Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion

Reuters
Cost of Iraq war could top $2 trillion: study

By Jason Szep

BOSTON (Reuters) - The cost of the Iraq war could top $2 trillion, far above the White House's pre-war projections, when long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded U.S. soldiers are included, a study said on Monday.

Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included in their study disability payments for the 16,000 wounded U.S. soldiers, about 20 percent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries.

They said U.S. taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after U.S. troops withdraw.

"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," said the study, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."

Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high."

Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term U.S. economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans.

They said about 30 percent of U.S. troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005, citing Army statistics.

Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger U.S. budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices -- about 20 percent of the $25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began -- could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $25 billion.

"Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative.

The projection of a total cost of $2 trillion assumes U.S. troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year. They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the United States has 153,000 troops in Iraq.

HIGHER COSTS

Marine Corps Lt. Col. Roseann Lynch, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said on Monday that the Iraq war was costing the United States $4.5 billion monthly in military "operating costs" not including procurement of new weapons and equipment.

Lynch said the war in Iraq had cost $173 billion to date.

Another unforeseen cost, the study said, is the loss to the U.S. economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they otherwise would and costs related to American civilian contractors and journalists killed in Iraq.

Death benefits to military families and bonuses paid to soldiers to re-enlist and to sign up new recruits are additional long-term costs, it said.

Stiglitz was an adviser to U.S. President Bill Clinton and also served as chief economist at the World Bank.

(Additional reporting by Charles Aldinger in Washington)

Read More...

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

http://www.news.com/
Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

By Declan McCullagh

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

===
It's illegal to annoy

A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
===

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.

Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.


Read More...

Monday, January 09, 2006

Marines Without Armor

The New York Times

Marines Without Armor

American marines are a proud, tough bunch. They expect to be sent into the most dangerous battles and expect enemy fighters to come at them with everything they have. But they also expect, and have every right to expect, the Pentagon to provide them with the most effective armor available to maximize their chances of staying alive and in one piece. An investigative article in Saturday's Times by our colleague Michael Moss makes painfully clear that the Pentagon has let these brave warriors down.

A secret Defense Department study reveals that more extensive armor, of a kind available since 2003, could have saved the lives of some 80 percent of the marines killed by upper body wounds in Iraq between 2003 and 2005. That amounts to scores of needlessly lost lives - hundreds if Army deaths attributable to inadequate armor are counted as well. The ceramic armor plates in question cost about $260 a set.

Marines in the field have been clamoring for additional body armor (and vehicle armor) almost since the Iraq war began. Military officials initially turned them down because of concerns that the added weight might constrict movement. Once the study results came in last summer, Marine Corps leaders belatedly reversed themselves and started speeding armor to the troops.

Still, as of last month, less than 10 percent of the 28,000 sets of armor plates on order had actually reached the Marines in Iraq. Similar delays have plagued deliveries of improved vehicle armor. And the much larger Army contingent in Iraq has faced even more extensive delays.

The Pentagon buys some truly wondrous space-age weaponry with its half-trillion-dollar annual budgets. If the cold war ever resumes, the American military will certainly be prepared. Meantime, surely enough spare change can be found in that vast budget to accelerate deliveries of lifesaving armor to the marines and soldiers coming under fire today, and every day, in Iraq.


Read More...

Judging Samuel Alito

The New York Times

Judging Samuel Alito

Judicial nominations are not always motivated by ideology, but the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito certainly was. President Bush's previous choice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, was hounded into withdrawing by the far right, primarily because she appeared to hold moderate views on a variety of legal issues. President Bush placated Ms. Miers's conservative critics by nominating Judge Alito, who has long been one of their favorites.

Judge Alito's confirmation hearings begin tomorrow. He may be able to use them to reassure the Senate that he will be respectful of rights that Americans cherish, but he has a lengthy and often troubling record he will have to explain away. As a government lawyer, he worked to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has disturbing beliefs on presidential power - a critical issue for the country right now. He has worked to sharply curtail Congress's power to pass laws and protect Americans. He may not even believe in "one person one vote."

The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around Judge Alito's confirmation. But the public is skeptical. In a new Harris poll, just 34 percent of those surveyed said they thought he should be confirmed, while 31 percent said he should not, and 34 percent were unsure. Nearly 70 percent said they would oppose Judge Alito's nomination if they thought he would vote to make abortion illegal - which it appears he might well do.

If President Bush had chosen a pragmatic, mainstream conservative like Justice O'Connor to fill the seat, these confirmation hearings would be a breeze. But now, the Senate has a duty to delve into the many areas in which Judge Alito's record suggests he is an extremist, including:

ABORTION Judge Alito has not only opposed Roe v. Wade, he has also worked to overturn it. When he applied for a promotion in the Reagan administration in 1985, he wrote that he was "particularly proud" of his legal arguments "that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." In meetings with senators, Judge Alito has talked about his respect for Roe, but he has said nothing to discourage his supporters on the religious right who back him because they believe he will vote to overturn it. The American people have a right to know, unambiguously, where Judge Alito stands on Roe.

