by Anthony Ioven
Today's Boston Globe takes a pretty close look at President Bush's frequent reliance on signing statements to circumvent the will of Congress, as illustrated in this graphic:
There is no Constitutional provision for signing statements. In fact, I would argue that the Constitution's clear intent to establish a separation of powers implicitly prohibits them. But signing statements have been around since the administration of James Monroe, and Congress has never successfully challenged them.
Some argue that signing statements are a tool to protect the president's Constitutional rights — for example, in his capacity as Commander in Chief. I don't agree, but I can at least understand the argument.
But in the hands of an unscrupulous, ideology-driven administration like this one, signing statements are a weapon to concentrate power in the Executive in a way that the Constitution never intended.
Here is a small section from the Globe article on Bush's usurpation of Congress' military authority (emphasis mine):
Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass — including the torture ban — involve the military.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, to declare war, to make rules for captured enemies, and "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." But, citing his role as commander in chief, Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military.
On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.
After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.
Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the "black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.
Congress has also twice passed laws forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not "lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.
Congress first passed this provision in August 2004, when Bush's warrantless domestic spying program was still a secret, and passed it again after the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005.
On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.
It's time to dump the practice of signing statements onto the scrapheap of history. And while we're at it, let's dump this corrupt administration along with it.
by Anthony Ioven
I haven't been able to whip up a nice, frothy head of indignation over the Spanish version of the Star Spangled Banner, although it would have been nice if the translation remained faithful to the English lyrics.
But I am more than a little uncomfortable with this billboard, appealing to Latinos to take up arms for mi pais — my country.
Why is the text in Spanish and English? Why do the two smiling, proud representatives of the US Navy both happen to be Latinos?
I don't resent this billboard because it appeals to Latinos, but because it exploits them.
I resent it the way I resent that the minimum wage has remained at $5.15 since 1997 (when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in 2005 was $4.15 — its lowest level in 50 years.)
I resent it the way I resent hearing President Bush and others talk about a guest worker class of cheap labor. I resent it the way I resent hearing people defend illegal immigrants because these immigrants "do the work that Americans don't want to do."
Keeping wages low is not only good for businesses that exploit their workers. It is good for our all-volunteer military, which depends on America's many poor souls seeing the military as their only way out of poverty, or their only chance to get a good education, or even to provide health insurance for their families.
Mi pais. My country. Which America do you belong to?
by Anthony Ioven
Looks like I deleted some recent reader comments while trying to get a bunch of spam comments off my system. I was able to restore some, but not all. My apologies...
by Anthony Ioven
As shell-shocked Americans watch in disbelief while the Bush administration lies and stumbles its way from one disaster to another, we have to wonder why Congress isn't doing anything to stop this bumbling band of thieves. If there were grounds to impeach Clinton, surely there are grounds to impeach a president who arguably misled the nation into war while blithely dismantling constitutional protections.
But Congress, with notable exceptions such as Russ Feingold and John Conyers, continues to sit on its hands, as though trying to prove that — yes, they can find their ass with both hands.
But maybe we don't have to wait for Congress to grow a backbone. State legislatures may be able to force Congress to act through an unknown (to me, at least) parliamentary rule:
Parliamentary procedures developed by then Vice President Thomas Jefferson in the early years of the United States, and still used by the U.S. House of Representatives as a supplement to that chamber's standing rules, have been interpreted as giving state legislatures at least some authority to trigger impeachment proceedings.
So far, legislators in two states — Vermont and Illinois — are working on bills intended to start impeachment proceedings in the US House against President Bush under the "Jefferson Manual."
If any state legislature actually found the courage to pass such a bill, the reaction from the right would be furious and swift. But it would be so reaffirming to witness Jefferson reaching across the centuries to grab this criminal administration by the neck, before they get a chance to do any more harm to this country and the world.
by Anthony Ioven
Another smoking gun has turned up as evidence that the Bush administration misled the nation into war.
This most recent smoking gun is ex-CIA official Tyler Drumheller. Drumheller headed up the CIA's covert operations in Europe during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
This Sunday, Tyler will tell CBS' 60 Minutes that a highly reliable source in Iraq told the CIA, months before the war, "that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs" in Iraq. In September, 2002, George Tenet personally delivered the intelligence to Bush, Cheney, and other top White House officials. But:
[The White House] rebuffed the CIA three days later.
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," the former CIA agent told CBS.
Seems to me there are more than enough smoking guns for a firing squad. Why is George Bush still standing?
by Anthony Ioven
If any federal agency needs the KISS principle — keep it simple, stupid — applied to it, it's the IRS.
