ADA in Vegas

ADA has taken to the road early this week to participate in the AFL-CIO Executive Council meetings in Las Vegas.

Along with chatting with our friends in the Labor Movement, ADA also hosted a reception in partnership with the International Association of Machinists. Attendance was great and a presentation by ADA President Emeritus Jim Jontz on the New Heartland Project was well received.

More on CFI Visit ADA

Mr. Malbin discussed the goals of the CFI along with proposals for improving campaign finance. CFI is also set to release a book this year titled The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and BCRA which highlights numerous studies into the various concerns with our current system and provides suggestions for solutions.

The CFI proposal focuses on public financing and incentives to limit spending. Mr. Malbin described how the public financing system is steadily losing its relvancy in its current form and needs an indexed funding boost as well as restructuring to encourage participation.

As part of the release of The Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and BCRA, CFI is giving previews to the book's content. Most recently, a study of 527's.

Visit the Campaign Finance Institute for updates on studies and the book release.

Campaign Finance Institute Visits ADA

The ADA National Executive Committee meets today to conduct business and will be joined by Michael Malbin of the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI).

According to their website, "The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit institute, affiliated with The George Washington University, that conducts objective research and education, empanels task forces and makes recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance."

We will post segments of Mr. Malbin's presentation later today.

Propagandagate

What does it take to create a political scandal?

A) Engaging in covert propaganda
B) Breaking federal law
C) Misusing public funds
D) Planting ringers in press conferences
E) None of the above

If you answered "E," pat yourself on the back. Apparently, it doesn't matter if our nation's top executives engage in unethical, dishonest or downright illegal activities, as long as the opposition party is a minority in Congress. The events surrounding "Propagandagate" seem to confirm this disappointing theory. If you haven't been following closely, let's recap the past several months:

It all began last fall, when the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services released several "news-style" videos promoting No Child Left Behind and Medicare reform. The controversial part was that the videos weren't marked as being government-produced. Because of this, the General Accounting Office found the agencies guilty of engaging in "covert propaganda," as defined by the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003.

In January, we found out the two aforementioned departments had secretly paid journalists to tout Bush initiatives. HHS paid Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus various sums to promote the White House's "pro-marriage" plan, and the Education Department paid Armstrong Williams to endorse NCLB. Whether McManus and Gallagher's columns broke federal "payola" laws has yet to be decided, but Williams, whose commentary was broadcast as well as printed, has doubtlessly violated FCC Communications Act sections 317, 507 and 508, which require disclosure when a broadcaster has been paid to endorse something.

While we're talking about scandals involving the Education Department and NCLB, let's not forget how it paid $700,000 to the PR firm Ketchum Inc., to rate journalists on how positively or negatively they covered the law. Some might call this a misuse of public funds. Others might call it ... well OK, however you cut it, it's pretty much a case of misusing public funds.

Most recently, James Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon, has been outed (pardon the pun) as a gay male escort/GOP operative posing as a homophobic, uber-Christian, White House correspondent. Besides using a fake name, Guckert was also a fake reporter working for a fake news publication.

Even though he was lobbing softball questions to GOP officials for two years, government officials and his boss (who is a Republican activist) deny that Guckert/Gannon was working as a ringer. Guckert himself says he used the alias "Jeff Gannon," not to hide his real identity, but because his real name, James Guckert, was too difficult to pronounce. Stop laughing, he's serious. He, his boss and White House press secretary Scott McClellan all maintain it's perfectly normal for reporters to use pseudonyms. Maybe, but when was the last time they invited Miss Manners to a press conference?

Despite everything, there's talk that nothing will result from any of this. As the New Yorker explained in its "Nothinggate" article:
What all the memorable scandals of the past thirty year...have had in common is that the opposition party controlled at least one house of Congress, which gave it the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. If Bush ends up having an easier time of it in his second term than any of his two-term predecessors since F.D.R., it won't be because the scandals aren't there. It'll be because the tools to excavate them are under lock and key.

