BUSH LETS CRIMINALS ESCAPE

Gulf firms losing cleanup contracts
Most money going outside storm's path

By Griff Witte, Renae Merle and Derek Willis
The Washington Post
Oct. 4, 2005

WASHINGTON - Companies outside the three states most affected by Hurricane Katrina have received more than 90 percent of the money from prime federal contracts for recovery and reconstruction of the Gulf Coast, according to an analysis of available government data.

The analysis by The Washington Post takes into account only the first wave of federal contracts, those that had been entered in detail into government databases as of yesterday. Together they are valued at more than $2 billion. Congress has allocated more than $60 billion for the recovery effort, and the ultimate total is expected to rise far higher.

But already the trend toward out-of-state firms is clear, despite pledges by administration officials that federal funds for Katrina relief will become an engine of local economic redevelopment. Among the contracts analyzed, 3.8 percent of the money went to companies that listed an Alabama address, 2.8 percent to firms in Louisiana and just 1.8 percent went for Mississippi contractors. Taken together, that amounts to less than $200 million.

Raising the ire of local leaders
The lack of contracts for firms in the devastated area has angered local political and business leaders who say they fear that even with the massive commitment of federal money, the region's recovery will be stymied if funds primarily flow into the pockets of large, out-of-state corporations. It has also raised the ire of small-business advocates, who say the government has tilted the playing field against the companies that most desperately need the work.

• Special report: Gulf Coast hurricanes

"The large federal agencies know the large, national corporations -- people who have access. The smaller, local companies do not have that access," said Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.). "So the large corporate players are getting the contracts. And the small, local ones that need to put people back to work are at a disadvantage."

The Department of Homeland Security estimates that as of early last week, 72 percent of the $1.6 billion that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had committed so far to contracts for Hurricane Katrina relief went to small firms nationwide in either prime or subcontracts, said department spokesman Larry Orluskie. But he said only 6 percent of the funds have gone to companies in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama -- a region where small firms make up a disproportionately large share of the economy.

more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9586284/

Getting strangled at the pump
Americans find different ways to cope with gasoline prices that are skyrocketing without relief.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - For the past month, Americans have coped with gasoline prices not seen since the 1970s. It's made the behemoths of the road -- so popular during the past decade -- look like extravagances, and made hybrids into the next cars du jour.

CNN/Money asked Americans how they were handling the price spikes -- at the pump and in their home budgets.

The vehicles
"I recently switched vehicles with my 16-year-old son. I am now driving his 1992 Honda Accord for the 40-mile round-trip trek to work. He is very happy to be driving my 2002 GMC Sonoma truck. His school and job are within a 5-mile radius of our home. It was either switch vehicles or sell the truck. I recently paid my Exxon Mobil gas card bill: $457."

-- Jeff

"Last December, my husband and I purchased a used SUV for our family of five. We were ecstatic at first -- this was the lowest car payment we've ever had for a vehicle and all of the room for our kids was wonderful. Now gas is costing more than the car payment."

-- Stacy

Reigning in the spending
"We have stopped spending on things that aren't necessities, and we've been forced to halve our grocery bill. The kids no longer get fresh fruit or vegetables and no longer get turkey sandwiches. Now we buy only canned goods and the cheapest lunch meat possible. With the price of gas up, everything else is up... except for our wages."

-- Christine

At work
"The school district I work for can't afford the normal field trips and all of our budgets had to be cut because of the cost of gas and predicted cost of heating the building. I also know parents who can't drive their children the 20 miles to get to doctor appointments, so their children are not getting the care they need."

-- Cynthia, Montana

"The primary way in which I have cut back on driving is telecommuting. I used to drive 50 miles each way to work, so that I had to fill up the gas tank six times every month. With my new work arrangement, I only fill up about once a month. I have also become a more rigorous adherent to the speed limit."

-- Toby, Minnesota

"It prompted me to shift from a standard five-day week to longer hours and a four-day schedule -- one less round trip each week."