The IRS Oversight Board asked for funding of $11.6 billion in FY 2006. With its 115,000 employees (in 2004), it is our largest federal bureaucracy.
It doesn't have to be this way. Federal tax laws should be just that — a way to raise needed revenue. Tax laws shouldn't be used for human engineering — providing incentives and meting out penalties.
We can do away with this large, expensive bureaucracy and make sure that all individuals and business pay their fair share of taxes, simply by keeping the tax code simple.
To do this, we need to eliminate A-L-L deductions. Yes, even your beloved mortgage deduction. If everyone pays their fair share, you won't need it.
A simple, fair tax code would have these basic elements:
No deductions for any one or any business. Zero.
Sliding-scale tax rates based on all income.
No personal exemptions except for individuals and families making under a specified amount. Personal exemptions matter a great deal to a family of four making $40,000. Exemptions are a giveaway to a family of four making $400,000.
And that, except for a tweak or two, would be that. My bet is that most ordinary folks would pay less. Much less.
So KISS off, taxman.
by Anthony Ioven
The problem of how to deal with the estimated 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants in this country is a tough one. These people are largely hard working souls with an abundance of spunk and determination. My heart goes out to them.
But in order to arrive at a real solution to the problem, we first have to be honest with ourselves about what the problem actually is — these people are here illegally.
Too often, and probably out of the best of intentions, liberals can be less than honest with themselves about illegal immigration, as demonstrated in an article in today's Boston Globe. The article alternates between illegal immigration and legal immigration so fluidly that I'm not sure the writer is aware there's a difference.
The article begins with a warning:
James Banks thinks he knows how the controversy over immigration in this country is going to end: Millions of undocumented immigrants will get to stay in the United States, many more will follow them here, and young African-American men will have an even tougher time finding jobs.
Seems reasonable. That's why we have immigration laws in this country — to protect American citizens. But it turns out that Banks doesn't blame the illegals for taking jobs away from his fellow blacks. He blames the blacks themselves:
Banks, 36, says the fault lies with a generation of young African-American men who would rather "walk their sneakers up and down the street" than step up on a stage to collect high school diplomas.
"Immigration is going to set the black community back 25 years," he said. "Because they'll let it."
People at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder are the ones most affected by illegal immigrants. And too often, the people at the bottom are black. For these people, illegal immigration isn't just some interesting discussion to have with friends over coffee. It has a "more personal dimension":
Many African-Americans believe they are the ones most imperiled by cheap immigrant labor. Some see no reason why people who cross the border illegally should be given leniency, when young black men who break laws receive so little leeway.
For them, the heightened attention to immigration has triggered a range of responses: anger, trepidation, and deep reflection. It has also intensified concerns over the plummeting fortunes of young black men.
Shouldn't our hearts go out to these people, too?
Or is it simply a matter of cold economics:
"They work seven days a week for half the money we make," said Arthur Benson, 37, a [black] construction worker. "I respect that. If I had a job to do, and if I had a choice to get five black men or 10 immigrants for the same price, I'd take the immigrants."
I wonder if Mr. Benson would be so understanding if he had been described as an "unemployed" construction worker?
by Anthony Ioven
More science for the faith-based thinkers on the right to reject:
Foetuses 'cannot experience pain'
Foetuses cannot feel pain because it requires mental development that only occurs outside the womb, says a report in the British Medical Journal.
Stark warning over climate change
The world is likely to suffer a temperature rise of more than 3C, says the UK government's chief scientist.
That would cause drought and famine and threaten millions of lives, said Professor David King in a report based on computer predictions.
This temperature change will occur over decades — maybe "100 years or so," according to King. That means there is still time to stabilize the change. But of course, the world has us to contend with:
The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising.
Science? Humbug. We put our faith in God.
by Anthony Ioven
Yesterday, Dick Cheney became the first man ever to strike out on a pitcher's mound.
As Cheney threw out the ceremonial first pitch of the Washington Nationals' home opener, he was roundly, loudly, and decisively booed.
That's the first spunky act to come out of Washington since — I can't even say, it's been so long. Hopefully the Dems slithered through the ballpark crowd taking names of possible candidates for the mid-term elections.
Yesterday's spontaneous demonstration was a hopeful sign that there's life in America yet.
As for Cheney:
2003: Tells Tim Russert that Hussein has "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Strike one...
2005: Tells Larry King that the insurgency is in its "last throes."
Strike two...
2006: Shoots man in face.
Foul ball.
