BUSH AND EXECUTIVE POWERS RUN WILD
While watching President Bush’s most recent press conference I got see presidential power pushed to the max. Bush likes to say he’s following the constitution, but we are witnessing the biggest grab of power by a president since the Nixon.
Here’s an except from Jan 26, 2006 President Bush Press Conference:
Q Mr. President, though -- this is a direct follow up to that -- the FISA law was implemented in 1978 in part because of revelations that the National Security Agency was spying domestically. What is wrong with that law if you feel you have to circumvent it and, as you just admitted, expand presidential power?
THE PRESIDENT: May I -- if I might, you said that I have to circumvent it. There -- wait a minute. That's a -- there's something -- it's like saying, you know, you're breaking the law. I'm not. See, that's what you've got to understand. I am upholding my duty, and at the same time, doing so under the law and with the Constitution behind me. That's just very important for you to understand.
Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. And FISA is still an important tool. It's an important tool. And we still use that tool. But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do.
And so that's why I made the decision I made. And you know, "circumventing" is a loaded word, and I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right.
Basically the last two sentences in paragraph two of Bush’s answer says he and his advisors looked at FISA and said they couldn’t work with it and decided to go around it. These people who have taken a sworn oath to obey the Constitution, but seem to not much care about for our civil rights.
When I heard Bush I said, “Then why don’t you re-write the law?!” I think the legislative branch, which is dominated by Republicans, would get behind him, but he doesn’t want to ask for permission. I believe it's because he feels constitutional scholars might put a damper on presidential powers.
The FISA law allows for three days of wire tapping before they have to approach the court, so there’s no excuse for not following the law. If you need to act quickly you can without producing the paperwork. Also, if Bush puts the need for wire taps under the war on terror, he can have fifteen days before getting warrant, so what’s the problem? The problem is, the Bush administration wants unrestrained power.
Folks, we’re looking at a violation of our constitutional rights in the name of the war on terrorism, which is a noble cause, but when the law gives you ways to work with it and you go around the laws, then you could be looking at impeachment proceedings. Unfettered surveillance of American citizens is a recipe ripe for all forms of abuse by one arm of the government and that’s why we have a constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
To my conservative friends, I ask, do you want President Hillary Clinton to have unrestricted access to your phone calls, email and all other forms of communications in three years?
Lobbying: The Fourth Branch of Government
There certainly is a lot of talk in Washington and around the country about lobbying reform. Obviously, the Abramoff scandal has brought this topic to the foreground, but lobbying has been around since the term lobbying was coined in the U.S. Grant administration when people would wait around the lobby of the Willard hoping to get an audience with the president.
At it’s heart, is lobbying bad? Many altruistic organizations have lobbyist representing them. Did you know that many of our institutions of Higher Education have lobbyists? Surely, we don’t wan to exclude the right of individuals or groups from practicing their rights to free speech and also to have access to their representatives, but just as any good idea can be corrupted, lobbying has become as sour as any idea can become.
Any knowledgeable person would know that greatest number of lobbyists are representing large corporate interests compared to the few that represent more altruistic causes. It is estimated that there are 56 lobbyists to every elected representative in Washington and these lobbyists come to the table with something to give and something they want. Anyone who thinks other wise is naïve, lacking wisdom or a liar.
In his January 4 column, Michael Reagan demands “hard evidence" of a quid pro quo and seemingly misses that the facts. Yes, there hasn’t been proven in most cases a direct quid pro quo, but what lobbying represents; access, and access leads to influence. And only those with a lot of money to spread around are getting that access, this having the influence.
Reagan states:
“Contributions bring access to Congressional offices but never guarantee action. Lobbyists entertain and contribute to lawmakers they know from the record are sympathetic to their causes. They don’t have to buy their votes - they know they already have them. They make campaign contributions because they want to keep lawmakers friendly to their causes. That’s not bribery, it’s politics.”
I think it’s a sad indictment of our political system when the bar is lowered so far that only legal and not ethical measures become the way in which we gauge its fairness and merit. Maybe I’ve come to expect more of the election process in which I "vote for" my elected officials and not "purchase" them.