Apparently, the press is saying only Democrats can hold Republicans responsible for unethical or illegal activities (and vice versa). That means if the partisan opposition isn't saying it, it must not be worth saying. But this line of reasoning forgets that sometimes neither party will broach certain issues when they're deemed too "politically risky." The unwillingness to scrutinize evidence justifying the Iraq invasion is a recent example with grave consequences.

And if the opposition is the Congressional minority, is the majority free to flout the law because nobody has the authority to hold them accountable? One could answer that all politicians must answer to the people at election time, but how can we make knowledgeable decisions if the media isn't asking tough questions? Our press needs to ask itself if it wants to cover elected officials or simply take dictation from them. For our sake, let's hope they decide soon.

The Madness Continues

The New York Times Reports two such outrages today:

"Ten of the 32 government drug advisers who last week endorsed continued marketing of the huge-selling pain pills Celebrex, Bextra and Vioxx have consulted in recent years for the drugs' makers, according to disclosures in medical journals and other public records," the Times reports.

And,

The Times also ran a story today about Kansas. What is the matter with it, indeed. "Attorney General Phill Kline, a Republican who has made fighting abortion a staple of his two years in the post, is demanding the complete medical files of scores of women and girls who had late-term abortions, saying on Thursday that he needs the information to prosecute criminal cases."

Even the Wichita Eagle agrees that this is too much.

Are you Outraged? Tell us about it by commenting below.

Dr. Dobson Denounces, Delivers, and Demands

From our friends at People For the American Way

Dr. James Dobson, reigning Godfather of the Religious Right political movement, has been on the receiving end of well-earned ridicule since he sounded an alarm about the latest threat to America's children and families: SpongeBob SquarePants, the animated character loved by millions of kids and parents, is promoting tolerance among schoolchildren, God forbid.

It is always useful when the Dobsons of the world make their extremism clear - in this most recent case, by trashing a pro-tolerance program as some kind of sinister plot (and getting his facts wrong in the process). But there is a danger that his remarks will encourage journalists and progressive Americans to dismiss Dobson as a buffoon rather than examine his increasingly significant role as a power broker within the Republican Party, and what that means to the country's future.

Dobson, who built a large following as a dispenser of parenting advice on Christian radio but is devoting more and more time to politics, campaigned hard last year for Bush and for far-right congressional candidates, including new Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim Thune of South Dakota. He and other Religious Right leaders are demanding payback - and it looks like they're going to get it, from White House support for a constitutional amendment forcing states to discriminate against gay couples, to Supreme Court nominees who would gut civil rights and environmental laws, eliminate a constitutional right to privacy and reproductive rights, and undermine the separation of church and state, which protects all Americans' religious liberty.

View Full report HERE

There is No War on Terror

Remember the War on Drugs? A right-wing administration took an issue that had always existed, ignored the roots of the problem, and declared an open-ended war on it. This provided a convenient excuse to curtail civil liberties, lock up a lot of people, coddle dictators who might be useful in the fight, and not least, attack anyone who dared oppose the effort. Sadly, most Democrats failed to challenge the premises of that war and acquiesced in it for fear of being labeled soft.

All countries cut corners in wartime. The Bush administration wants to cut corners, so they pretend we are at war. By tying unrelated actions to 9/11, the Right can achieve aims they never could have justified independently: invading and occupying Iraq, expanding government spying powers with the Patriot Act, freeing U.S. forces from that pesky Geneva Convention, continuing to increase an already obscene military budget, and slashing domestic spending to compensate.

It's easy to respond to an attack on innocents with a broad denunciation of any group believed connected with the perpetrators. After the 1920 Wall Street bombing, which killed 40 and was blamed on immigrant anarchists, the Washington Post wrote "The bomb outrage in New York emphasizes the extent to which the alien scum from the cesspools and sewers of the Old World has polluted the clear spring of American democracy." A bit florid for George Bush, but the sentiment of xenophobia and American exceptionalism is the same.

