You may be wondering how the cogs are continuing to turn ... if the Congress
has sniffed the wind to realize the public has it's back yet [and, in fact,
a hand firmly pressed against it to push them forward] ... how the Republic
is doing with the shenanigans that continue to plague us on the Hill.
Well -- the cogs ARE still continuing to crush whatever gets beneath it,
however slowing the momentum ... the Congress IS standing up straighter
[although the FISA fight is in
jeopardy<http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Congressional_action_heat...>,
thanks to Steny Hoyer ... you remember when Pelosi named him, and we all
asked "Steny whoooo?"] ... and the Republic IS still suffering the
presidency of George W. Bush, who remains bubbled with his "mandate" and
mission of saving capitalism and filling his pockets.
The FEC, the mortgage bailout, the EPA, the GI Bill [note an
activist/op in Paul
Rieckhoff's post] -- and last, Russ Feingold on secrecy.
Jude
*Crippled Election Commission*
NYT Editorial
May 8, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/opinion/08thu4.html
The White House is removing a member of the Federal Election Commission for
standing up for clean elections, while trying to install another member
whose specialty is keeping eligible voters from casting ballots. The Senate,
which must confirm nominees, should insist that President Bush appoint
commissioners with a proven record of supporting voting rights and fair
elections.
Mr. Bush is purging the current F.E.C. chairman, David Mason, presumably
because he was responsible enough to challenge the funding machinations of
Senator John McCain's presidential campaign. Mr. Mason shocked his fellow
Republicans by notifying Mr. McCain that he might run afoul of the law by
switching from public funding to private donations once he secured the
party's nomination.
The White House proposes to replace Mr. Mason with Donald McGahn, a
Republican warhorse. F.E.C. commissioners are expected to be aligned with a
party — one of the new Democratic nominees is a staff member of Senator
Charles Schumer of New York — but Mr. McGahn has a particularly partisan
background. He was the party's Congressional campaign counsel — and the
ethics lawyer for Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader from Texas who
left office under multiple clouds.
The six-member commission, which now has four vacancies, has been rendered
inoperable. If it is to perform its role as referee of national elections,
it urgently needs a full complement — and it needs commissioners with the
sort of professionalism displayed by Mr. Mason.
Senate Democrats should push for someone more suitable than Mr. McGahn, and
they should continue to oppose Hans von Spakovsky, a terrible nominee with a
record as a Justice Department lawyer of aggressive partisanship and
opposition to minority voting rights. ++
*Obama lawyer: Bush fixing FEC for McCain
*Politico
May 07, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5cmdos
Obama counsel Bob Bauer, on his always-punchy personal blog, considers the
newest appointments to the FEC and writes that the regulatory body is being
put back together to exclude a Republican commissioner who had taken a
critical stance toward McCain's attempt to thread the needle on public
financing.
*In this one move, the White House ended McCain's accountability for his use
or abuse of the primary public financing system while putting him in
position to take money for the general.
For this maneuver to have been arranged for the benefit of Senator McCain,
of all people--the John McCain who has regularly, severely criticized the
FEC as a "corrupt" agency--is a remarkable turn in his career as a reformer.
A Commissioner who acted to enforce the law, to just raise an important
question of enforcement, has been stripped of his post. This was clearly in
Senator McCain's interest, this raw power play. It is also in his interest
to have the FEC, back in business minus Mason, arrange for his money for the
fall campaign.*
He goes on to make a case that's going to be central to Obama's logic for
forgoing public financing, despite his pledge to join the system: That
McCain is a hypocrite on this reform issue.
*For all the time that McCain has savaged the performance of the FEC, he has
led the sizeable crowd of critics who believed that the agency is too
beholden, on the whole, to the narrow interests of parties and their
candidates. Yesterday, Republicans could not have acted more narrowly in
just this vein: effectively firing a Commissioner to immunize their
Presidential nominee from enforcement action in a pending case but making
sure that there is enough of an agency left to get him the money needed to
finance his campaign.* ++
*Democrats' Housing Plan Faces Bush Veto
Measures To Bail Out Borrowers Slated For Congressional Votes, White House
Vows Veto*
CBS
May 8, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/08/national/main4079151.shtml
(AP) Strapped homeowners could refinance into government-backed mortgages
and states would get money to deal with foreclosed property under Democrats'
housing aid plan.