PRESIDENTIAL POWER The continuing domestic wiretapping scandal shows that the Bush administration has a dangerous view of its own powers, and the Supreme Court is the most important check on such excesses. But Judge Alito has some disturbing views about handing the president even more power. He has argued that courts interpreting statutes should consider the president's intent when he signed the law to be just as important as Congress's intent in writing and passing the law. It is a radical suggestion that indicates he has an imperial view of presidential power.

CONGRESSIONAL POWER While Judge Alito seems intent on expanding the president's power, he has called for sharply reducing the power of Congress. In United States v. Rybar, he wrote a now-infamous dissent arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing a law that banned machine guns. As a Reagan administration lawyer, he argued that Congress did not have the power to pass the Truth in Mileage Act to protect consumers from odometer fraud.

ONE PERSON ONE VOTE Judge Alito said in his 1985 application that he had become interested in constitutional law as a student partly because of his opposition to the Warren court's reapportionment rulings, which created the "one person one vote" standard. He seems to still have believed as a 35-year-old lawyer that these cases, which made legislative districts much more fair, came out the wrong way.


There are other areas - including civil rights, sex discrimination, the environment and criminal law - where Judge Alito's record appears extreme. The Senate should question him closely on all of them.

The Senate should also explore Judge Alito's honesty. According to a senator he met with, he tried to dismiss his statement about the Constitution's not protecting abortion as merely part of a job application, which suggests he will bend the truth when it suits his purposes. Judge Alito has said he does not recall being in an ultraconservative group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed co-education and affirmative action. That is odd, since he boasted of his membership in that same 1985 job application. The tortuous history of his promise to Congress to recuse himself in cases involving the Vanguard companies, which he ultimately failed to do, should also be explored.

Judge Alito's nomination is often presented as an abortion rights showdown, but it is much more than that. Those who care about the broad range of rights and liberties that Americans now have, and about honesty in government, should tune into the hearings starting tomorrow - and call their senators with their reactions to what they hear.

Read More...

Two Major Contenders in Race to Lead House Republicans

The New York Times
Two Major Contenders in Race to Lead House Republicans
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 - The contest for House Republican leader shaped up Sunday as a race between two senior rivals, with the Bush administration and its Congressional allies braced for a potentially divisive internal battle at the start of a crucial campaign year.

One day after Representative Tom DeLay of Texas ended his effort to regain the majority leader's position, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, announced he would oppose Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri for the post.

"I want to start a conversation within our conference - a conversation about renewal," Mr. Boehner wrote in a letter to his colleagues. "Renewal in spirit, renewal in principles, renewal in commitment."

At the same time, Mr. Blunt, the No. 3 leader who has been filling in for Mr. DeLay since his indictment in a Texas campaign finance case in September, stepped up an aggressive campaign to secure commitments from his colleagues as he and his allies tracked down House members scattered for the recess. While the names of other potential leadership candidates circulated, no one else immediately stepped forward.

With Republicans reeling from a lobbying scandal that shredded support for Mr. DeLay, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert announced Sunday that Representative David Dreier, Republican of California and chairman of the Rules Committee, would explore changes in lobbying laws.

"Recent developments have made clear the need for the House to take a closer look at the rules regarding members' interactions with lobbyists," Mr. Dreier said in a statement.

Mr. Boehner and others expressed reservations about the need for more regulations, saying what was required was better enforcement of existing rules. But Mr. Blunt, in his first public appeal to colleagues, backed the idea of lobbying changes and said recent months had been made more difficult by criminal cases growing out of a federal inquiry and other suspect behavior.

"Unfortunately, the recent scandals have caused some to question whether we have lost our vision and whether the faith they have placed in us is justified," Mr. Blunt wrote in asking House Republicans for their support. "While I have no doubt that it is, it will be difficult to move forward with our platform until we regain the trust and confidence of our constituents by enacting new lobbying reforms and enhanced penalties for those who break the public trust."

For the White House, the leadership fight will complicate President Bush's efforts to press ahead with his political recovery effort after a difficult 2005. It is also likely to distract attention from the agenda he plans to set out in the State of the Union address, which he is expected to deliver on Jan. 31, in the same week as the leadership vote.

Mr. Bush had hoped to use January to accomplish two big goals: win the confirmation battle over Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination to the Supreme Court, and show voters that he is overwhelmingly focused on the war in Iraq and the economy.

But the fight for Mr. DeLay's old job will highlight the internal divisions among Republicans on a variety of topics, including immigration, at a time when the party's discipline has been fraying and Mr. Bush has had trouble holding thin legislative majorities together.

Even before Mr. DeLay's decision not to try to hold on to power, administration officials and outside advisers had been concerned about their ability to prevail on battles carrying over from last year, including extending the antiterrorism bill known as the USA Patriot Act and finishing work on the budget.