As the Spectator points out in a recent editorial, terrorism is a tactic, and you can't go to war with a tactic. The U.S. has long been a terror target, most horrifically on 9/11 but also in the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber case, the anthrax attacks, Pan Am flight 103 and earlier. A rational response to 9/11 would involve securing dangerous nuclear and biological materials, reexaming U.S. Middle East policy and our relations with oppressive Arab regimes, and improving intelligence efforts. Instead the Bush regime relies on war rhetoric and endless military action.

There are a lot of people out there who hate us. Some have good reasons, some have bad reasons, some are just crazy. Declaring war only provides more reasons, provokes the crazy to contemplate even more violent actions, and debases our own society. Liberals should not adopt the war rhetoric, but more importantly we should not fall for the idea of a never-ending struggle against an ill-defined enemy.

Iraq Exit Strategies

Remarks by ADA Vice President James K. Galbraith, to the Security Policy Working Group Forum on Iraq. February 22, 2005

Some excerpts:
"'You can't win and you can't break even; you can't get out of the game. You shouldn't stay but--you ain't leaving, for your luck might change again...'

This is an old story. It has to do with the enthusiasm many feel at first for military solutions to international problems, and with the way wars have of getting out of hand, of inventing new justifications for themselves as they go along, of continuing far longer and of costing far more than anyone thought they would. The story also has to do with the way wars sometimes end, when the side with less will to sacrifice finally quits. That was us in Vietnam. It may be us in Iraq. But not for a long time.

I opposed the Iraqi war, even though, given my brother Peter's direct knowledge of the crimes against the Kurds, I could have no illusions about Saddam Hussein. But I took what I thought should be an economist's view, and asked, what could we gain, and what would it cost?

On November 15, 2002, I responded to a request from an old friend, former Senator Gary Hart, for a memorandum on current issues. I chose to weigh in on Iraq:

It is important to approach this issue practically - which is to say, from an economic standpoint. One way is to point out that while the impending war on Iraq may prove to be fairly easy..., the post-war occupation is certainly going to be ugly. Iraq is a huge country. The oil fields, the cities and the ports will need to be protected. The protectors will need to be protected. Saddam has 150,000 secret police who will not physically disappear. There is a large Shi'a population with whom our relations could deteriorate quickly if their leaders don't like our rule.. Worst of all there is Al Qaeda. They are not in Iraq right now, but they will be. And they will find plenty of fresh targets in occupied Iraq. Algeria comes to mind; does anyone remember?...

...

Once we have invaded, getting out again is not going to be easy. On the contrary, it will be very easy for Al Qaeda and others to guarantee just enough turmoil to ensure that it is never quite safe to leave. The choice will therefore become one of staying and bleeding, or of accepting an ignominious retreat - think the Israelis from South Lebanon but on a much larger scale. People need to understand is that a decision to invade Iraq is, in effect, a decision to establish what will be, for practical purposes, a permanent zone of occupation there."

He finishes with this:

"As for a time-table for withdrawing from Iraq--yes, by all means let's also discuss that tactical option. Let's not rule it out. It might be the right move. And there are not that many good moves on the chessboard, just now."

For the full remarks click HERE

Galbraith is also the chair of Economists for Peace and Security, and holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., Chair in Government/Business Relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin.

The Painful Lessons Of History

From the LA Times

On the anniversary of President Roosevelt's Executive Order implementing internment, Japanese American Lillian Nakano examines the parallels between the World War II era bigotry towards Asian Americans and the problems faced today by Arab and Muslim Americans.

"There is no justification for racism or denial of civil liberties - not in 1942 and not in 2005."

