Democrats: Bush's Land Sales for Schools Unneeded

Two Democratic senators said Thursday they have found a way to pay for a program to fund rural schools without selling 300,000 acres of national forests, as the Bush administration has proposed. Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon said their plan would raise $2.6 billion over the next 10 years for the rural schools program by closing a tax loophole they said allows some government contractors to avoid tax obligations.

The bill is intended to circumvent a Bush administration plan to sell 300,000 acres of Forest Service lands to raise about $800 million for rural schools in 41 states. A plan that is unnecessary and would result in the permanent loss of national public forests.

Lawmakers from both parties have denounced the plan, saying the permanent loss of public lands isn't worth the short-term gain to schools. They also say it wouldn't raise enough money to help rural governments pay for schools and other services.

The proposal by Baucus and Wyden would provide a steady revenue stream for the rural schools program, commonly known as the county payments law, by closing a tax loophole in federal contracts, the senators said.

Under current law, the federal government does not withhold taxes owed by federal contractors. The Democratic plan would withhold 3 percent upfront of federal payments for goods and services delivered by private contractors.

The money would be applied to taxes owed by the contractor, which in most cases far exceed 3 percent of the total contract. If the tax obligation is less than 3 percent, the contractor would be reimbursed, a Baucus spokesman said.

"This is not a new tax. It just makes sure we get the payments" from federal contractors, said Baucus spokesman Barrett Kaiser.

Wyden, who co-sponsored the original rural schools law in 2000, said rural communities throughout the country rely on the payments.

"We cannot abandon them, and this legislation finds a fiscally responsible way of extending this successful law," Wyden said.

Dave Tenny, deputy undersecretary of agriculture, said he had not seen the Democratic plan and could not comment. A spokeswoman for Senate Finance Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, could not be reached Thursday.

Democrats Offer National Security Strategy

Democrats on Wednesday proposed a wide-ranging strategy for protecting Americans at home and abroad, an election-year effort aimed at changing public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security. Republicans, for their part, criticized the national security policy statement as a stunt. "We are uniting behind a national security agenda that is tough and smart, an agenda that will provide the real security President Bush has promised, but failed to deliver," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.

His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy — "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."

They spoke at a news conference at Union Station, near the Capitol, in front of banners reading "Real Security." They were flanked by some of the Democratic Party's top authorities on national security, including retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

In the strategy, Democrats vowed to provide U.S. agents with the resources to "eliminate" Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006.

They promised to rebuild the military, eliminate the United States' dependence on foreign oil by 2020 and implement the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. Those are many of the same proposals Democrats have offered before.

The latest in a series of party policy statements for 2006, the Democrats' national security platform comes seven months before voters decide who will control the House and Senate.

Bush's job approval ratings are in the mid- to high-30s, and Democrats consistently have about a 10 percentage point lead over Republicans when people are asked who they want to see in control of Congress.

With the public skeptical of the Iraq war and Republicans and Democrats alike questioning Bush's war policies, Democrats aim to force Republicans to distance themselves from the president on Iraq and national security or rubber-stamp what Democrats contend is a failed policy.

Democratic strategists say their polling shows Democrats leading in all other areas — such as the economy, health care, education and retirement security — and having closed a gap in polls with Republicans on national security.

Supreme Court Questions Military Trials

Supreme Court justices appeared troubled Tuesday by President Bush's plans to hold war-crimes trials for foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And several seemed outraged by the government's claim that a new law had stripped the high court of authority to hear a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who once worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Hamdan has spent nearly four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court has been asked to decide if he can be put on trial with fewer legal protections before a type of military tribunal last used in the World War II-era.

The appeal could set the stage for a landmark ruling, and the courtroom atmosphere was tense.
Two years ago the Supreme Court ruled that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

Without Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Bush nominated last year, the argument seemed lopsided against the government. Roberts supported the Bush administration as a lower court judge and had to withdraw from participating.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito gave hints that they support the administration, both suggesting that the high court should delay a decision until after the trial is over — much like courts do with regular criminal defendants.

Roberts was on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that signed off on the military trial for Hamdan.

Scalia had been asked by five retired generals to withdraw from participating in the case because of remarks he made in a recent speech in Switzerland about "enemy combatants." Scalia said foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.

The outcome of the case will likely turn on moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Kennedy said that historically, prisoners have been able to challenge their detentions in court.

The Bush administration has tried to scuttle the case on grounds that the new law stripped the justices' authority to consider it. The law passed late last year bars Guantanamo prisoners from filing petitions to fight their detentions, and the administration claims this law retroactively voided hundreds of lawsuits.

