Finally, the time has come. The Senate Rules Committee will vote tomorrow on whether Hans von Spakovsky, the former Justice Department official who former employees say was key to the politicization...
Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki may have successfully prevented the public airing of any comments fro
Read The Full Article:
So Pres. Ahmedinejad of Iran comes to the U.S. And boy, is the U.S. Right hot and bothered about his visit and what he wants to do here (inside the 25-mile radius from the UN within which foreign dignitaries on the Administration's s__t list must stay). First, he wants to visit the site of 9/11. Apparently forgetting that Iran delivered an outpouring of sympathy when the horror occurred, that Iran, a Shiite country, despises the Sunni bin Laden (and he doesn't like them much either), that Iran provided material aid to the original U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and still doesn't like the Taliban and certainly doesn't like the fact that under yet another Georgite-mismanaged war they have made a strong comeback, the U.S. Right launched a general "how dare he?" That of course fits right in with the current campaign to drum up Islamophobia using any convenient Muslim target regardless of politics (except, of course, the Bush-partners Saudis). Bookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas Ahmedinejad Iran Columbia free speech George W. Bush
It’s the end of the quarter and candidates need to be able to demonstrate to advocacy groups and the DCCC that they are serious fundraisers in order to be able to get their support.Last year Democratic women running for Congress suffered a serious[...]
Read The Full Article:
Last week The Politico reported on an internal feud between minority leader John Boehner and Rep. Tom Cole who heads up the NRCC. Boehner told Cole that he was displeased at how the NRCC is being run. Republican sources say Boehner wants to replace Pete[...]
Read The Full Article:
Click To Play As "blast walls" spring up on so-called "sectarian fault lines" around the capital, Alive in Baghdad goes into Adhamiya, the Sunni enclave in Eastern Baghdad where a controversial wall was first constructed earlier in the summer, introducing this week's piece as follows: When they began erecting a wall in Adhamiya the public response was varied, in Iraq, in the US, indeed around the world.
Read The Full Article:
Donald Trump, who is no fan of President Bush, gives his unvarnished opinions on Fox & Friends this morning, which got hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade a little worked up. While it’s clear he’s not considered a hostile guest, the hosts do their best to push back against his criticisms. Kilmeade makes sure [...]
Read The Full Article:
Today, the House is expected to vote on an extension of the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which would provide health coverage to 10 million children. Despite broad bipartisan support and the urging of governors, President Bush has threatened to veto the bill by repeating false claims about the legislation.
One of most egregious canards being propogated by the White House about the SCHIP expansion is that it will provide health insurance for the wealthy. President Bush claimed at a press conference last week that Congress “made a decision to expand the eligibility up to $80,000. He repeated it in his Saturday radio address:
BUSH: Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. [9/22/07]
And the White House echoed the false talking point today in its official veto message to Congress:
[T]he current bill goes too far toward federalizing health care and turns a program meant to help low-income children into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. If H.R. 976 were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the bill.
However, no such proposal exists. The $83,000 figure comes from a request from New York to cover children in some slightly higher-income households because of the state’s high cost of living, but the final Congressional agreement put the poorest children “first in line” for benefits.
Center for American Progress health care analyst Jeanne Lambrew notes that the section 106 of the bill specifically ensures that there will not be any expansion of eligibility. “It overwhelming targets resources to low-income children and it discourages expansion to families with more moderate incomes by lowering the share the federal government will pay for such coverage.”
Angered by the White House’s false spin, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) fired back:
“The president’s understanding of our bill is wrong,” Grassley said, his voice rising with anger. “I urge him to reconsider his veto message based on a bill we might pass, not something someone on his staff told him wrongly is in my bill.”
Bush isn’t concerned about doling out tax cuts to the wealthy, but the mere false pretense of the well-off receiving health care is enough to make him veto benefits for 10 million children.
UPDATE: The Democratic Caucus offers a state-by-state breakdown of the impact of the SCHIP legislation.
It is to laugh (from here)?
WASHINGTON ? President Bush is spoiling for a veto battle with Democrats over spending bills, but Congress has done such a poor job completing its budget work that the showdown could be weeks away.(And as you can see, the headline reads that Congress ?dawdles? on the budget, hence the holdup?sure.)
This battle centers around the rather conciliatory budget the new Democratic majority put together. They would nearly meet the president's request for enormous increases in defense and homeland security spending and propose small increases in social spending.And though I know I got into this yesterday also, what possible benefit does Dubya think could be reaped here?
But the president has chosen confrontation. He says he will veto all spending bills that exceed his requests and an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), while opposing improvements in the federal student loan program?all in the name of restraining government. Bush has adopted the abstraction that government should have a reduced role in public affairs?warning that the all-too-modest spending plans will unleash tax increases and the federal leviathan.
But the president's position is misleading and out of touch with the American public. First, there is no substance to his attacks on the size of the congressional spending proposals. Congress's fiscal 2008 spending plan exceeds the president's budget slightly regarding social spending?a mere $23 billion?or less than one percent of the entire budget. This difference between their budget and the president's will not open the spending floodgates.
Indeed, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found the congressional plan would actually reduce the size of social spending as a share of the economy. It is more appropriate to think of the Bush budget as proposing cuts, and the congressional budget as ensuring that program services are not cut. As for the new health and education spending?currently between about $50 and $70 billion?it will be spread out over five years, and some of it will be offset by spending cuts. The rest of the new spending will be paid for with additional taxes, but since the increase is moderate, it will have little impact on most taxpayers' bottom line.
?Republicans squandered the brand as the party of limited government and fiscal discipline and that contributed significantly to their losses in 2006,? said former GOP Rep. Pat Toomey, a former Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who heads the anti-spending group Club for Growth. ?A showdown like this is exactly what the Republicans need to recapture the brand.?The hell with those pesky elderly, infirmed, unemployed, college students in debt up to their eyeballs, and kids needing health insurance (and to say nothing of our crumbling infrastructure; I?m sure Toomey will be one of the first people to hide if another bridge collapses)?we have to recapture our brand, right Pat??!!
?The President is rightly defensive about his fiscal record, and clearly he is itching to veto appropriations bills ... in a vain attempt to re-establish his bona fides with conservative groups,? said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.You go, Steny! And by the way, I?m still waiting for you to explain to me how Jim Moran was wrong.
?After having asked us to borrow another $150 billion for the war in Iraq, he's trying to claim somehow that he's 'Mr. Fiscal Rectitude' by squawking about our efforts to restore $16 billion of his cuts,? Obey said.And finally?
Democrats say their differences with Bush are small compared with the overall size of the budget. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., last month termed the $22 billion gap a ?very small difference.?I?ll tell you what, Dubya; try halving your $50 billion request here for Iraq and Afghanistan (here), state publicly that you?ll abide by a troop withdrawal timeline as a reason to start scaling back on the money, and the deal will be done, OK?
?Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference,? Bush said recently.