ADA News and Notes is Up

To View ADA News & Notes click HERE

Headlines:

• Fire Rummy Already
• Class Action Bill Passes
• Reject Thomas Dorr Nomination
• The Nominees For "Worst Cast In A Judicial Drama" are...
• ELIBERAL.ORG Launched as ADA blog
• ADA Convention and Conference Dates Set

To View ADA News & Notes click HERE

The Costs of War

Cost of Bush Administration's recent supplemental request for war spending: $81.9 billion

Amount for Army military bases, including "in some limited cases, permanent facilities": $990 million

Amount for Air Force base construction: $301.5 million

Amount for "embassy security, construction and maintenance": $1.4 billion

Value of Iraq contracts given to Custer Battles, a Virginia-based security company, in 2003-2004: $100 million

Amount for which Custer Battles is accused of fraudulently billing the government: $50 million

Value of contract the company received to provide security for civilian flights at Baghdad International Airport: $15 million

Number of civilian flights that flew during the contract term: 0

Number of ex-Custer Battles employees who say company workers indiscriminantly killed Iraqi civilians: 4

Sources on file at the Institute for Southern Studies.

This idea deserves MORE funding?!?!?

Is denying teens any sort of info about safe sex a good idea? Moreover, is it an idea that deserves a huge increase in taxpayer dollars in this era of slashed budgets? The Bush budget answers these questions with a resounding, and frightening, yes. Abstinence-only, or "safe sex-free", education will clearly lead to more STDs, more teen pregnancies, and more abortions.

Can the Bushies, even the most warped radical right-wing ones, honestly believe that, if you don't teach teens about safe sex, they won't have sex? How insanely stupid!!!! Promoting abstinence in public schools is a worthy goal, but even if teachers never mention sex, teens will try to engage in it. It is, in the most true sense of this term, human nature. In recognition of this reality, teens must know about safe sex.

Go to this Kristof piece for some great numbers about how countries that teach safe sex have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and HIV infection. This is one issue that must be fought. Contact your Senators and Rep today, and ask them to oppose increased funding for abstinence-only education. The health of our teens (not to mention our fiscal state...but that's a whole different story) is at risk.

Big Lies from Bush on Social Security

The Bush Administration, in the absence of a plausible argument for their proposals, resorts to the Big Lie: repeat something often enough and loudly enough that people eventually believe it. To justify a war of aggression, they claimed Saddam had WMDs and was involved in 9/11 to boot. They knew this wasn't true, but it sounded better than saying we were going to invade Iraq because Saddam wasn't our friend anymore. Now they are using the same propaganda technique on their next project, destroying Social Security.

The far right has never liked Social Security, from its inception, when it smacked of socialism, through George Bush's 1978 campaign for Congress, when he claimed the system would go broke by 1988 if private accounts were not introduced. Instead, it now directly benefits 47 million Americans, providing a powerful counterargument to the Right's government-is-bad mantra. And it was introduced by FDR, whom the Republicans hate so much they tried to take his picture off the dime.

But even Karl Rove couldn't sell "we don't like it because it works and Democrats invented it." Hence, as outlined in a leaked memo sent by Rove aide Peter Wehner to leading conservatives, their strategy is "to establish an important premise: the current system is heading for an iceberg. . . . that reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the pre-condition to authentic reform."

This is Big Lie number one: the sky is falling. Convince people that they won't get their promised benefits anyway, and they will accept the system's destruction. But the truth is that Social Security is not in crisis. If nothing is changed in the next forty or so years, benefits can be paid in full until sometime between 2042 and 2053. If Bush looks very, very carefully he could probably find some more immediate problems to worry about. But even if no changes are made, and the Social Security trust fund is indeed depleted sometime in the 2040s or 50s, the system would still have the Social Security taxes being paid by those working at the time. That will be enough to pay benefits significantly higher than those Bush proposes.

OK, so the sky isn't falling. But there is some risk that benefits will be reduced about forty years from now. Since everything else in the world is fine, suppose we do want to change that. Here comes Bush's Big Lie number two: we can fix this by introducing private accounts. The truth is that private accounts would do nothing to improve the fiscal strength of the system. In fact, they would make it worse. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if money is diverted to private accounts the trust fund would be depleted sixteen years earlier.