2006: Tells Scooter Libby to leak classified information, according to Libby's grand jury testimony.
Strike three — Yer out!
Well, not yet. But soon, soon...
by Anthony Ioven
Sometimes I have to wonder what century we're living in.
Here's  a snippet of yesterday's CBS News Sunday Morning interview with Pat Robertson:
Robertson: And I said, "Tell me about your problem." And she said, "I've got this asthma." And I said, "Have you been to the (LAUGHTER) doctor?" And-- and she said, "Yes. The doctor said my asthma was caused by praying with nuns."
...
"A doctor told you this?" (UNINTEL) said, "Yes, that's what my doctor told me." And I says, "There is no way that praying with nuns is gonna cause you-- asthma." And then I prayed. And I said, "Lord, what's wrong with her?" I just prayed silently. And the Lord said, "Ask about her sex life." And--
CBS: The-- the Lord said that to you?
Robertson: Yes, He said that to me.
How's that? God wants to hear about the woman's sex life? What, maybe heaven blocks out Internet porn sites?
Anyway, long story shorter — The woman said she doesn't "have any sex life." Seems her husband was impotent, and she blamed herself for it:
Robertson: "You think it's your fault." And she said, "Yes. It's-- I think it's my fault." And I said, "Well it isn't your fault. And it may be that he's working too hard. He may be having a physical impairment. But-- there's something in his life, that this isn't your fault." And she said, "It's not?"
I said, "Absolutely not." And I said, "Okay, now let's pray for your asthma. And she said, "Okay." And we prayed. And God healed her asthma just like that.
Just like that.
But if God was really on top of his game that day, wouldn't he have gone for the two-fer — curing the husband of his impotence and letting the asthma take care of itself?
By the way, ever wonder what God's sex life is like?
by Anthony Ioven
John Ehrlichman would have called the performance a modified, limited hangout.
But it didn't work for Ehrlichman, Nixon, and the other Watergate conspirators, and it won't work for President Bush.
Today the president confirmed that he declassified intelligence information to support his decision to invade Iraq:
I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth...I thought it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches.
That's the hangout part. The modified, limited part is that he authorized a leak of selected bits of intelligence, ten days before the intelligence was officially declassified, according to Scooter Libby.
If true, Bush "cherry-picked" intelligence so he could have his war. In my opinion, that's not just deceitful. That's criminal.
by Richard M. Nixon
The gods have already destroyed me, long ago. Why are they still trying to drive me mad?
First there's that rat stoolie fink John Dean. The four-eyed punk who torpedoed my presidency. At one time his picture was in the dictionary next to the definition of "weasely scumbag."
But today this two-bit ex-con is a celebrity pundit. Everybody wants to know what this <expletive-deleted> thinks. Watergate figure returns from the 'dark side' to condemn Bush. John Dean Blasts Warrantless Eavesdropping. John Dean on the Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction, for Christ's sakes, like he'd recognize a WMD if one blew off his big mouth.
But what really sends me spinning in my grave is seeing what a president can get away with these days. Hell, they tripped me up on some candy-ass obstruction of justice charge, just because I causally suggested that maybe we should call off the FBI dogs about some stupid break-in. Suddenly that's the smoking gun that ended my glorious presidency.
Smoking gun? Jesus, this president has a whole <expletive-deleted> arsenal of smoking guns — Downing Street memos, White House memos, leaks of classified information, illegal wiretaps, signing statements, phony reasons for war.
And now — if you can believe Scooter Libby, who looks like he may be the 21st-century John Dean — it turns out that Bush himself is the guy who authorized leaks of classified information. Jesus, where are the goddamn White House plumbers when you need one?
What more do you people need to fire this guy? Hell, I've heard it said that he could bite the head off a live kitten on national TV and still keep his job.
Oh, where were all you forgiving folks when I haunted the halls of the White House?
by Anthony Ioven
January 26, 1998. President Clinton looked the nation in the eye and spoke the words that will one day appear in the first paragraph of his obituary — I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
It was a lie. Republicans everywhere feigned acute moral outrage over this assault on the "rule of law." Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.
September 30, 2003. President Bush spoke about the investigation just launched by the Justice Department into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. He said, "If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is." And if that wasn't clear enough, he added:
Those, too, were lies, according to one Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
A president has the authority to declassify information — by making it available to everyone. But when Libby leaked information about a classified National Intelligence Estimate document to Judith Miller and only Judith Miller, it apparently became miraculously declassified, simply because the president authorized the leak.
