« January 2004 | Main | March 2004 »

February 2004

RNC Lies Just Like Bush

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: February 22, 2004 - February 28, 2004 Archives

Busted! This morning NPR did a follow-up fact-check on that interview Juan Williams did with Bush campaign chairman

The polls show U.S. Congressman Brad Carson leading his GOP opponent by 11 points! But he needs your help in what is being called the "hottest Senate race in the country" and the best pickup opportunity for Democrats. Please support Brad Carson as he campaigns for the open Senate seat in Oklahoma.

Marc Racicot, in which Racicot claimed -- contrary to the evidence -- that President Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam, but wasn't selected.

As we noted on Monday, not only is there no evidence this is true, but President Bush said it wasn't true only two weeks earlier. The reporter walked through the evidence about the check box and rest of it, and also noted his instructor's claim (seconded by some of Bush's fellow pilots from the time) that Bush once asked about a program that sent Guard pilots on short tours overseas.

The reporter didn't go into all the contradictions in the story about the president's asking about the program in question. But all told, it's a good run-down of the facts and NPR deserves credit for not letting Racicot's false statement stand.

Privacy in the Crosshairs

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

THE FMA AS TROJAN HORSE: Here's an email from a Republican lawyer who sees the religious right amendment as a device to do far more than just deny gay couples constitutional protection. The amendment is just the beginning of the religious right agenda:
Now that opponents and proponents of gay marriage are all riled about the FMA its time to talk about the true impact of including a definition of marriage in the Constitution. The potential impact of inclusion of the FMA will effect every American straight or gay because the FMA is not about gay marriage, it is a dangerous Trojan Horse that could completely redefine the powers of the federal government. As an attorney who is researching this issue, let me explain to the best of my ability, why I haven’t been sleeping well since Tuesday.

Under the Constitution of the United States there is no express right to privacy, rather this right to be free from excessive government interference in our personal lives has arisen from Supreme Court precedent that cites the lack of regulation of intimate relationships and the protections of the bill of rights as the basis for an inference of the right to privacy. The right to privacy, according the Supreme Court is found in the penumbras and emanations of these two factors. A shadow of a right, very delicate and now threatened.

By including a provision regulating the most intimate of relationships into the Constitution, the traditional analysis that the court has used to limit government power will be fundamentally changed and the right to privacy, if it is not destroyed completely, will be severely curtailed. As a result, decisions like Roe v. Wade, (Abortion), Griswold v. Connecticut (Birth Control), Lawrence v. Texas (Private Sexual Acts), will all be fair game for re-analysis under this new jurisprudential regime as the Constitutional foundation for those decisions will have been altered. A brilliant strategy really, with one amendment the religious right could wipe out access to birth control, abortion, and even non-procreative sex (as Senator Santorum so eagerly wants to do).

This debate isn’t only about federalism, it’s about the reversal of two hundred years of liberal democracy that respects individuals. So why isn’t anyone talking about this aspect of it?
With luck, this agenda will be revealed as this amendment is discussed and debated. The most important thing to remember is who is behind this amendment: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, Robert Bork, Rick Santorum. For them, gays are just the beginning, the soft targets before the real battle. Memo to straights: you're next.

Blacks And Gays

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

A letter writer to theWashington Post reminds us that marriage amendments have been introduced before. "On Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (R-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution: "Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians ... within the United States ... is forever prohibited." Ernest Miller provides some historical context.

Bush Lies About Tax Cuts

FactCheck.org
Here We Go Again: Bush Exaggerates Tax Cuts

Now that the general election campaign is nearing, President Bush has resumed a sales pitch for the tax cuts he's signed. But he persists in making some misleading claims.

At a 24-minute appearance in the White House complex on Feb. 19, the President wrongly stated that "everybody who pays taxes" is getting a cut, which is not true:

Bush: We cut the taxes on everybody who pays taxes. I don't think it makes sense for tax-cutters to say, okay, you win, and you lose. My attitude was, if you pay taxes, you ought to get relief. And we cut all taxes,

In fact, all taxes were not cut and millions who pay only federal payroll taxes got no benefit from Bush's cuts.