To see the influence of big corporate money, you need look no farther than the Medicare Prescription Benefit Plan and the Bankruptcy Reform Bill passed in the recent past. From 1998 to 2004, drug companies nearly doubled their spending on lobbying efforts, going from $79 million to $158 million. Our representatives may say that all these efforts and money may grant some people access, but it doesn’t equal influence. Now, you can decide for yourself if an individual voter in Peoria has the same clout as a multi-billion dollar drug company.
The Credit and Banking companies have been lobbying congress for years for tougher bankruptcy reform because of the money lost to individual bankruptcy and only had to wait until they had a sympathetic and receptive administration to take power. MBNA spent $5.2 million on federal lobbying in 2003. Now, no one is talking about their predatory practices toward targeting consumers who will get the highest interest rates or the fact that credit card companies can use the any excuse to escalate your interest rate. And this includes being late on a returning a book to the library.
The other problem with lobbying is that congress has become a revolving door as representatives leave their offices on Capital Hill and move into high paid jobs on K-street. What may not be widely known is that former representatives have special access to the congressional floor that is not granted to regular lobbyists. This access makes them highly attractive to lobbying firms.
All in all, the Abramoff scandal has come at an opportune time because reform has been badly needed in this area. But let’s not get to complacent about this reform effort because craft folks can always find a way. There’s a saying that water finds a way. In Washington, money finds a way.
To learn more about the influence lobbying check out:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/
Handling Oil Profits, the George Will Way
It may seem like I’m waging a one-man war against George Will this week, but I’m not. Really. It just seems that he is a standard barrier for conservative views, particularly on capital.
In a recent column (Dec. 4, 2005), Will takes on Democratic efforts to create windfall profit tax on oil companies as way to do one of two things; 1) punish the oil companies for price gouging 2) protect consumers. But the way he expresses his views in this case is only to stab at the Democrats and does not really answer the problem of how to handle the price gouging of the oil companies during the previous fall.
He rails on about how a proposed windfall profit tax will hurt oil companies and their shareholders. He cites that the six largest oil companies will disperse $31 billion in dividends. He also states:
“…that 41 percent of oil company stocks are owned by pension plans and individuals' retirement accounts. Hence much of the tax's burden would have fallen on current and future retirees, reducing both the market value of, and dividends paid by, those stocks.”
What bothers me most about Mr. Will’s perspective is that he only looks at the capital side of the equation. Capital investments are largely apart of those who are most privileged. Yes, many retirement funds probably do contain oil company investments in their portfolios, but for the Average Joe, who probably has a modest retirement account that he won’t tap into until he retires, the worry is for today. And now, because of high energy costs, he’s probably having to cut back on his voluntary contributions to fill up his car.
And why most people have investments in stocks and some in oil stocks, how many, in comparison drive cars? I would say that nearly 95% or more.
I ask, what about the astronomically large increase in energy costs, specifically gasoline, right now? These seem to be left out of Mr. Will’s equation. How do they affect the “life-style” dividends of the Average Joe today? How do you balance out the dividend payouts with the increase of the pain at the pump?
Now, some will defend of the oil companies, stating that it’s really OPEC’s fault. Or that the hurricane in the Gulf caused the spike in prices. While yes, I expect an increase in prices because of these two factors, I don’t expect the oil companies to use these as an excuse to price gouge an already stretched middle class.
Here’s a hypothetical scenario. You own a peanut butter production plant. You buy peanuts from South America. The South American’s decide to increase prices. You can decide to become more efficient or pass the cost onto consumers. If you do pass the cost onto consumers, they may start considering the competition. Now add to the scenario hurricanes damaging your facilities. Again, you have a choice to raise prices.
To follow the scenario a little farther, you know what the price of peanuts are. You know that you will have to increase prices.
What would you do:
A: Raise them a reasonable amount?
B: Go into collusion with all other peanut butter producers, blame external factors and then raise your prices 25%?
You know what the oil companies did. They didn’t raise prices to a reasonable level, they decided to price gouge their way to record high profits. ExxonMobile made $9.9 billion dollars on one quarter.
How can anyone in their right mind say that oil prices were raised to a reasonable price and an oil company to come away with record profits? Why is it that the consumer was the only one to suffer at the hands of Katrina and the OPEC price increases?
If indeed, the oil companies are adversely affected by OPEC prices increases and the hurricanes in the Gulf, again, how can they walk away with such enormous profits? Why aren’t they limping by with modest profits when their companies are being put under the twin pressures of OPEC prices increases and natural disasters bedeviling them?