Maureen Dowd calls this the Immaculate Declassification:
If the administration were seriously trying to declassify something in the national interest, wouldn't it have President Bush explain his decision or have his Scottish terrier yip it out from the podium, rather than having Scooter whisper it in Judy's ear?
Oh, and by the way, at Friday's press conference, poor Scott McClellan had one hell of time trying to explain why, when he announced back in 2003 that the NIE document was "officially declassified today," that he made the announcement ten days after Libby leaked the information to Miller. Doesn't that mean the NIE was still classified when Libby leaked it, the questioner wanted to know?
You can read Scotty's pained double-talking and back-peddling here.
Clinton barely survived his lie. And if there is a God in heaven and justice in America, Bush will not survive his.
by Anthony Ioven
Yesterday the Kaiser Network posted media reactions to the Massachusetts plan for compulsory health insurance in the state.
Overall the reaction is positive, even enthusiastic. In fact, other states may soon be considering similar bills.
But I agree with the assessment of the Wall Street Journal:
The elected leaders of Massachusetts have come up with a novel solution for the vexing problem of paying for health care: abolish the laws of arithmetic," [Arnold] Kling, an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, writes in a Journal opinion piece. He asks, "What insurance company will provide coverage with [a] $0 deductible, at an annual premiums of $295, for someone whose health care costs...average $6,000 a year?"
There's just no way to fix the health care mess in America without going to a Medicare-style, single-payer system.
But of course, that's just another word for s-s-s-s-ocialized medicine. By God, we can't have that.
by Anthony Ioven
The  headline in the New York Times proclaims "Massachusetts Set to Offer Universal Health Insurance." On the other side of the pond, The Independent is just as enthusiastic — Massachusetts to provide health care for all.
If only it were true.
Yes, the Massachusetts House and Senate passed the bill, and Governor Mitt Romney will sign it. But if you think Massachusetts has come up with a new, more efficient way to provide health care to all its residents, you're wrong. It's the same old bureaucracy-laden system. Only now, all uninsured residents whom the state deems can afford insurance will be required to buy it, and all businesses with over 10 employees will be required to provide it. Those who don't are subject to fines.
Under the law, low-income residents will have some or all of their insurance costs paid for by public funds:
The state's poorest are the biggest winners. Single adults making $9,500 or less a year will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles.
Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, about $48,000 for a family of three, are also big winners. Under the bill, they will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale also with no deductibles.
I don't see how this system of subsidized-health-care-for-some can succeed.
First, it's possible that the law might actually encourage employers to eliminate their health benefits, because it could be cheaper to pay the fine — $295 per employee — than pay the insurance premiums.
Second, by doing nothing to fix our inefficient, exorbitantly expensive, for-profit US health care system, the law perpetuates a system that is already far more costly than health care in other countries. What do we get for all that money? Less than you might expect:
In terms of health indicators like life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality and obesity, we rank close to the bottom of the list of Western countries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The Massachusetts law will provide insurance for those who can least afford it. But it does so by treating the symptoms and not the disease. We'll never cure our ailing health care system that way.
by Anthony Ioven
Maybe it's the thin mountain air, but the Rocky Mountain News couldn't be further off the mark in its editorial yesterday on the Electoral College.
The editorial takes aim at a proposal by an organization called FairVote to effectively nullify the Electoral College, so that presidents can be elected by a majority of voters.
I sympathize with the editorial's characterization of the scheme as a "constitutional end-run." But as I've said before, a kludge is better than no solution at all. And the Electoral College is a problem in definite need of a solution.
The editorial minimizes the harmful effect of the Electoral College on our political process, claiming that "the only reason to change the system is to cover cases when the popular vote and the Electoral College vote are different. Before 2000, that had happened only twice before, in 1876 and 1888."
 | Samuel Jones Tilden
our 19th President |
In the first place, that this kind of thing happened once is one time too many. But three times? How many times does it take for us to learn our lesson?
Assuming you attended school some time after 1888, I would bet your teacher had one hell of a hard time explaining how Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison became president even though they won less votes than their opponents. That's because your teacher, like most Americans, was probably what the Rocky Mountain News calls a "majoritarian" — someone who actually believes that the majority rules.
Not in America.
But the Electoral College hasn't screwed skewed just three elections. In every single presidential election, candidates concentrate on the so-called battleground states, where the outcome is actually in question, and where the votes actually mean something. In 2004, Time magazine counted just 18 battleground states.
The editorial concludes with a flourish:
[W]e do have a fondness for the federal system. If the majoritarians eliminate the Electoral College, what will they go after next? The Senate? It has to be far more offensive to majoritarians than even the Electoral College.