The White House has sought to keep Mr. Bush insulated from any political fallout from the corruption investigations. Mr. Bush has never been particularly close to Mr. DeLay, a fellow Texan, but the White House had come to admire his ability to muscle the administration's agenda reliably through the House.

And Mr. Bush had publicly exhibited loyalty to and support for Mr. DeLay on a number of occasions over the last year as his legal and political troubles mounted; last month, the president told Fox News that he believed Mr. DeLay to be innocent of the charges filed against him in Texas and that he was hoping Mr. DeLay would resume his role as majority leader.

Congressional aides said the election to choose a permanent successor for Mr. DeLay was tentatively scheduled for Feb. 2, but both Mr. Blunt and Mr. Boehner were trying to wrap up the contest quickly by obtaining pledges from at least 116 members - a majority of the current Republican membership of 231.

"I've got of lot of phone numbers, a lot of e-mail addresses," Mr. Boehner said in an interview on the Fox News Channel. "But so far, so good."

Mr. Boehner served as conference chairman, the No. 4 position in the leadership, after Republicans seized control of the House in 1994. But he lost the job in 1998 during a leadership shakeup that sent Republicans looking for new faces at the top. Since then, he has concentrated on legislation, using his committee chairmanship to develop major education and pension bills.

Mr. Blunt was brought into the leadership in 1999 when Mr. DeLay made him chief deputy whip. He took the No. 3 whip position when Mr. DeLay was promoted to majority leader in 2002. The last few months were challenging for Mr. Blunt as he led House Republicans in Mr. DeLay's absence, struggling to reach consensus on budget issues. Mr. Blunt will try to persuade his colleagues that narrow approval of the measures last month earned him the job.

Republican officials said both men would have to reassure colleagues that they would not take a leadership slot only to be caught up later in the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff, the onetime close associate of Mr. DeLay who pleaded guilty last week to a series of federal charges tied to his lobbying operations.

For now, House Republicans say the only position to be decided is majority leader. But if Mr. Blunt wins, it would spur an election for whip. Aides to Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, currently the deputy whip, said Sunday that he had already received more than 90 pledges of support. But others, including Representatives Mike Rogers of Michigan, a former F.B.I. agent, and Zach Wamp of Tennessee were considered possible contenders.

House Republican aides said Mr. Hastert and Mr. Dreier were open to a broad array of changes in lobbying rules and hoped to meet with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the author of his own proposal, as well as with Democrats who have introduced initiatives.

But Mr. Boehner, in his Fox interview, said "adding more new rules isn't the answer." Other lawmakers expressed a similar view.

Democrats said they were watching to see if Republicans were serious about the lobbying effort. Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, recalled that the 2005 session of the House began with Republicans trying to loosen ethics rules.

"Today's announcement by Speaker Hastert that he is ready to work toward genuine lobbying and ethics reform is welcome and long overdue," Mr. Emanuel said. "My hope is that it translates into a sincere effort to clean up this institution and make it work for the people we are elected to serve."

Read More...

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Seems as tho' I've seen this scene before

Read More...

Republicans finding it harder to run on their record

Read More...

So is this everything?

Read More...

I couldn't have said it better myself

Read More...

It's not God's punishment -- and mind your own business

Read More...

"Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not"

Read More...

"Bribery" wasn't one of the key words

Read More...

Officials Focus on a 2nd Firm Tied to DeLay

The New York Times
Officials Focus on a 2nd Firm Tied to DeLay
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT and GLEN JUSTICE

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - Having secured a guilty plea from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, prosecutors are entering a new phase of the corruption investigation in Washington and are focusing on a lobbying firm that has even closer ties to Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader who is under scrutiny in the scandal.

The firm, Alexander Strategy Group, is of particular interest to investigators because it was founded by Edwin A. Buckham, a close friend of Mr. DeLay's and his former chief of staff, and has been a lucrative landing spot for several former members of the DeLay staff, people who are directly involved in the case have said.

Although the firm's name has circulated in connection with the case for many months, prosecutors' questions about Mr. Buckham and Alexander Strategy - which did not respond to requests for comment - have intensified recently, participants in the case said.

The firm openly promoted the idea that it could deliver access to Mr. DeLay, who has denied any wrongdoing but abruptly announced Saturday that he would not try to regain his leadership post. Now the very connections with Mr. DeLay that formed the backbone of Alexander Strategy, put together with Mr. Abramoff's help, have put the future of the firm in doubt.

While doing business with lobbyists is routine for most lawmakers, investigators are looking at the extent to which Mr. DeLay and other lawmakers may have accepted trips, campaign donations and other favors from Alexander Strategy, and in turn tried to help the business.

Still, prosecutors may have a difficult time reaching the high legal threshold required in a bribery case, in which it must be established that lawmakers performed official acts in exchange for specific favors, rather than as a result of an ongoing relationship with an outside lobbyist.

It is unclear whether any single action by the firm has caught investigators' attention so much as its overall pattern of activity.