And why am I the only one to see that their excuses are farce?
And getting back on topic, how can George Will defend the oil companies when it is obvious that they decided it was time to make a killing? Mr. Will has already decided that stock portfolios trump the Average Joe’s wallet.
Now, peanut butter doesn’t drive the economy, but oil does. Americans don’t really have much choice about owning a car. It’s an integral and an almost indivisible part of life for most Americans. And the effect goes far beyond what the consumer pays at the pump because almost all business depend on trucking to get products to stores. Many business have already stated that they will have to increase prices to off-set the price the increase in gasoline prices and this yet another example one silo of economy deciding that it can make a maximum profit at the expense of the rest of the economy.
Getting back on point, while I don’t see the windfall profit tax as the most reasonable method to protect the consumers, I really don’t see Mr. Will contributing anything other than letting the oil companies off the hook. It seems that excess profit taking at the expense of the American citizen is all right with him as long as he can take potshots at the Democrat’s solution.
In all candor, congress would probably misspend all the money they garnered from the windfall profit tax anyway.
Now, my solution comes after the horse is already out of the barn, but what should have been considered was price controls. I can almost hear an audible gasp from free market capitalists everywhere. From my perspective, there seemed to be no other reasonable answer. Windfall profit taxes will probably be misspent. Letting the oil companies make a killing just so the privileged can have tidy dividend checks seems to be robbing from the poor to pay the rich. Letting the oil companies protect their reasonable profits while protecting the consumer from volatile prices through modest price controls seems like a reasonable solution to me.
Anyway, sorry to pick on Mr. Will again, but he left himself open with his one-sided attack that didn’t really offer much to the Average Joe. If only he had decided to look for a solution instead of an attack.
Sources:
George Will's Article
George Will’s High Definition Omission
Every once in a while you read a column and, at first blush, you say to yourself, this writer is “so right.” But then like reading a mediocre mystery novel, something the writer led you to believe turns out not to be the whole story. In fact, the writer left out a really important detail and now you feel cheated.
That’s how I felt after reading George Will’s Washington Post column of December 8, 2005. (Yeah, I’m slow to respond, but I’m busy putting the food on the table and a roof over the heads of my family.)
George takes on the entitlement culture that has permeated Washington and cites it the obvious give away of $3 billion dollars tax payers dollars to consumers in the form of vouchers for digital HD televisions.
[To read the column yourself, see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120701891.html]
George calls the give away the “No Couch Potato Left Behind “ Act. He states:
“Yet Americans have such an entitlement mentality, they seem to think that every pleasure -- e.g., digital television -- should be a collective right, meaning a federally funded entitlement.”
But what George fails to mention is that consumer never asked for the conversion of their broadcast spectrum to go from analog to digital. They were just fine with the analog sets. If someone hadn’t decided to force this new format on consumers, I don’t think they would have made the move themselves.
Who wants this digital, high definition revolution anyway? The electronics industry and the government do. The electronic industry gets to sell another large round of televisions to consumers. Electronic retailers will reap the benefits of selling these new high def TVs, too. The government gets $10 billion worth of analog spectrum to sell. But what does the consumer get? The consumers get $80 worth of vouchers to spend toward considerably more expensive televisions.
Oh yeah, they get a lot more image resolution, too, but they didn’t ask for it.
Here’s some fun facts. The average lifespan of a traditional television is 7 years. (Now, I’ve had several TVs work well for over 15 years.) The average lifespan of LCD monitor is 5 years and a plasma screen is 4 years.
It’s like the industry is building in planned obsolescence into their product thus ensuring themselves a continual profit stream.
Anyway, I’ve always had respect for George Will, but this sort of shell-game reporting is intellectually disingenuous. By trying to raise the ire of the average Joe by only telling part of the story, Mr. Will has met his goal, but he also does a disservice to those that think beyond a narrow self-serving polemic.
Yes, the entitlement culture is alive and well in Washington, but policies that are, in essence, large corporate give ways need to be exposed too.
If you only tell half the truth to make the point, then you’re telling half a lie. Next time, George, tell the whole story.
Sources:
http://www.mtprog.com/ApprovedBriefingNotes/BriefingNoteTemplate.aspx?intBriefingNoteID=248