Justice David H. Souter said it would be "stupendously significant" for Congress to retroactively close courts to constitutional challenges.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said "it's an extraordinary act, I think, to withdraw jurisdiction from this court in a pending case."

The case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184.

From Robert Ariail

Democrats in Vermont to Weigh Impeachment

Leading Democrats in Vermont plan to decide in April whether to urge state lawmakers to petition for President Bush's impeachment using a little-known provision in the rules of the U.S. House. Democratic committees in at least half of the state's 14 counties have passed resolutions calling for impeachment, citing a rule in "Jefferson's Manual," a book of parliamentary guidelines written by Thomas Jefferson that supplements U.S. House rules.

The anti-Bush movement is "genuinely bubbling up from the grass roots," said Jon Copans, the state party's executive director.

The state Democratic committee is scheduled to decide the issue in a special meeting April 8.
The resolutions accuse the Bush administration of lying about the case for war in Iraq and illegally engaging in electronic surveillance of Americans.

They rely on "Jefferson's Manual," which says impeachment proceedings can begin "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state."

Now is the time for the rest of the states to follow the example set by Vermont. Use the links to the right to contact your Senators and Congresspersons.

From Robert Ariail

Bush told Blair determined to invade Iraq without UN resolution or WMD

President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he (Bush) was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported. Citing a confidential British memorandum, the newspaper said the president was certain that war was inevitable and made his view known during a private two-hour meeting with Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003.

Information about the meeting was contained in the memo written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," the paper quotes David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, as noting in the memo.

" 'The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,' Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. 'This was when the bombing would begin'," the paper continued.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum had not been made public, according to the report. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by British lawyer and international law professor Philippe Sands.

The document indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable, the paper said.

Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted.

Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Comment... Bottom line here is that Bush no intention of peace with respect to Iraq. He even had assassination of president Saddam Hussein on the table as an option to provoke the war. If you are as upset as I am by this please use the links to the right and let your Senator and Congresspersons know.

Senate hearing set on move to censure Bush

The Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday it would hold a hearing next week on a call by a Democratic lawmaker to censure President George W. Bush for his domestic spy program.

Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin introduced a resolution last week calling for a Senate censure of the president, charging that Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program was illegal. Revelation of the once-secret program has triggered a political uproar.

"Some Democrats in Congress have decided the president is the enemy and the terrorist surveillance program is grounds for censuring the president," Vice President Dick Cheney told a Republican fund-raiser in Orlando, Florida, on Friday, adding, "The American people have already made their decision. They agree with the president."

Given that less than 40% of the American voters support Bush I do not know how this "agree with the president" stuff is supported.

The Senate has censured a president, which amounts to a formal rebuke, only once before and that was Andrew Jackson in 1834 in a banking dispute.

Specter Takes Senate Lead on Eavesdropping

A vocal Republican critic of the Bush administration's eavesdropping program will preside over Senate efforts to write the program into law, but he was pessimistic Wednesday that the White House wanted to listen.

"They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with it," Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think what is going on now without congressional intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong."

Specter was one of the first Republicans to publicly question the National Security Agency's authority to monitor international calls — when one party is inside the United States — without first getting court approval.

Under that approach, Specter said the administration can still "roam and roam and roam, and not find anything, and keep roaming. ... I think that's wrong."

"I think my position will prevail," Specter said, noting that he will have Democratic support.

Americans want Democrats to control Congress

Most Americans want Democrats to take control of Congress in November mid-term elections, while 34 percent prefer a Republican Congress, a Newsweek Poll said. President George W. Bush's approval rating hit its lowest score in the Newsweek poll, the newsmagazine said in a statement, citing recent events, such as the Dubai ports controversy and the upcoming third anniversary of the Iraq war.

Only 36 percent of American adults approve of the way the president is handling his job, according to results of the survey conducted on Thursday and Friday.

Sixty-four percent are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time, while only 30 percent are satisfied.

Sixty-five percent disapprove of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq and 29 percent approve.

Forty-seven percent approve of Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court.

The poll results were based on a survey of 1,020 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

It will be published in the March 27 issue of Newsweek.

From Lalo Alcaraz

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low

More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent," said Rep. Tom Cole , R-Okla.

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him — and them — politically.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports.

Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.
"We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent," he said. "People vote for change and hope for the best."

Ariz. Governor Orders Troops to Border

Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday ordered more National Guardsmen posted at the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigrants and curb related crimes.

National Guard troops have worked at the border since 1988, but Napolitano signed an order authorizing commanders to station an unspecified number of additional soldiers there to help federal agents.

"They are not there to militarize the border," the governor said. "We are not at war with Mexico."