Details of the ties between Alexander Strategy, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Abramoff - who pleaded guilty last week in federal court and is cooperating with investigators - have already begun to trickle out. Alexander Strategy paid Mr. DeLay's wife $115,000 in consulting fees while conducting business with Mr. Abramoff's firm. Mr. Abramoff also referred clients to Mr. Buckham.

Mr. Buckham and the firm also shared clients - among them an entity in Malaysia and the Choctaw Indian tribe in Mississippi - with Mr. Abramoff, who in his plea agreement admitted to using corrupting tactics with lawmakers on behalf of his clients. Mr. Abramoff also admitted to having defrauded his Indian clients of millions of dollars. At one point, Mr. Buckham even sought to hire Mr. Abramoff himself, participants in the case said.

Mr. Buckham and at least one member of his firm worked with domestic and overseas clients who prosecutors suspect helped funnel money and perks to Mr. DeLay, his fund-raising operations and other lawmakers in ways intended to curry favor with the Republican leadership.

And at one time, Americans for a Republican Majority, or Armpac, the leadership committee that raised money for Mr. DeLay, was run out of the offices of Alexander Strategy.

But the firm's web of contacts on Capitol Hill reaches past Mr. DeLay, making Alexander Strategy a potentially useful resource as investigators examine other lawmakers.

The firm's name surfaced at the periphery of the corruption investigation into Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California. Mr. Cunningham resigned after pleading guilty to accepting bribes from a defense contractor that did business with Alexander Strategy.

For years, Alexander Strategy was one of the crown jewels of the so-called K Street project, an effort Republicans began after taking control of Congress in 1994 to dominate the lobbying industry. The hope, exemplified by Mr. Buckham's company, was for Republican lobbyists to harness the power of their corporate clients to help keep the party in power for years to come.

The successful history of Alexander Strategy since its founding in the late 1990's offers a window into the nexus of Mr. Abramoff, Mr. DeLay and the lobbying world over the last decade or so of Republican control of Congress.

As Mr. DeLay grew more powerful in Congress, the lobbying firm rose in prominence on K Street, building an impressive roster of clients for such a young company and earning, according to records, about $8.8 million lobbying in 2004. That ranked it in the middle of the pack among Washington's largest lobbying firms, but its client list - including Microsoft, United Parcel Service, Time Warner, Freddie Mac and Eli Lilly & Company - suggests what was, at least at one time, a powerful and well-connected operation.

And Mr. DeLay, so intertwined with the lobbying world that his extensive network of allies and former aides scattered throughout town is nicknamed "DeLay Inc.," responded more quickly to calls from Alexander Strategy than he did for any other firm, former aides of his said.

One element prosecutors are trying to understand is what role Mr. DeLay played in sending business to the company. There is evidence, one participant in the case said, that it was "you hire these guys because Tom DeLay tells you to."

Mr. Buckham also ran the U.S. Family Network, a self-styled grassroots organization tied to Mr. DeLay that, according to The Washington Post, was financed almost entirely by clients and associates of Mr. Abramoff. People involved in the case said they expected investigators to examine whether Mr. DeLay cast a vote in Congress in exchange for donations to the network.

Another critical component of the investigation is the activities of Tony C. Rudy, a former DeLay deputy chief of staff who went to work with Mr. Abramoff as a lobbyist before joining Mr. Buckham at Alexander Strategy, where he still works. Mr. Rudy is mentioned - named only as "Staffer A" - in Mr. Abramoff's plea agreement, and investigators are looking into whether he helped secure legislative favors for Mr. Abramoff's clients in exchange for gifts and the promise of a future job while he was still on the DeLay staff.

Mr. Buckham and others from the firm have not responded to inquiries, and Mr. DeLay, through his spokesman, has said he is innocent of wrongdoing. Although investigators are looking at as many as a dozen lawmakers in the inquiry, they have not brought charges against them.

Richard Cullen, a lawyer for Mr. DeLay, pointed out that Mr. Rudy had not been named outright in any court documents.

"But if it turns out to be Mr. Rudy," Mr. Cullen said, "and if what Mr. Rudy did turns out to have been in any way improper, Tom DeLay is going to be very sad and very disappointed. Because he will feel betrayed, and he expects much, much more from his staff than activities like that."

As a result of Mr. Buckham's ties with Mr. DeLay and Mr. Abramoff, investigators are "keenly interested" in him, especially in connection with deals he may have brokered with Mr. DeLay and other lawmakers after going into the private sector, one participant in the case said.

"He allows the connection to be made to DeLay," another participant said of Mr. Buckham. All participants in the case were granted anonymity in interviews because Justice Department officials do not want people talking about it publicly.

Alexander Strategy's name has also surfaced in the course of a corruption investigation that implicates the defense lobbyist Brent Wilkes, who is an unnamed co-conspirator in the criminal case against former Representative Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham pleaded guilty in December to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from Mr. Wilkes and others. Mr. Wilkes's firm, Group W, also hired Alexander Strategy to do lobbying work, and Mr. DeLay used a plane partly owned by Mr. Wilkes.