It is true that everybody who paid federal income taxes is getting a cut. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center , 35.6  million individuals and families got zero benefit from the Bush cuts because their income was so low they were not paying federal income taxes before the cuts. This number includes 15.1 million workers who are paying federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That's 15 million "taxpayers" who were left out.

The President also bobbled the numbers when describing the average size of the cut. Here's the official White House transcript of what he said, which was wrong, along with the footnotes inserted later by the White House staff to correct the record:

Bush: The tax relief we passed, 11 million* taxpayers this year will save $1,086* off their taxes. . . .

(* 111 million taxpayers will save, on average, $1,586 off their taxes.)

The $1,586 figure is indeed an accurate statement of the average cut received by those who are getting a cut, according to the Treasury Department. However, it is far from typical.

For one thing, the figure does not take into account the 25% of all individuals and families who are receiving zero tax cut this year. It is an average only of those who are getting some cut. When those who get nothing are added in the average cut drops to $1,217, according to the Tax Policy Center.

But most importantly, the average is inflated by the fact that most of the money is going to a relatively few taxpayers at the top of the income scale, as seen from the following table distilled from a more extensive analysis by the Tax Policy Center:

Taxpayers making more than $1 million a year get an average cut of nearly $113,000 this year. Such huge cuts at the top tend to pull up the numerical average that the President is fond of citing.

A more meaningful number is the median -- or mid-point. The Tax Policy Center calculates the median cut received for income earned in 2003 is $470.

That means half of all individuals and families get less than that, and half get more.

Even the median figure doesn't give a full picture of how the benefits are spread around, however. Taxpayers make out very differently depending on whether they are married or single, and how many children they have under age 17.

That's because much of the tax relief for 2003 comes in the form of a tax break for married couples -- reduction of the so-called "marriage penalty" -- and a doubling of the tax credit granted for each child under 17, to $1,000 per child. Those do nothing to benefit single taxpayers -- including unmarried workers and millions of elderly widows and widowers, for example. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that nearly 13 million of those over age 65 will get no tax cut.

On the other hand, the Bush cuts do reduce income taxes for many middle-income families to zero this year -- taking them off the federal income tax rolls entirely.

Allies: Britain Drops Charges in Leak of U.S. Memo

Allies: Britain Drops Charges in Leak of U.S. Memo

In a sudden reversal, Britain said Wednesday that it would not prosecute a 29-year-old government linguist who admitted leaking a top secret American request for assistance in bugging United Nations diplomats.

The request was made by the United States National Security Agency during the debate over the Iraq war a year ago, according to the linguist, Katharine Gun, and her lawyers.

The case against Ms. Gun, who worked for Britain's General Communications Headquarters, the intelligence agency that intercepts and deciphers communications around the world, was dropped, avoiding a trial that her lawyers said they would have turned into a debate on the legality of Britain's entry into the war.

Ms. Gun's arrest last March and her assertion that she had acted out of conscience to expose what she regarded as an attempt by the United States to undermine the debate at the United Nations, has attracted broad attention.

Republican Corruption: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal

Republican Corruption: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal

From Roll Call, via Atrios: Because former House Majority Leader Richard Armey has not been sufficiently complaisant, his former colleagues are angry. One "House Republican leadership aide" says that "we have started looking very hard at all of Piper Rudnick's earmarks." "Earmarks" are directions in legislation that money flow to very specific groups in very specific places for very specific purposes: big presents from Congress to favored constituents, in other words.

What is most interesting is that these "earmarks" are now described as the property of firms like Piper Rudnick--a Republican-oriented lobbying business for which Richard Armey now works part time. The message the Republican House leadership is sending to the senior decision makers of Piper Rudnick is clear: muzzle Armey, or stop paying him, or watch your business vanish.

There has long been a theory that a major reason for the relative silence of the grownup Republicans in the face of the mammoth policy incompetence of the past three years is that many of them have been told that their ability to earn a more-than-comfortable income will be at risk if they publicly oppose the Bush administration or the Republican Congressional leadership.

It looks like this theory has just been confirmed.