-- Tom

I'm a bit depressed and worried this morning about the Tom DeLay indictment. I completely believed he could be convicted on the campaign finance violations, until I heard that the statute did not take effect until a year after the crime was committed. DeLay's lawyers are probably right that that fact completely invalidates the indictment.
Now he's been accused of money laundering, and I honestly, even though I thoroughly detest Tom DeLay, don't think this crime rises to that standard. Money laundering is generally used when money is taken illegally (this money wasn't collected illegally- therefore, it wasn't "dirty money") and then sent into a legal business where it's then funnelled back onto the pockets of the person who deposited it there originally. I'm just not sure this indictment is going to work out- and what I worry about is that the public will then look on this whole thing as a witch hunt against a Republican.
I don't want anything that's gonna make Tom DeLay look like a martyer or even an honest man. That's the last thing we need when we're starting to get the Republicans on the ropes with their dirty deeds. It's depressing.

Chuck in Houston for Linda:

I am not so sure DeLay is in such a great position. First, the idea that the first indictment will be thrown out because the statute was passed after the alledged infraction was floated by DeLay's legal team. (Strange, considering how principled the GOP has been just recently about commenting on ongoing investigations!) Second, laundering funds does not necessaily mean that the funds were ill-gotten to begin with. It simply means that transfers were made in order to avoid statutory requirements. For example, if you legally made a bunch of money, you could still try and launder it to avoid paying taxes (in other words, use a series of transfers to make it appear in an account you control without having it show up on a report to the IRS). I'm just saying there is no reason at this point to second-guess the legal process on either indictment. At any event, it should be interesting!

Chuck in Houston

Thanks Chuck- I didn't know that. I had thought the money had to be "dirty" from the start. You've made my day better. You always do. Have a good one.....

Chuck in Houston for Linda:

Thanks! But also, a caution: the DeLay legal challenge to the first indictment may be well founded. I'm just saying that the source is biased and there is no reason to jump to any conclusions on their say-so. (I would also be surprised that a prosecutor would make such a mistake in such a high profile case -- on the other hand, this is Paul DeLay's Texas!)

Chuck in Houston

Chuck in Houston for Linda:

Also, for interest, here are two links from Josh Marshall's blog that give alternative interpretations of the validity of the first indictment. In this one, from the Houston Chronicle, includes an agrument for the validity of that indictment because election law was covered implicilty prior to the new statute, which simply made it more explicit:

"George Dix, a professor at the University of Texas law school who is an expert in criminal law and procedure, said he doesn't believe changes made to the Texas election code by the 2003 Legislature have any effect on the conspiracy charge.

"The penal code's conspiracy charge allows for the charge if the defendants allegedly conspired to commit any felony, including an election code felony.

"Dix called the re-indictment surprising and said it did appear that prosecutors may have been trying to avoid a potential legal problem with the original indictment."

Source: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3380481

On the other hand, an article in the Austin American Statesman, includes the counter-argument, but the only source is again the DeLay legal team:

"The problem with that indictment, according to DeLay's lawyers, was that the conspiracy law did not apply to the election code in 2002. The Texas Legislature changed the law, which went into effect Sept. 1, 2003."

Source: http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/10/4delay3.html

So, to my mind, the lesson is that DeLay's legal eagles are spinning awayand this whole thing is only ust beginning.

Chuck in Houston

PS: Here is the link to the Marshall blog:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Linda and Chuck,

I think the criminality of the issue is something that the courts decide. HOWEVER the ethics and the standards of those serving in Congress must always be the issue. To have those indictments and to know that he's been reprimanded by his own party for ethics violations speaks a lot.

Chuck in Houston for Sparrow:

Hey, thanks for the much needed corrective! The MSM nowadays seems to like to cover the arcane legalistic details on all these scandals -- Plame, DeLay, the Blair memos, etc. etc. Quite a change from the nineties! Back then any bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory got channelled through the MSM onto the front pages with all sort of local "color," much of it down-right offensive, especially to Arkansas, to my mind. Not to mention constant illegal leaks from the offices of Special Prosecutor Starr. Now the only leaks are from lawyers representing the Bush administration folks or DeLay. Where is all that gossipy stuff now? My guess is that the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party in general just didn't have the intimidation tools or the will to use them that the Bush administration and the GOP do. That is a pretty sad commentary on America, if it's true. And you are entirely right -- in the bigger picture all of these scandals are rooted in a general political culture rooted in corruption and intimidation and, to my mind, deep-seated contempt for democracy on the part of the leaders of the party in power. I guess the real scandal is that Americans aren't scandalized.