The scandals swirling around the Alexander franchise, composed of roughly two dozen lobbyists at its offices on the waterfront in Georgetown, have delighted its former rivals while triggering concerns in the lobbying community that the entire business may be tarred.

Dick Armey, the former Republican House majority leader, who now works for the firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary and who clashed with Mr. DeLay in the House, invoked Charles Dickens, likening Mr. DeLay to Fagin and Mr. Buckham to the Artful Dodger in "Oliver Twist."

"Tom DeLay sent Buckham downtown to set up shop and start a branch office on K Street," Mr. Armey said. "The whole idea was, 'What's in it for us?' That's what I thought at the time, and I've seen nothing in the way they've conducted themselves since then to dissuade me from that point of view."

Mr. DeLay and a group of like-minded Republicans have spent years promoting Republicans for top lobbying positions in an attempt to counter decades in which Democrats controlled both Congress and K Street. The effort has caused several dustups over the years.

Mr. DeLay was rebuked by the House ethics committee in 1999 after allegedly badgering a trade association that chose a Democrat as its president, rather than the Republican candidate he favored.

Mr. DeLay's political action committee paid Alexander Strategy more than $300,000 for fund-raising and consulting services from 2000 to 2003, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit group that tracks money in politics. In addition to Mr. Rudy, the firm also employed Karl Gallant, who headed Mr. DeLay's political action committee.

The firm has already been dropped by one client, MGM Mirage, the casino and resort giant, which retained it in 2004, paying about $350,000 to help block a maneuver by an Indian tribe in Michigan.

At the end of last year, MGM ended the relationship. Alan Feldman, a spokesman for MGM, said that the project had ended and that the firm's services were no longer needed. But Mr. Feldman acknowledged that the scrutiny surrounding Alexander Strategy was a concern. "It would be dishonest to say that it didn't come up in discussions," he said.

Other lobbyists and participants in the case said it would be difficult for the firm to survive this type of scrutiny with all of its clients and relationships intact.

"It's a double-edged sword, being known as DeLay Inc.," said one Republican lobbyist. "They are on the sharp edge of the sword now."

Read More...

Democrats Criticize Appointment at Immigration Agency

The New York Times
Democrats Criticize Appointment at Immigration Agency
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - Senate Democrats this week sharply criticized President Bush's decision to install Julie L. Myers, a White House official, as head of the nation's immigration enforcement agency despite concerns on the part of some about her qualifications for the job.

Ms. Myers, a 36-year-old lawyer, will be sworn in on Monday. She currently serves as the president's special assistant for personnel and previously worked as an assistant secretary at the Department of Commerce. She has never managed a large department or dealt extensively with immigration issues.

When Mr. Bush nominated Ms. Myers last year, Democratic and Republican senators raised concerns about her lack of experience, and her Senate confirmation appeared to be in doubt. Some critics said they feared that her political connections, rather than her qualifications, had driven the decision to select her to lead the bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has 15,000 employees and a budget of about $4 billion.

On Wednesday, Mr. Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and used his power of recess appointment to install Ms. Myers as director of the bureau, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. The department's secretary, Michael Chertoff, praised Ms. Myers, saying that she possessed "the experience, judgment and determination" necessary for the job.

But some Senate Democrats said they were still concerned about her ability to manage the bureau. The agency has been beset by controversies, including accusations of mismanagement of its budget and questions about its effectiveness in enforcing immigration laws.

At the Department of Commerce, Ms. Myers supervised a unit of 170 employees.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said on Friday that Ms. Myers "really was not qualified for the position." Mr. Lieberman said Congress had intended the position to be held by someone with at least five years' management experience.

"In my opinion, she lacks the management background," he said. "And one of her key responsibilities is to enforce immigration laws, and she has virtually no immigration experience."

Daniel K. Akaka, Democrat of Hawaii, echoed those concerns. "The head of I.C.E. should be an individual who has demonstrated extensive executive-level leadership and the ability to manage a budget through reorganizations and budget cycles," Mr. Akaka said. "Ms. Myers has not demonstrated this ability."

Erin Healy, a spokeswoman for the White House, countered that Ms. Myers had "extensive law enforcement experience," noting that she had also served as chief of staff for the criminal division in the Justice Department and as a federal prosecutor in New York.

"She's tried criminal cases and worked with customs agents on everything from drug smuggling to money laundering," Ms. Healy said. "So to say that Julie does not have the prerequisite experience to lead I.C.E., it simply ignores her extensive background working with law enforcement, immigration and customs.

"This position has been vacant for far too long," Ms. Healy continued. "It's essential that the agency has the leadership it needs."

Mr. Bush nominated Ms. Myers for the position in June, but the decision first stirred a furor in September after Hurricane Katrina, as the administration faced criticism about the performance of Michael D. Brown, then the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Mr. Brown, a Republican without prior experience in managing disasters, was brought to Washington by a friend, Joe M. Allbaugh, his predecessor at FEMA.