Napolitano did not say how many additional troops would be stationed at the border and referred questions to the National Guard, which did not immediately return a call.

Napolitano has asked the military to pay for her plan, but said she would commit state dollars if necessary.

The governor declared an immigration emergency last summer in Arizona's four border counties, citing security shortcomings by the federal government.

This is another example of states having to the job of the Federal government. Perhaps Bush could hire the UAE to protect the AZ boarder along with managing the six ports?

Four Vermont Towns Back Bush Impeachment

In a white-clapboard town hall, built circa 1832, voters gathered Tuesday to conduct their community's business and to call for the impeachment of President Bush. "In the U.S. presently there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation," said select board member Dan DeWalt, who drafted the impeachment article that was placed on the warning - or official agenda - for the annual town meeting, a proud Yankee tradition in New England.

"It absolutely affects us locally," Dewalt said. "It's our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, who are dying" in the war in Iraq.

The article, approved 121-29 in balloting by paper, calls on Vermont's lone member of the House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against the president, alleging that Bush misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.

Other cities nationwide have taken up resolutions calling for Bush's impeachment, notably San Francisco.

At least three other southern Vermont towns, spurred by publicity about Newfane's resolution, endorsed similar resolutions during Tuesday's meetings: Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney.

In Newfane, the impeachment item came at the end of a roughly four-hour meeting Tuesday morning that was devoted mostly to the local affairs of the town of 1,600.

Former Republican Congressman Gets Eight-Plus Years in Prison

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress, was sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison, the longest term meted out to a congressman in decades.

Cunningham, who resigned from Congress in disgrace last year, was spared the 10-year maximum by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns. He also was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution for back taxes.

Cunningham, a Republican who resigned last year in disgrace, accepted money from defense contractors and others in exchange for steering government contracts their way and other favors.

Federal prosecutors sought the maximum and his attorneys asked for mercy, but Cunningham, choking up as he addressed the judge, focused on accepting blame. "Your honor I have ripped my life to shreds due to my actions, my actions that I did to myself," he said.
"I made a very wrong turn. I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong. I did that, sir," Cunningham said.

The judge questioned why he felt compelled to betray his constituents and his colleagues for luxuries such as a Rolls-Royce, a yacht and $40,000 Persian rugs.

"You weren't wet. You weren't cold. You weren't hungry and yet you did these things," Burns said. "I think what you've done is you've undermined the opportunity that honest politicians have to do a good job."

Prosecutor Phil Halpern told the judge that while Cunningham was living the good life "he was squandering precious tax dollars for, among other things, systems the military didn't ask for, didn't need and frequently didn't use."

Prosecutor Jason A. Forge said Cunningham should not get a break for committing crimes late in life, and doubted his apparent remorse, pointing out that after the allegations emerged he spent months falsely denying them.

"The fact of the matter is Mr. Cunningham went down kicking and screaming. He did not plead guilty until his indictment was imminent," Forge said.

The staggering details of Cunningham's wrongdoing surpass anything in the history of Congress, Senate and House historians said. "In the sheer dollar amount, he is the most corrupt," said Deputy House Historian Fred W. Beuttler.

Cunningham pleaded guilty Nov. 28 to tax evasion and a conspiracy involving four others. Defense contractor Mitchell Wade pleaded guilty last month to plying Cunningham with more than $1 million in gifts over four years.

The Republican Culture of Corruption seems to have no end. This is just another sad chapter.

From Jeff Danziger

Senators Balk at Bush Plan to Sell Public Land

Senators from both parties on Tuesday challenged a Bush administration plan to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forest to help pay for rural schools in 41 states.

Lawmakers said the short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss of public lands. They also said profits from the proposed sales would fall far short of what's needed to help rural governments pay for schools and other basic services.

"I just don't think we can play Russian roulette with these local communities," said Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., who vowed to "do everything I can" to stop the plan.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, had a more visceral reaction: "No, heck no," he told Bush administration officials at a Senate hearing Tuesday.

"To propose selling off public lands we will lose forever, in exchange for a program we can pay for by other more prudent means, is simply irresponsible," said Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record), R-Wyo.

"The Bush administration wants to eliminate a proven, balanced initiative in favor of a public lands fire sale," added Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash.

Sen. Jim Talent (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., said he was not opposed to the land sale in principle, but was concerned about how much revenue would go to Missouri schools. The Bush plan would sell 21,566 acres in Missouri's Mark Twain National Forest — the third-largest land sale in the country — but would result in a likely cut in funding for Missouri schools.

"Our schools need the money," Talent said.