It certainly is to this majoritarian. Dump it.
I, too, have a fondness for the federal system. But I have more of a fondness for the principle of one person, one vote.
by Anthony Ioven
In a surprise press conference today, President Bush announced he was suspending all Presidential elections until further notice.
The  President, who stood at the podium clutching what appeared to be a bottle inside a brown paper bag, noted that he is a War President, and as such is authorized by the Constitution, the 2002 Congressional resolution on Iraq, and his wife Laura to use any means necessary to defend America, even the suspension of elections.
The president also announced that at 0530 this morning, American troops began Operation Lederhosen — the Invasion of Switzerland. The invasion was deemed necessary under the administration's new policy of Preemptive Preemption (PP). A PP war takes preemptive war one step further — we invade the other country before it even thinks about doing us any harm.
Why Switzerland? "Because they're easy," the president said. "The only weapons their soldiers have are those little red Swiss Army knives. They're no match for our phosphorous bombs, bunker busters, and DU. We'll cream 'em."
At that point, Helen Thomas began to ask a question, but two Secret Service agents immediately grabbed her by each arm, picked her up and carried her out of the room, her little feet kicking away at empty air. No other reporter had a question except a Fox News correspondent, who marveled at how hard it must be to be a War President.
"That's why I have this," said the president, hoisting up the paper bag, and then taking a swig from whatever was inside.
About  an hour later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced to the press that he was appointing General Dwight D. Eisenhower to head up military operations in Iraq. "Ike did a brilliant job with D-Day, and if anyone can turn the tide in Iraq, he can."
When a reporter quietly noted that the former World War II hero and 34th President of the United States actually died back in 1969, Rumsfeld looked mildly amused and said, "Do I know Ike's dead? Yes. Do the insurgents know Ike's dead? Maybe not. It's worth a shot."
Meanwhile, Senator Russ Feingold stood up before the full Senate and began to question the legality of President Bush's suspension of elections and the PP war with Switzerland. Just a few words into his stirring oratory, Feingold sneezed. When he opened his eyes again, the Senate chamber was suddenly empty, except for Patrick Lahey and fellow Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, who had not quite finished tiptoeing out of the room.
When Kohl, too, was gone, Feingold looked at Lahey in bewilderment. At that moment, VP Dick Cheney entered the chamber and assured Feingold that the other Senators didn't abandon him. They simply retired to their comfortable offices to watch Feingold speak on closed-circuit TV. Cheney told Feingold to continue speaking into the microphone Cheney was holding.
"That's no microphone," Feingold said. "Th-th-that's a gun."
"Vaffanculo," said Cheney, and shot Feingold in the face.
Moments  later, in the Capitol Rotunda, reporters spied Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaning against the marble statue of Abraham Lincoln with one hand and wiping the Congressional dust off of her Gucci shoes with the other — dust that was kicked up as Democratic Senators and Representatives were scurrying for the nearest exits, lest reporters ask them their take on the day's events.
Rice was asked her opinion of the new Amnesty for Illegals law, which awarded legal status to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. "It's good for America," Rice said. "These people do the jobs Americans don't want to do. And their children will do the jobs American kids don't want to do — fight our PP wars."
Meanwhile, the poll-takers were already quizzing ordinary Americans on their views of the day's events. When asked whether they approved or disapproved of the administration's performance, based on Operation Lederhosen, the suspension of elections, and other news of the day, 43% of Americans said they approved, 41% said they disapproved, and the rest thought they were being auditioned for an upcoming Apprentice.
At sunset, President Bush was relaxing on the South Lawn of the White House, taking an occasional swig from the contents of the brown paper bag, and humming old Barry Manilow songs. Helen Thomas, who was being escorted off the property by the Secret Service, saw the president and shouted out to him, "Mr. President, just one question. What does a president have to do to get impeached these days?"
The president smiled, rose unsteadily, and motioned for the agents to take Thomas to him. Then he said:
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
Says who?
|
UpdateAmerica.com
604.UpdateAmerica.com
April's Posts
Bush on Steroids
Mi Pais
Oops...
Who Knew?
Ready, Aim...Aim...
KISSing the Taxman
Keeping the Poor Poor
Science Schmience
Mighty Cheney
God Cures Horny Woman's Asthma
So Much for Honest George
Quick - Hide the Kittens
The 'Immaculate Declassification'
The S-Word
A Step in the Wrong Direction
Rocky Mountain High
What Does It Take?
|