Ms. Myers, who has held a variety of federal jobs over the last four years, drew attention because of her ties to the White House and some senior officials. She is a niece of Gen. Richard B. Myers, who recently stepped down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the wife of John Wood, Mr. Chertoff's chief of staff.

Criticism of her nomination was not limited to the comments of Democrats. In September, National Review, an influential conservative publication, urged Mr. Bush to withdraw Ms. Myers's nomination. In an editorial, the magazine compared her to Mr. Brown and called her "another unqualified nominee for a vital position in the Department of Homeland Security."

"The president's supporters can look forward to serving in his administration, but certain key jobs ought to be reserved for candidates whose personal connections don't outweigh their professional qualifications," the editorial said.

Russ Knocke, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said that Ms. Myers's critics were ignoring her experience in pursuing financial, narcotics and weapons crimes, experience that he said would be critical to an agency that is increasingly focused on breaking sophisticated smuggling rings.

Several Senate Republicans also voiced support for Ms. Myers on Friday, though not without raising some concerns about her qualifications and the appointment process.

Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio, who had raised sharp questions about Ms. Myers's qualifications in September, said on Friday that she was "intelligent and highly driven" with "the potential to be an effective leader."

"Though I would have preferred that Ms. Myers had more management experience," Mr. Voinovich said that "as a former mayor and governor, I feel strongly that managers should have the flexibility to hire their own team, and then be held accountable for the results."

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, has also praised Ms. Myers, saying that she "would bring experience and the confidence of Secretary Chertoff to this mission." But on Friday, Ms. Collins expressed concern about Mr. Bush's decision to bypass the Senate confirmation process.

"It was disappointing to her that the White House circumvented the normal nomination process," said Jen Burita, a spokeswoman for Ms. Collins.


Read More...

Is the Opera Over?

Read More...

Will Take Abramoff Bribe Off Your Hands

Read More...

Non-partisan Congress arm rejects Bush eavesdropping case

Reuters
Congress arm rejects Bush eavesdropping case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A report by a research arm of Congress on Friday concluded the administration's justification for eavesdropping authorized by President George W. Bush conflicts with existing law, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The Congressional Research Services report, the first nonpartisan findings on the program to date, rejects key assertions made by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order the eavesdropping into telephone calls and e-mails, the paper wrote.

The 44-page CRS report said that Bush likely cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of phone calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001.

A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, forbids domestic spying on U.S. citizens without the approval of a special court. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to intercept communications without court approval.

Critics of the administration warn that civil liberties could be jeopardized by government eavesdropping practices that avoid judicial oversight.

Read More...

New State Medicare Plan a Disaster - Overcharging Rampant - Many now can't afford - don't get drugs they need

The New York Times
States Intervene After Drug Plan Hits Early Snags
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 - Low-income Medicare beneficiaries around the country were often overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications, in the first week of Medicare's new drug benefit. The problems have prompted emergency action by some states to protect their citizens.

Although there are no hard numbers, concerns expressed by state officials and complaints from pharmacists suggest a widespread pattern of problems.

At least four states - Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont - acted this week to make sure poor people received the drugs they were promised but could not obtain through the federal Medicare program.

Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, said the state would pay drug claims for low-income people until the federal government fixed problems in the new program, known as Part D of Medicare. Michael K. Smith, the state's secretary of human services, said, "The federal system simply is not working."

On Thursday, the Vermont Legislature passed a bill declaring, "There is a public health emergency due to the federal implementation of Medicare Part D, which has resulted in serious operational problems, causing Vermonters to be turned away at the pharmacy without the drugs they need."

Many factors contributed to the initial chaos. Some people who enrolled in Medicare drug plans did not have any proof of coverage. Pharmacists could not get the information needed to verify eligibility for drug benefits and low-income subsidies. Insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers were swamped with calls, so pharmacists often had to wait an hour or more on telephone help lines.

Federal officials promised improvements, but state officials were growing impatient.

In Maine, Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, agreed to pay drug claims to provide medications for those in need. Since Tuesday, the state has incurred $2 million of expenses for Medicare beneficiaries.

On Friday, Gov. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a Republican, said he had to act because "some low-income elderly and disabled individuals can't get their prescriptions filled through their Medicare drug plans."

In New Hampshire, Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, signed an executive order authorizing the state to pay drug claims that he said should have been covered by Medicare. Republican leaders of the state legislature called a special session to provide the money. The start of the Medicare drug program "has been a nightmare for many of our citizens," Governor Lynch said.

"Many are being charged unaffordable co-payments for prescription drugs - co-pays much higher than they are supposed to be. Too many of them are leaving pharmacies without their prescriptions."

Thomas T. Noland Jr., a spokesman for Humana Inc., a major national insurer, said that some problems were "to be expected in a new program with lots of new enrollment taking effect all at once."