Chuck in Houston

Chuck in Houston for Sparrow with one more thing as long as I'm at it:

For example, look at all the legalistic hair-splitting on the Plame case. I can't see how a crime wasn't committed as classified information was released to the press. I can't see how the criminal or criminals guilty of that crime can be anyone outside the Executive Branch, as they are the only ones with legal access to such information (excepting also some congress people on certain committees). Yet the whole MSM story on this has been about legal technicalities, with very few exceptions. As a child of the seventies, I have to say I am shocked at how easily our people have been cowed back into indifference and cynicism.

Chuck in Houston

Some other "light" reading to worry about:

Neo-cons launch 'Committee for a Strong Europe'.

-- Josh Marshall

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/2/13718/6784

Posted by: Chuck at October 4, 2005 11:07 AM

Chuck,

Life is hard. We all know that. And it's getting harder each day. But the media decided to make more money by being 'entermedia' instead of watchdogs of corruption. Which came first... a lulled and dulled public or a public that caused the lulled and dulled media? (Who panders to who?)

At any rate, the ethical standards of Clinton's womanizing and extra-marital affairs were considered 'high crimes and misdeamenors' because he was considered to not be above the law and thus had to testify under oath while in office. HOWEVER, this same standard of ethics and the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors has without doubt been eliminated for this regime.

And though some just call this stuff "party politics' I personally think it's time that our Congressmembers uphold the highest expectations for those serving at any level. It's not just Dem's v Rep's when in fact most Dems were quite embarrassed and ashamed by Clinton's behavior. AND most dems did in fact want to see 'suitable' punishment for his unethical behavior. However, the Republican party now has so many ethical and criminal violations it's hard to believe these are the same righteous people who held that standard to Clinton.

It always boils down to, "Clinton Lied but nobody died!"

Chuck in Houston for Dwazhon:

Don't even get me started on that one! First, in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, which we carreid out on false pretences, our President and his agents went out of their way to humiliate and offend some of our most potent and trusted allies, such as France, Germany and Turkey. Not only that, but allies that either share our deepest political values or aspire to them. Then we interject ourselves into European politics in order to drive wedges between members of the EU in order to weaken our best allies (I can't think of any other motivation for it). Now all of a sudden we value those relationships again. This is a flip-flop of a mind-boggling magnitude -- so stunning in fact it will probably pass without much notice (pepole are good at nit-picking small differences but something this large, again, is mind-boggling). I suppose it is some conslolation that the flop in this case is at least in the right direction, or at least seems to be. Sorry for being so off-topic today. Must be the jet-lag.

Chuck in Houston

Dwhazon,

Neo-cons launch "Committee for a strong Europe"? There is nothing to worry about, those people are hated over here. We cannot understand how they fooled regular American citizens. Everything is creepy about them.

As for Europe, for the time being, it's at a stanstill since the French and Deutch "no" to the EU Constitution. The entrance of Turkey? It will never take place, because we will have to accept it or not through referendum and... Europeans are opposed to it in a large majority. One no, from one country and the whole thing is called down. Austria opposes it by 80%, Germany by 78% and France by 74%.

In the meantime we are perfectly aware of what is going on in King George's corrupt world. The media report perfectly each day of what is going on in your country.

Want to check my headlines? Ms Miers is number one in International section.
http://news.google.fr/

There is NO room for a Neo-con/European collaboration.

Chuck in Houston for Sparrow:

Actually, I was thinking a long a little different lines. For the alleged Clinton scandals, legalistic niceties (otherwise known as the rule of law) were jettisoned as a story line by the MSM in favor of the amplification of malicious gossip and an unseemly interjection into profoundly private issues, i.e., "entermedia." Now, all of a sudden, we get nothing but dry technicalities from the MSM and no "entermedia" poking sarcastic fun at the doings and dallyings of Bush or DeLay, et al. I try to constuct a hypothesis to explain this observable phenomenon and my current one it the one I mentioned above -- I suppose it is due the the way the GOP wields power. If only the MSM were into "entermedia" now it would definitely help correct the balance, to my mind, because it would help create the sort of frame in the public dialog to this pattern of bad behavior on the part of the leadership of the GOP -- which goes back decades, to my understanding. And I do see it as a party power struggle, with one party seeking to diminish truth and democracy in public affairs (because these things hurt the interests of the people they represent, on balance) and the other trying to expand truth and democracy in public affairs (because these things help the interests of the people they represent, on balance). Ultimately, the only "accountability moment" for members of Congress comes with elections -- and to my mind they will go on behaving like they do because we give them a pass every two years. The rest of the time, they are only accountable to the folks that may provide them with the ways and means to win the next election. I suppose they are also accountable to their personal conscience, but, in my experience, that is a slender reed to rely on when it comes to players. Even if they wanted to do the right thing, they would be politically destroyed for it, the way the game is set up now. Plus, as voters and citizens, we don't have any control over their personal motivations once elected (barring egregious illegal activites, for obedient GOP members or some gossipy hint of some sort of impropriety for Democrats or maverick Republicans, at which point it can become a matter at law).