The measures, slated for votes Thursday, constitute the most significant
action Congress has taken to date to address the housing crisis that's at
the center of the nation's economic woes.
President Bush has threatened to veto both measures, which he says reward
lenders and speculators. Democrats counter that the bills will head off
hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, stabilize the shaky housing market,
and prevent neighborhood blight.
The centerpiece of their plan is a bill by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the
House Financial Services Committee chairman, to have the Federal Housing
Administration relax its standards and back up to $300 billion in more
affordable, fixed-rate loans for borrowers currently too financially
strapped to qualify.
Those homeowners could refinance into new loans if their lenders agreed to
take substantial losses on the original mortgages. Borrowers would have to
show they could afford to make payments on the new loans. They would have to
share with FHA at least half of their proceeds if they profited from selling
or refinancing again.
The plan is projected to help roughly 500,000 borrowers at a cost of $2.7
billion over the next five years.
A separate bill by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., would send $15 billion in
loans and grants to states for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed
properties. Proponents say it will prevent blight in neighborhoods plagued
by abandoned, foreclosed homes.
But Republican critics argue it rewards lenders and investors who own the
property, and could act as an incentive for them to foreclose rather than
find ways to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes.
Democrats, seeking Republican support for their housing package, were
planning to attach a grab-bag of measures Mr. Bush has called for.
Those include legislation to overhaul the FHA, to more tightly regulate
government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and
authority for state and local housing finance agencies to use tax-exempt
bonds to refinance distressed subprime mortgages.
The plan is also to include a housing tax credit of up to $7,500 for
first-time home-buyers, to be paid back over 15 years. It would permanently
raise the limit on the size of loans FHA could insure and Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac could buy to $729,750 in the highest-cost housing markets. Those
caps are scheduled to fall at the end of the year, to $362,790 for the FHA,
and to $417,000 for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ++
*EPA Might Not Act To Limit Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water*
Erica Werner, AP via CommonDreams
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/07/8782/
WASHINGTON - An EPA official said Tuesday there's a "distinct possibility"
the agency won't take action to rid drinking water of a toxic rocket fuel
ingredient that has contaminated public water supplies around the country.
Democratic senators called that unacceptable. They argued that states and
local communities shouldn't have to bear the expense of cleansing their
drinking water of perchlorate, which has been found in at least 395 sites in
35 states — or the risk of not doing so.
The toxin interferes with thyroid function and poses developmental health
risks, particularly to fetuses.
Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water at the Environmental
Protection Agency, told a Senate hearing that EPA is aware that perchlorate
is widespread and poses health risks.
But he said that after years of study, EPA has yet to determine whether
regulating perchlorate in drinking water would do much good.
"Is there a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk if we issue a new national
regulation on perchlorate? We've been spending a lot of time on that, Madam
Chairman," Grumbles told Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chair of the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
"I understand your frustration in how long the process is taking but we
believe it's important to do the work," Grumbles said, promising a decision
by the end of the year.
"EPA is trying to shunt the scientists to the back, put the DOD contractors
to the front," Boxer chided. "We want to see action by the scientists. We
want to see a standard set."
Grumbles told Boxer it was possible that instead of a regulation, EPA would
issue a public health advisory, which would simply provide information.
After the hearing he told reporters that a decision to regulate perchlorate
was also still on the table.
Most perchlorate contamination resulted from Defense Department activities.
The Pentagon could face huge cleanup costs if EPA sets a national drinking
water standard for the contaminant, and DOD has tussled with EPA over the
issue, according to a report last week by congressional investigators.