Cynthia G. Tudor, a senior Medicare official, told insurers on Wednesday that they must "immediately make improvements" to "ensure that all beneficiaries get their prescriptions filled at the point of sale."

In a memorandum to insurers, Ms. Tudor said she had received "numerous reports" that they were "inappropriately denying some scripts," or claims. In many cases, she said, insurers are not providing the data that pharmacies need to file claims and get paid.

Roseanne Pawelec, a spokeswoman for the federal Medicare agency, said Saturday that federal officials were working closely with states to address their concerns and to help individual beneficiaries.

"Things are improving on a daily basis," she said. "As computer systems catch up with late December enrollment, the problems are rapidly disappearing."

But in an interview on Friday, Stan Rosenstein, the Medicaid director in California, said: "We are hearing more and more complaints. A significant number of people are not getting their prescriptions. That has us very troubled."

Drug benefits are delivered by private insurers under contract to Medicare. The federal government is supposed to compute the subsidy available to each low-income beneficiary. But Michael Polzin, a spokesman for Walgreens, said that, in many cases, that information had not been shared with insurers or pharmacists.

Under Medicare rules, each drug plan is supposed to have a transition policy, providing a temporary supply - typically 30 days - of any prescription that a person was previously taking. But customer service representatives at Medicare's toll-free telephone number said they knew nothing of this requirement, and beneficiaries said it had been virtually impossible to take advantage of it.

Nationwide, 6.2 million low-income people receive both Medicare and Medicaid. About 1.1 million of them live in California. They tend to have many chronic illnesses and high drug costs. Cheryl Meronk, manager of the health insurance counseling program in Orange County, Calif., said she was referring people to hospital emergency rooms because they had been unable to get urgently needed medications through Medicare.

Under the standard Medicare drug benefit, which took effect on Jan. 1, the patient pays a $250 deductible and 25 percent of the next $2,000 in annual drug costs.

Over the last year, Medicare officials repeatedly assured poor people that they would receive extra help, so they would not have to pay any deductible and their co-payments would not exceed $5 for a prescription.

But Carol A. Herrmann-Steckel, commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency, said that Medicare beneficiaries with very low incomes had often been required to pay the full $250 deductible and co-payments far exceeding $5. "One beneficiary borrowed the money," she said. "Another charged the $250 on a credit card because she was in such dire need of the medicine."

Beverly R. Churchwell, an aide to the Alabama commissioner, said: "Some Medicare beneficiaries have not been able to get their medications. They are being turned away at the pharmacy."

John J. Morris, 42, of Ware, Mass., who has diabetes and multiple sclerosis, signed up for a Medicare drug plan on Nov. 16. The insurer told him his co-payments would not exceed $5, he said, but at the pharmacy this week, he was told he had to pay $23 for each of three drugs.

"I could not afford it," Mr. Morris said, "so I was not able to get my insulin or my M.S. drug."

In Oregon, Sandy K. Hata, a field manager for the state Department of Human Services, said: "We've had calls from people in tears who could not get their medications. These people were being asked to pay a $250 deductible and hundreds of dollars in co-payments."

Jane-ellen A. Weidanz, the Medicare project manager at the Oregon Department of Human Services, said: "The $250 deductible "is hitting people very hard. People are very angry and very upset. They are yelling at us. They feel that we lied to them. They feel Medicare lied to them. They feel they cannot trust anything we say about this program."

Texas reported a similar problem. Low-income beneficiaries are "being charged incorrect (high) co-payments," the state's Health and Human Services Commission said in an e-mail message to the Dallas office of the federal Medicare agency.

In Oklahoma, low-income Medicare beneficiaries were often charged the $250 deductible. "They are being treated as if they were in a higher income bracket," said Mike Fogarty, chief executive of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority. "It's a common problem."

Steven E. Hahn, a spokesman for AARP, which offers a drug plan insured by UnitedHealth Group, said he knew that some low-income people had had difficulty getting medications. "We are taking this very seriously," he said. "This is a global problem, a systemwide problem, for all plan sponsors."

Elizabeth L. Stone, 86, who lives alone in an apartment in Manchester, N.H., is enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, has arthritis and a thyroid condition and is confined to a wheelchair. She tried to use the new Medicare benefit to fill a prescription this week, but failed.

"I did not get any medication," Ms. Stone said. "People at the pharmacy would not give it to me because they do not know how they will be reimbursed."

Another low-income beneficiary, Terence J. Stevens, 65, of Lakeland, Fla., said he signed up for the drug plan on Nov. 15, the first day on which enrollment was allowed. His plan tried to charge him a $47 co-payment for a drug to treat irregular heartbeats and high blood pressure. Mr. Stevens said he was unable to pay and did not get the drug.

In Alabama, William M. Beasley, a pharmacist and a Democratic member of the state House of Representatives, said, "I have had more difficulty trying to process claims for Medicare recipients than I've had with any other insurer in 43 years as a pharmacist."