Chuck in Houston

PS: I know the DCP is not party-affiliated, but my understanding is that posters may express opinions about political parties, especially as they relate to issues of electoral reform and media balance -- so I hope I am in my rights to post this and I hope someone will let me know if I've mis-understood DCP policy.

Ike Was Right About War Machine

Oct. 2, 2005

CBS) The following is a weekly 60 Minutes commentary by CBS News correspondent Andy Rooney.

I'm not really clear how much a billion dollars is but the United States — our United States — is spending $5.6 billion a month fighting this war in Iraq that we never should have gotten into.

We still have 139,000 soldiers in Iraq today.

Almost 2,000 Americans have died there. For what?

Now we have the hurricanes to pay for. One way our government pays for a lot of things is by borrowing from countries like China.

Another way the government is planning to pay for the war and the hurricane damage is by cutting spending for things like Medicare prescriptions, highway construction, farm payments, AMTRAK, National Public Radio and loans to graduate students. Do these sound like the things you'd like to cut back on to pay for Iraq?

I'll tell you where we ought to start saving: on our bloated military establishment.

We're paying for weapons we'll never use.

No other Country spends the kind of money we spend on our military. Last year Japan spent $42 billion. Italy spent $28 billion, Russia spent only $19 billion. The United States spent $455 billion.

We have 8,000 tanks for example. One Abrams tank costs 150 times as much as a Ford station wagon.

We have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons — enough to destroy all of mankind.

We're spending $200 million a year on bullets alone. That's a lot of target practice. We have 1,155,000 enlisted men and women and 225,000 officers. One officer to tell every five enlisted soldier what to do. We have 40,000 colonels alone and 870 generals.

We had a great commander in WWII, Dwight Eisenhower. He became President and on leaving the White House in 1961, he said this: “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. …"

Well, Ike was right. That's just what’s happened.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/30/60minutes/main892398.shtml

Chuck in Houston for Andree:

As an American, I can say I really enjoyed the time I spent in Europe and see a lot of things there we can benefit from. Likewise, America has a lot to offer Europe, and my sense of it from my travels in Europe and elsewhere is that people outside of America generally understand that too. In both places, I see a lot more positive than negative, both places are quite diverse, and both places can stand a great deal of improvement! What I personally want to see in a trans-Atlantic relationship is a puralistic situation where when one side drops the ball (that is an American football metaphor) the other side picks it up and vice-versa. For that to work, both sides have to take a longer view of the other to overlook passions or piques of the moment and always try and strengthen the underlying sense shared values. It also means that intimidation and coercion should play almost no role, which is why I find the Neocon strategy very damaging and in fact very dangerous. Boy, I am chronically off-topic today. Sorry.

Chuck in Houston

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." -- Thomas Paine

This was the conversation I had on the bus on the way to work this morning:

"Why is the flag at half-staff?" The Navajo gentleman asks me.

"We lost a local man, National Guard, He left 5 children."

"Last week we lost one, he was regular Army. I was a Vietnam Vet myself; I have respect for all of them."

I reply, "I know of 3 we have lost from Shiprock, I don't know how many more from the rest of the Reservation. And this is the second man from Farmington too.".

It is, in an odd way, fun to join a protest march on a lovely summer morning. Summer is over. We cannot stop now in our efforts to end this war. The loss and the pain to families that lay behind that conversation must end. Please look at the front page today and do your 5 minutes. Call your Senators and your Representatives and help put an end to this.

