.
* Alternative energy initiative.
* Global-warming bill.
* Requiring Medicare to negotiate cheaper prescription drugs.
* Broader powers for labor unions to organize.
* Increased rest time for troops between deployments.
* Immigration overhaul.
* Lifting restrictions on federal money for embryonic stem-cell research.
* Reduced college-loan rates.
* Alternative energy initiative.
* Global-warming bill.
* Requiring Medicare to negotiate cheaper prescription drugs.
* Broader powers for labor unions to organize.
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18708.html
Up^