Perchlorate is particularly widespread in California and the Southwest,
where it's been found in groundwater and in the Colorado River, a drinking
water source for 20 million people. It's also been found in lettuce and
other foods. Grumbles said that in determining whether drinking water needs
to be regulated, EPA is analyzing results of a Food and Drug Administration
study from January that found perchlorate in 74 percent of the 285 foods
studied, and found that 81 percent of perchlorate intake by infants comes
from baby foods and dairy foods.
The dispute over the federal government's response has been long-standing.
The EPA in 2005 issued a safety standard for the chemical of 24.5 parts per
billion which was criticized as "not protective" by EPA's own Children's
Health Protection Advisory Committee. The safety standard indicates what EPA
considers a safe exposure level and guides Superfund cleanups, but the
agency still didn't move forward with a drinking water standard.
In absence of that, states acted on their own. In 2007, California adopted a
drinking water standard of 6 parts per billion. Massachusetts has set a
drinking water standard of 2 parts per billion.
Boxer has introduced legislation that she plans to bring to a committee vote
in June that would require EPA to set a drinking water standard. Committee
Republicans said Congress should stand back and let the EPA finish its work.
++
*The Polluting Of The Environmental Protection Agency*
Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, Benjamin
Armbruster, and Brad Johnson, AmericanProgress
May 8, 2008
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport
Former attorney general Alberto Gonzales brought disgrace to the Department
of Justice, putting loyalty to the President above duty to the country,
until the weight of numerous scandals forced his resignation in August 2007.
As The New York Times described, he left "a Justice Department that has been
tainted by political influence, depleted by the departures of top officials
and weakened by sapped morale." Disturbing parallels can now be seen in
Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which President Nixon set up in 1970 to be an independent watchdog
for the health of the environment and people. It has become clear that
Johnson has subverted that mission, in contravention of science, ethics, and
the law. In an oversight hearing yesterday on the politicization of the EPA,
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) directly drew the comparison, as McClatchy
Newspapers reported. "The last few times Mr. Johnson has appeared before us,
he has been less than forthcoming, as evasive and unresponsive as Alberto
Gonzales," Whitehouse said. He added that the forced resignation of EPA
regional administrator Mary Gade, who had been investigating dioxin
contamination in Michigan by Dow Chemical, "smacks of the U.S. Attorney
scandal at the Justice Department last summer." Like the nine fired U.S.
attorneys, Gade was well-regarded and had received strong performance
evaluations. As Whitehouse observed, "[H]er forced resignation reeks of
political interference."
*MARY GADE'S DISMISSAL:* Mary Gade, the EPA's Midwest regional administrator
who resigned last Thursday, laid the blame on her ongoing efforts to compel
Dow Chemical to clean up its decades-old dioxin pollution from its flagship
plant in Midland, MI. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Gade said,
"There is no question this is about Dow." Committee Chair John Dingell
(D-MI) has announced that he "is concerned about this and has asked his
oversight staff to look into it." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has "asked for a
meeting with the Administrator of EPA so that I can better understand why
Ms. Gade has been placed on administrative leave." Gade is a lifelong
Republican who supported President Bush's candidacy in 2000. Yet, as Center
for American Progress Senior Fellow Robert Sussman describes, she was known
as "one of the most seasoned and experienced environmental policy-makers in
the country." Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), in contrast, called Gade
"unprofessional, vindictive and insulting." Camp represents Dow Chemical's
home district and owns hundreds of thousands of dollars in Dow stock.
*WHITE HOUSE CONTROL:* Recent congressional investigations have exposed the
degree to which the White House is exerting control over the actions of the
EPA. One of the key responsibilities of the EPA is to protect Americans from
exposure to toxic chemicals. Last week, Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) released a damning report that
exposed how toxic chemical "assessments are being undermined by secrecy and
White House involvement." With assistance from the EPA's top scientific
official, Dr. George Gray, the White House Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) controls the assessment process, using the "deliberative process
privilege" to prevent public oversight. Gray previously ran the Harvard
Center for Risk Analysis, an industry-funded think tank founded by John D.