Miers former campaign managed says she is on 'extreme end' of pro-life movement

As political activists rush to mine Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' slender public record, a former campaign manager says she opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989, the (registration-restricted) Dallas Morning News reports Tuesday. Excerpts.

#
"She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race.

"I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she couldn't comment on Bartos' recollection but added that President Bush "does not have a litmus test for his judicial nominees."

Miers, a corporate lawyer who served on the City Council from 1989 to 1991, is something of a cipher as a judicial candidate, having never served on the bench or compiled extensive legal writings. That lack of a paper trail proved more vexing Monday to social conservatives, while many Democrats and liberal activists held their fire.

Bartos said Miers told her she was "pro-choice in her youth" but underwent "a born-again, profound experience" that caused her to oppose abortion.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Miers_former_campaign_managed_says_she_1004.html

Chuck

I do agree with you, that's precisely why nothing can happen with a neo-con regime. We don't mix the administration and the country, but all the bad news pouring from or about the WH ended ruining its image the recently.

We keep watching, waiting for better days.

Conservatives want to ensure their viewpoint heard at colleges; Eye federal funding

Some Republicans are pushing a measure through the House of Representatives meant to ensure that students hear "dissenting viewpoints" in class and are protected from retaliation because of their politics or religion, the Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday. Colleges say the measure isn't needed, but with Congress providing billions of dollars to higher education, they are worried. Excerpts.

#
The measure's chief promoter, Marxist-turned-conservative activist David Horowitz, says an academic bill of rights will protect students from possible political "hectoring" and discrimination by their professors. "We have enough institutions in America that are political. Let's keep [universities] above that fray," he adds.

But professors say Mr. Horowitz really is trying to silence liberal faculty members. "It's an invitation for the government to get involved in the internal affairs of the university," says William Scheuerman, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Oswego, and president of the state's faculty union. "We don't want Big Brother here."

As it is, the measure is a sense-of-Congress resolution that comes with no enforcement powers or funding. Although it has passed a key committee vote, it still faces a long and potentially rancorous party-line fight in the House. There is no companion bill in the Senate.

The House resolution suggests how seriously conservatives take the issue of academic rights, and implies they might be willing to use the big stick of federal funding down the road.

The academic-rights bill poses a different risk for colleges and universities, though, because it second-guesses their classroom practices, says Robert Andringa, president of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which represents 131 schools. "If Congress feels it needs to start addressing academic freedom in a law, what's next?" he asks.

Andree:

Yes, I guess we just need to increase our patience and tolerance levels, focus on the postitive where possible, keep the pressure on the Neocons and just hang tough for the foreseeable future as my guess is the road will be rocky for a bit. What a change from the nineties! I remember being quite optimistic back then. If we ever get a window of opportunity like that again (I should say "when," not "if") I hope the US and the EU will take advantage of it to strenghten the foundations of healthy cooperation and I hope people on both sides of the pond are working on such a project now in anticipation of such an opportunity. Real progress comes in small steps and usually goes un-noticed, in my experience.

Chuck in Houston for Franternite, Egalite and Liberte! And E Pluribus Unim!

Posted by: Indy at October 4, 2005 12:05 PM

Yes Indy!

Thanks for pointing out Amtrak (and I had a horrible trip on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor a week ago today). We all want Amtrak to be a self-supporting railroad, but in order for that to happen, a lot of investment needs to happen so that it can actually be competitive. And years ago, I figured out that having ONE less B-2 bomber would be more than enough to get that done.

Education is another field that must NEVER be cut. Education is investment in the future. My pro-Ahnuld mother is now anti-Ahnuld because Ahnuld is about to cut funding for educational programs here in California - and among them is a valuable vocational course my sister happens to be enrolled in.

And of course, cutting military pork-and-barrel spending could get a LOT more done... like healthcare for people like me.

I am all for military spending for defense, but we are spending WAY more than needed for defense and offense, fattening the military-industrial complex while not supporting the troops' needs enough. Remember that this is precisely the same problem that brought the USSR down.

We're spending WAY more for offense than defense.

Defense wins Super Bowls, ask anyone.

Defense wins Super Bowls, ask anyone.

Posted by: monkey at October 4, 2005 01:29 PM

So do Hail Marys...

GO LONG!