But the Administration's plan does claim to balance the books in the long run. It does this through a simple and reliable mechanism: cutting benefits. The financial heart of the Bush plan is determining future benefit increases based on the rise in prices instead of the rise in wages as is done now. On average, wages rise faster than prices, which is one reason standards of living go up--we don't have to spend all our income on flour, molasses and tea like people did in the 18th century. So using prices instead of wages would, over the years, dramatically reduce the benefits paid, allowing the system to support more retirees without raising taxes. For an excellent summary from the Economic Policy Institute of the proposed change in benefit calculations, see their February 9, 2005 snapshot. Similarly, analysis by CBO indicates that almost all retirees, from those first affected to children born today, would receive lower benefits under the President's proposal.

This plan is not supported by the American people. According to a recent Washington Post poll, the public opposes cutting benefits by more than two to one. The only change that draws strong support is--surprise--making the rich pay their fair share. An astounding 81% favor charging Social Security taxes on income over $90,000. This same poll shows that few people know that Bush's plan comes with a hefty price tag--several trillion dollars in the next decade, and trillions more down the line. The Left has work to do to publicize this little detail.

There are many other reasons why the Bush plan is a bad idea: the danger to survivor and disability benefits, increased management costs, diversion of funds to pay fees charged by financial companies, and the failure of privatized systems abroad to maintain a decent standard of living. But fundamentally, the Bush plan is to spend a few trillion dollars now to make things worse for retirees in forty years. No wonder they are lying to us about it.


John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.

Losing Faith

The Washington Post reports today on the published frustrations of David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

From the report: "...the White House reaped political benefits from the president's promise to help religious organizations win taxpayer funding to care for 'the least, the last and the lost' in the United States. But he wrote: 'There was minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda.' "

"From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff' "

Ouch!

More Mischief

In case you've missed it, the Bush Administration seems to be at it again. More journalistic tampering or at the very least poor security at the White House.

Jeff Gannon (real name James Guckert) has been gaining access to the White House for nearly two years to cover "news" for Talon News which writes bias stories for various conservative propaganda websites.

It has been illustrated that Bush and White House Press Sec. Scott McClellan often call on the favorable questioning of Mr. "Gannon" after tough questions from real reporters.

What a disgrace? Well, Mr. President, is this another example of an inside fix to gain favorable press coverage? Or is the White House security so bad that a man using an alias has gained access to the White House, sensitive documents, and you?

Either way it's another negative mark on your already tarnished record.

For more on Gannon click HERE

Bush's Class-War Budget

Paul Krugman wrote in his article for the New York Times today, "On one side, the budget calls for program cuts that are small change compared with the budget deficit, yet will harm hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Americans. On the other side, it calls for making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and for new tax breaks for the affluent in the form of tax-sheltered accounts and more liberal rules for deductions."

He goes on to say, "The question is whether the relentless mean-spiritedness of this budget finally awakens the public to the true cost of Mr. Bush's tax policy."

ADA News and Notes is Up

ADA's weekly newsletter is online now...

ADA Kicks Off Thursday Forums With A Bang

In the first of what will hopefully be many more forums to come, ADA hosted and event in the Capitol Building today.

Featured guests included ADA President Jim McDermott, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, former Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and James Roosevelt Jr. who is not only the grandson of Social Security champion Franklin Roosevelt and ADA Founder Eleanor Roosevelt he is also a Social Security expert himself having served as Associate Commissioner of Social Security for Retirement Policy.

Mr. McDermott opened the show to a crowded room of 50+ Hill staffers, ADAers, and media outlining the current debate in Congress.

Ms. Kennelly added to the momentum pointing out that in the proposed private account plans, "not one penny goes toward solvency," and noted that the President's perceived plan actually accelerates the time at which Social Security would spend its current surplus. She described the "voluntary" plans as a "shotgun wedding" approach to retirement security and urged the crowd not to "take your eye off the ball" because our opponents will not.