Graham in 1990 that fights environmental regulation. Until 2006, Graham
served as the Bush administration's regulatory gatekeeper in the OMB Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs where he repeatedly subverted health,
safety and environmental safeguards. Johnson's EPA is riddled with officials
with direct ties to the OMB, including the EPA's number-two official, Marcus
Peacock, who worked in the OMB until 2005, and assistant administrator
Christopher Bliley, who was OMB director Jim Nussle's chief of staff when
Nussle served in Congress.
*'ORWELLIAN' TACTICS:* In the words of Boxer, Gray used "Alice in
Wonderland" language to "defend the indefensible." She took particular
offense at his claim that the EPA's regulatory process was "very
transparent," considering that it involves a series of secret inter-agency
reviews. Gray also repeatedly hearkened back to "scientific uncertainty" to
describe Johnson's justification for setting standards for ozone and fine
particulate matter pollution its scientific advisory boards said were not
adequate to protect public health. However, as Dr. George Thurston
testified, "In the face of uncertainty, the Clean Air Act stipulates that
the Administrator must choose a more stringent standard, to ensure a margin
of safety." Whitehouse -- who praised Gray "for his ability to say what I
found to be preposterous things with a completely straight face" --
described Gray's treatment of toxicologist Dr. Deborah Rice as "Orwellian."
In 2007, Rice was the chair of an expert peer review panel charged with
setting safe exposure levels for deca-BDE, a toxic fire retardant that
contaminates human blood and breast milk. The American Chemistry Council
(ACC), acting on behalf of the Brominated Flame Retardant Industry
Partnership, wrote to Gray to ask that he personally intervene in the
process. ACC alleged that the panel is not an "independent, third-party
review" because Dr. Rice is a "fervent advocate of banning deca-BDE." Rice
was removed from the panel and her comments stripped because of "the
perception of a potential conflict of interest." ++
*A Historic Vote*
Paul Rieckhoff, HuffPo
May 7, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/a-historic-vote_b_100696...
Last week I told you about a press conference in which leading Republicans
and Democrats got together to call for a new GI Bill. And I said we'd have
to wait to see if action was going to follow up those words. Tomorrow, we
find out.
Congress has a historic choice to make. The House of Representatives is set
to vote on a World War II-style GI Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as
an amendment to emergency supplemental war funding bill. And lawmakers will
have to go on record as to whether they truly support our nation's newest
generation of veterans.
The 21st Century GI Bill (S.22/H.R.5740) was originally introduced in
Congress by some of the Senate's own combat veterans, including Senators Jim
Webb and Chuck Hagel. This bill has the extraordinary bipartisan support of
57 Senators and 278 Representatives and the endorsement of every major
Veterans Service Organization from the American Legion to the Veterans of
Foreign Wars (VFW). About ten pieces of legislation in Congress today have
that kind of bipartisan support -- and half of those bills authorize new
stamps and coins. That a bill of this magnitude has such overwhelming
support is almost unheard of.
This legislation would substantially increase the educational benefits
available to service members who have served since September 11, 2001. It
would cover the cost of tuition of up to the most expensive in-state public
school and provide a living and book stipend, so new veterans can focus on
their educations and readjusting to civilian life. The new GI Bill would
also provide more equitable benefits to National Guardsman and Reservists,
who have made up about a quarter of our fighting force in Iraq. And
educational benefits would be linked to the cost of college, so they would
keep their value over time. It is, in short, the right thing to do for the
men and women who have made such a tremendous commitment to our country.
The momentum for a 21st Century GI Bill has been incredible. But it's time
to finish the job. Tomorrow, we urge every member of Congress to vote "yes"
on GI Bill funding and show unanimous support for our troops.
*UPDATE:* Typical gridlock in Washington has pushed the vote to early next
week. And there will probably be more delays in the future as this bill goes
through the Senate and to the President. The important thing is that in all
this political wrangling, we don't lose sight of what this bill is supposed
to be about: support for our troops. The GI Bill belongs in the emergency
supplemental because it is a cost of war, and it's part of our promise to
care for our troops. It's no different from bullets, body armor or bandages
for the wounded. This bill has the support of more than half the House and
half the Senate, and we expect to get past these procedural hurdles. At the
end of the day, no patriotic American would understand if a member of
Congress votes for a $100-plus billion dollar war bill and then
nickel-and-dimes the troops who are fighting that war. ++
Help us get the word out. IAVA is encouraging its national membership to call
their lawmakers<http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,105/option,content/t...>and
tell them to vote "yes" on the GI Bill. For more information on this
critical issue, please visit www.GIBill2008.org.