Read More...

The true meaning of a fundamentalist Christian

huffingtonpost.com
The true meaning of a fundamentalist Christian
Byron Williams

I am a fundamentalist Christian who trusts women to make the right choices with their bodies, supports marriage equality and opposes the death penalty.

With such declarations, it is not likely that I will be categorized with the usual fundamentalist suspects like the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the 700 Club's Pat Robertson.

As the great labor organizer Saul Alinsky stated: "Whoever controls the definition, controls the outcome." Therefore, I contend that many of those who most commonly labeled "fundamentalist Christian" are the ones out of step with the teaching of Jesus.

Theology's role in the public conversation has been largely vacuous since the days of Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr. Replacing them has been a series of religious neophytes whose allegiance to a political party appears greater than any contribution to American discourse.

In America, the term fundamentalist is often intertwined, and therefore misunderstood, as being synonymous with evangelical. But evangelical, which comes from the Greek word "euangellismos," simply means gospel or good news.

An "evangelical Christian" can either be conservative or liberal in origin, ranging in practices from proselytizing, systems of belief or affiliation of denomination.

Fundamentalism is linked to a literal interpretation of the biblical text, the way an "originalist" like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia approaches the Constitution.

So much of what fundamentalist Christianity espouses is designed to maintain some notion of a status quo. It is a religious doctrine that seems to be wedded as much to an antiquated notion of the Constitution as it is to scripture.

Early Christianity was a rebellious underground movement until Roman Emperor Constantine made it his religious practice in A.D. 312 and his successor, Theodosius I, made it the official religion of Rome in A.D. 380.

I submit those who self-define today as Christian fundamentalist are closer to being heirs to the nationalistic religiosity originated in Rome than to the teachings of Jesus.

The blending of church and state into one national voice by segments of the Christian fundamentalist movement runs counter to any notion of American democracy of which I am aware.

Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, writing recently on the tragedy of Terri Schiavo, acknowledged and justified fundamentalists' attempt to blend church and state: "True, there is an arguable federalism issue: whether taking the issue out of a state's jurisdiction is constitutional. But it pales in comparison with the moral issue."

How can arbitrary notions of one's privately held morality trump constitutional due process?

It seems quite paradoxical for fundamentalists to periodically invoke the name of Jesus in their rhetoric while advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, militarism and authoritarianism, along with the exclusion of certain Americans from the public conversation.

Such beliefs do not play well, however, with a Jesus who emphasized love, justice, hope and opportunity. The very idea of something called a "fundamentalist Christian" as currently practiced is by definition oxymoronic.

It is impossible to be a fundamentalist Christian and not apply a strict adherence to the belief of "love your neighbor as yourself," a concept Jesus placed as a high priority. In short, a fundamentalist Christian must be a fundamentalist to love.

A genuine definition of Christian fundamentalism would demand that love, justice, hope and opportunity be central to its understanding.

In addition to King, Mother Teresa and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are authentic examples of a Christian fundamentalist. In fact, Gandhi's embodiment of the teachings of Jesus, as a practicing Hindu, remains far superior to the claims of orthodoxy by the vast majority of 21st century Christians.

The challenge is to wrest the title "fundamentalist Christianity" away from those who have narrowly defined it as a tool that works in tandem with the state for its own purposes of greed, domination and a limited interpretation of morality.

The way to accomplish this is to be living examples of a strict adherence to love, justice, hope and opportunity, thereby authentically being fundamentalist Christians in word and deed.

Moreover, such fundamentalism is possible universally, even if one is not Christian.

Read More...

Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation

Reuters
Democrats want sweeping House ethics investigation

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats seized on a mushrooming scandal involving a disgraced lobbyist on Saturday to call for sweeping ethics probes in the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat, said lobbyists had multiplied by the thousands in recent years to the point where there were now 63 of them for every lawmaker. She said they were using their campaign donations to influence policy and even write laws.

Slaughter called on the House ethics committee to investigate corruption cases involving lawmakers with links to Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded guilty this week in a U.S. corruption probe.

"The House ethics committee, after a year of inaction, must get to work immediately to investigate pending ethics and corruption cases in the House, including those involving members with ties to Jack Abramoff," she said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

"This is a necessary first step to restore a high ethical standard to the Congress," Slaughter said.

There was no immediate comment from a spokesman for the ethics committee, chaired by Rep. Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican.

But Republicans have sought to cast the Abramoff case as a bipartisan scandal, noting that some Democrats also received donations from Abramoff's clients and associates.

Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud charges and admitted that he gave golf trips, sports tickets and other gifts to lawmakers in return for special treatment.

The case has deepened the woes of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican whom Abramoff describes as a close friend. It has spurred a debate in the Republican Party over whether DeLay should return to his leadership post even if cleared of money-laundering charges in a separate case in Texas.

Democrats hope to turn the Abramoff scandal into a major election-year issue that could help them win back control of the House in the November elections.

Read More...