Calpundit: Bush and the Constitution

Calpundit: Bush and the Constitution

BUSH AND THE CONSTITUTION....Interesting tidbit on ABC News tonight. In the past few years George Bush has expressed support for no fewer than five constitutional amendments:

Flag burning

Victims rights

Abortion

Balanced budget

Gay marriage

He really seems to think the constitution is just a rough draft, doesn't he?

On the other hand, he apparently opposed ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. I guess there are a few things too trivial to justify mucking with the constitution after all.

Intelligence: C.I.A. Admits It Didn’t Give Weapon Data to the U.N.

Intelligence: C.I.A. Admits It Didn’t Give Weapon Data to the U.N.

C.I.A. Admits It Didn't Give Weapon Data to the U.N.
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that it did not provide the United Nations with information about 21 of the 105 sites in Iraq singled out by American intelligence before the war as the most highly suspected of housing illicit weapons.

The acknowledgment, in a Jan. 20 letter to Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, contradicts public statements before the war by top Bush administration officials.

Both George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said the United States had briefed United Nations inspectors on all of the sites identified as "high value and moderate value" in the weapons hunt.

The contradiction is significant because Congressional opponents of the war were arguing a year ago that the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to complete their search before the United States and its allies began the invasion. The White House, bolstered by Mr. Tenet, insisted that it was fully cooperating with the inspectors, and at daily briefings the White House issued assurances that the administration was providing the inspectors with the best information possible.

In a telephone interview on Friday, Senator Levin said he now believed that Mr. Tenet had misled Congress, which he described as "totally unacceptable."

$400 mm Start up

Newsday.com

Start-up Company With Connections
U.S. gives $400M in work to contractor with ties to Pentagon favorite on Iraqi Governing Council

By Knut Royce
WASHINGTON BUREAU; Tom Frank contributed to this article from Baghdad.

February 15, 2004

Washington - U.S. authorities in Iraq have awarded more than $400 million in contracts to a start-up company that has extensive family and, according to court documents, business ties to Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon favorite on the Iraqi Governing Council.

The most recent contract, for $327 million to supply equipment for the Iraqi Armed Forces, was awarded last month and drew an immediate challenge from a losing contester, who said the winning bid was so low that it questions the "credibility" of that bid.

But it is an $80-million contract, awarded by the Coalition Provisional Authority last summer to provide security for Iraq's vital oil infrastructure, that has become a controversial lightning rod within the Iraqi Provisional Government and the security industry.

Soon after this security contract was issued, the company started recruiting many of its guards from the ranks of Chalabi's former militia, the Iraqi Free Forces, raising allegations from other Iraqi officials that he was creating a private army.

Chalabi, 59, scion of one of Iraq's most politically powerful and wealthy families until the monarchy was toppled in 1958, had been living in exile in London when the U.S. invaded Iraq. The chief architect of the umbrella organization for the resistance, the Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi is viewed by many Iraqis as America's hand-picked choice to rule Iraq.

News Analysis: The Transfer: U.S. Presidential Politics and Self-Rule for Iraqis

News Analysis: The Transfer: U.S. Presidential Politics and Self-Rule for Iraqis

In the Bush administration, it is considered heresy to suggest postponing the planned return of sovereignty to Iraq. Turning over control by June 30, administration officials say, is crucial to assuaging Iraqi distress over living under American occupation.

Yet in recent weeks, diplomats and even some in the administration have begun to worry that the date reflects more concern for American politics than Iraqi democracy. Their fear is that an untested government taking power on June 30 may not be strong enough to withstand the pressures bearing down on it.

"When we went into Iraq, our plan was to have a government, build a structure and write a constitution that would be a source of longterm stability," said an administration official. "Now that's out the window."

Many in the administration say that while they have no proof that the urgency to install a government is politically motivated, it feels to them like part of a White House plan to permit President Bush to run for re-election while taking credit for establishing self-rule in Iraq.

"I can make all kinds of arguments about why we need to establish democracy in Iraq on an urgent basis," said another administration official. "But when you hear from on high that this is what we must do, and there can be no questioning of it, it sounds like politics."

This week, the administration is in the odd position of insisting on Iraqi self-rule by June 30, while awaiting a recommendation from the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, on how the interim government should be chosen and the form it should take.