*Government in secret
The Yoo memo is just one example of Bush's hidden laws.*
Russ Feingold, Los Angeles Times
May 8, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-feingold8-2008...
The Bush administration recently announced it will allow select members of
Congress to read Justice Department legal opinions about the CIA's
controversial detainee interrogation program that have been hidden from
Congress until now. But as the administration allows a glimpse of this
secret law -- and it is law -- we are left wondering what other laws it is
still keeping under lock and key.
It's a given in our democracy that laws should be a matter of public record.
But the law in this country includes not just statutes and regulations,
which the public can readily access. It also includes binding legal
interpretations made by courts and the executive branch. These
interpretations are increasingly being withheld from the public and
Congress.
Perhaps the most notorious example is the recently released 2003 Justice
Department memorandum on torture written by John Yoo. The memorandum was,
for a nine-month period in 2003, the law that the administration followed
when it came to matters of torture. And that law was essentially a
declaration that the administration could ignore the laws passed by
Congress.
The content of the memo was deeply troubling, but just as troubling was the
fact that this legal opinion was classified and its content kept secret for
years. As we now know, the memo should never have been classified because it
contains no information that could compromise national security if released.
In a Senate hearing that I chaired April 30, the top official in charge of
classification policy from 2002 to 2007 testified that classification of
this memo showed "either profound ignorance of or deep contempt for" the
standards for classification.
The memos on torture policy that have been released or leaked hint at a much
bigger body of law about which we know virtually nothing. The Yoo memo was
filled with references to other Justice Department memos that have yet to
see the light of day, on subjects including the government's ability to
detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization and the
government's ability to bypass the 4th Amendment in domestic military
operations.
Another body of secret law involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA). In 1978, Congress created the special FISA court to review the
government's requests for wiretaps in intelligence investigations, which is
-- and should be -- done behind closed doors. But with changes in technology
and with this administration's efforts to expand its surveillance powers,
the court today is doing more than just reviewing warrant applications. It
is issuing important interpretations of FISA that have effectively made new
law.
These interpretations deeply affect Americans' privacy rights, and yet
Americans don't know about them because they are not allowed to see them.
Very few members of Congress have been allowed to see them either. When the
Senate recently approved some broad and controversial changes to FISA,
almost none of the senators voting on the bill could know what the law
currently is.
The code of secrecy also extends to yet another body of law: changes to
executive orders. The administration takes the position that a president can
"waive" or "modify" a published executive order without any public notice --
simply by not following it. It's every president's prerogative to change an
executive order, but doing so without public notice works a secret change in
the law. And, because the published order stays on the books, Congress and
the public have no idea that it's no longer in effect. We don't know how
many of these covert changes have been made by this administration or, for
that matter, by past administrations.
No one questions the need for the government to protect information about
intelligence sources and methods, troop movements or weapons systems. But
there's a big difference between withholding information about military or
intelligence operations from the public and withholding the law that governs
the executive branch. Keeping the law secret doesn't enhance national
security, but it does give the government free rein to operate without
oversight or accountability. Even the congressional intelligence committees,
which are supposed to oversee the intelligence community, have been denied
access to some of these legal opinions.
Congress should pass legislation to require the administration to alert
Congress when the law created by Justice Department opinions ignores or even
violates the laws passed by Congress, and to require public notice when it
is waiving or modifying a published executive order. Congress and the public
shouldn't have to wonder whether the executive branch is following the laws
that are on the books or some other, secret law. ++
*Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is a member of the Senate Intelligence and
Judiciary committees.*
http://www.politicalwaves.net
*"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget
to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous,
ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can
produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy
of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was."*
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