James Roosevelt, Jr., a current ADA member, described a memo that he keeps displayed in his office. The handwritten memo is from FDR to James' father James Roosevelt, Sr., outlining his vision for Social Security. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that even between the writing of this memo and the writing of the bill language some aspects change. "But the principles remained the same," he said, "as they do today." The foundation of the plan was to provide the base retirement security insurance which would keep the retirees out of poverty. He noted that over time Social Security has helped bring the percentage of senior citizens living in poverty down to only 8%. Mr. Roosevelt believes that the privatizers want to kill the program. Not because it has failed but because it has been arguably the most successful government program ever. A powerful message indeed.

Hitting clean-up for this event was Dean Baker. He hit it out of the park. (those of you who do not like sports analogies...get over it!) The numbers are the key to reality said Baker. Social Security is, historically, in great shape given that the current ability to pay full benefits for approximately 40 years. Never in the program's history has it been able to say this. Baker had a reality-based answer to every one of the privatization arguments.

The crowd stayed late and we are looking forward our next forum next month.

Less Than Frivolous

"Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims - and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year. Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back, by irresponsible class actions and frivolous asbestos claims - and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year."
-- President George W. Bush from his State of the Union Message

Less than a week ago, President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address attacked "frivolous asbestos claims."

Yesterday, the news broke that Federal prosecutors had charged W. R. Grace and Company with multiple criminal charges alleging that mine workers and residents of Libby, Montana were systematically exposed to asbestos and that W. R. Grace had covered up the danger. In Libby, the death rate from asbestos is extraordinarily high and a rare type of cancer has attacked 20 residents of the town of only 8,000.

Frivolous asbestos claims, Mr. President? Would you like to repeat that charge to the residents of Libby, Montana?

Now is not the time to pull the rug out from under the residents of Libby or others who suffer the negligence of those who put profit ahead of individual health. This is not frivolous if you or a member of your family is dying.

Click here to tell the President that you are outraged by his unwarranted attack on those who are suffering from asbestos exposure. Click here to let your Members of Congress that you want reckless companies held accountable.

Reality Check

Last night, President Bush addressed the nation asking each of us to support his second term agenda. He talked about privatizing Social Security, plans to expand the No Child Left Behind Act, and his other priorities for the upcoming year.

Now it's time for a reality check courtesy of the Moving Ideas Network which Americans for Democratic Action is a part of.

BUSH ON SOCIAL SECURITY: "Here is why the personal accounts are a better deal: Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver."

Reality check: Privatization of Social Security risks the program's success and endangers the many individuals who rely on its funds for survival. The administration's plan calls for severe cuts to benefits forcing workers to try to make up the difference through risky private accounts. Experts estimate that workers will only be able to recoup part of what they will lose in benefits.

BUSH ON EDUCATION: "Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we're closing the achievement gap for minority students."

Reality check: The No Child Left Behind Act focuses on punishments rather than help, federal mandates rather than local flexibility, and privatization rather than teacher-led, family-oriented solutions. The President has failed to fully fund this program leaving states with the heavy burden of fulfilling goals without appropriate funding.

BUSH ON HOMELAND SECURITY: "We've created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders."

Reality check: Funding for first responders in emergencies, such as police, fire fighters, paramedics, and emergency health care departments, are actually facing cuts in their funding since 9-11. The Environmental Protection Agency states there are over 123 chemical plants in the U.S. that could endanger more than 1 million people if attacked by terrorists.

Welcome

Welcome to E-Liberal the Blog of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).

We will soon be geared to bring you news, action alerts, commentary, guest columns, and much more.

In addition, we will also introduced you to the writings and webpages of ADA members and friends while provided a great amount of supplemental information than we have in the past.

We hope that you will join us often as we intend to update frequently and that you will spread the word about E-Liberal.