wages. Click here to read part of a chapter discussing
healthcare reform in this country from Robert Kuttners
excellent book called "Everything for Sale"
Europe
the last election
articles written by Robert Kuttner
Watergate
Michael Parenti
Chomsky
worse than Watergate.
conservative propaganda
the media to control media reporting
public mind
about Wall Streets desire to
steal social securityabout
social security reform
Blair and the Presidency" In it Naughtie writes of a phone conversation between Powell and British foreign
secretary Jack Straw, in which Powell describes neoconservatives Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and Deputy defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as "Fucking Crazies."
When questioned about his sexual morality during a talk at Harvard, Supreme court justice antonin Scalia, who
supports anti-sodomy laws, said, "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and
should be encouraged."
George Bush"If this was a dicttorship it would be a heck of a lot easier-so long as I'm the dictator"
The widow of the Mel Carnahan, the democratic nominee for the senate from Missouri, beat John Ashcroft, in
his bid for the US Senate in November 2000. A few weeks before the election, forseeing Ashcrofts defeat and
unable to rig the voting machines, elements of the CIA tampered with Carnahans plane so it would crash. They
never thought his widow could beat Ashcroft. An unexpected turnout of black voters put Carnahans widow on
top. This occured in spite of conservatives use of every ploy imaginable to keep black voters away from the
polls. Before the next race they did the same thing to Paul Welstones plane making sure his wife was on board.
After Wellstones assasination the Republicans siezed the senate and made the good christian they killed for,
John Ashcroft, Attorney General. My conspiracy theory is that since Ronald Reagan the country has been
taken over from some right wing fanatics from the University of Chicago who will literally do anything to force
their ideology on the world.
Bush invited Ted Kennedy to watch the movie 13 Days. He indicated to Kennedy that the Bush's were also a
political dynasty. So Bush wants to be thought of like the Kennedys. That means papa Bush will have to be
scrapin the kids bodies off the sidewalk. But some sick fuckers from Texas killed the KENNEDY clan. There are
plenty of sick fuckers IN TEXAS to do away with the Bushs also. G. H. W. Bush hired the white trash Lee
Atwater to run his campaign. Anyone who hires the likes of Atwater and Rove deserves a fate worse than the
Kennedies. Bush expressed a desire to be like the Kennedies. So be it.
No doubt about it. Bush/Cheney should be shot.
They halted all health and safety regulation from Clintons last 60 days,
On february 17, 2001 Bush signed four anti-union executive orders,
On march 7, 2001 he repealed ergonomic regulation to protect workers from repetitive -stress injuries,
On April 11, 01 he abandoned international efforts to crack down on offshore tax havens, April 16th, 01 he
called for weaker environmental regulation and massive subsidies for the energy industry,
On 4/26 he passed a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut mostly for the wealthy,
On 4/29/01 he told Cal gov Gray Davis he would do nothing to help California get out of contracts California
was forced to sign with Texas energy producers who intentionally created a shortage in order to drive up prices,
6/19/01 Cheney refused to release the records to GOA regarding energy task force meetings
6/21 Bush threatens to veto the patient bill of rights
7/26 The Bush administration rejected an international treaty on Germ warfare and biological weapons
11/01/01 Bush issued a presidential order blocking the release of presidential records
12/11 Bush’s commission recommends privatizing social security
12/12 Bush informs congress he intends to pull out of anti-ballistic missle treaty
12/27 bush recinds the responsible contractor law for government contracts
1/16/02 Cheney refuses to provide details of his multiple meetings with Enron Officials
1/28 IRS instructed to increase audits of working poor and reduce audits of corporations and wealthy to all time
lows
3/5/02 Bush proposes paying workfare recipients less than minimum wage
4/12/02 Bush supports the coup to over throw the democratically elected socialist president of Venezuela, Hugo
Chavez-(because he didn’t want his country to continue selling oil to the US at prices less than OPEC
5/6/02 Bush voids the signature on the treaty to establish an international criminal court
5/30 Ashcroft removes restrictions on domestic spying
7/14/02 SEC chairman says he will release records on Bushs sale of 800,000 in stock right before the price
dropped if asked by the president. Bush never approves release on records. This was insider trading ten times
wore than Martha Stewart.
7/22 State department is instructed to withhold 34 million in international family planning funds
7/25 Bush threatens to veto Homeland security bill unless workers in the new department are stripped of civil
service protection
8/9/02 Bush issues new medical privacy regulation that don’t require patient consent to share records with
insurance co, pharmaceutical companies or restrict use of medical info for marketing
10/8 Bush invokes Taft/Hartly to end 11 day lock out of long shore workers
11/27 Bush names Henry Kissinger to head independent investigation of 9/11
1/9/03 Transportation security administration bars 56,000 airport screeners from unionizing
1/15/03 Bush denounces affirmative action at the university of Michigan as unconstitutional quotes
3/7 UN officials expose fake documents showing Iraq attempting to buy uranium from Niger
3/8/03 US army corp of engineers awards no bid contract with 7 billion limit to Halliburton
3/19/03 Bush Invades Iraq for no reason
3/27 Department of Labor proposes new overtime rules that could strip millions of extra pay by increasing the
number of exempt white collar workers
5/28 Bush signs a 350 billion dollar tax cut, slashing rates on dividends and capital gains
6/02/03 FCC increases media ownership cap allowing one company to own TV stations reaching up to 45%of
the country and lifts ban on single co owning newspapers and TV stations and radio stations in the same city
6/25/03 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejects California request to cancel 12 billion in long term
contracts signed under duress due to market manipulation by Texas energy companies
7/14 Robert Novak, conservative commentator, at the behest of the Bush administration, outs the wife of retired
ambassador Joseph Wilson as a CIA agent in order to intimidate others from releasing evidence that proves
that Bush invaded Iraq under a false premise
7/15 SEC Chairman William Donaldson endorses a house bill seeking to limit the ability of sate regulators to
oversee the securities industry
/28 Congress exposes pentagon plans to create a futures trading market to forecast terrorist attacks
9/1/03 Job loss over the past three years top 2.7 million
9/7 Bush asks congress for another 87 billion for the occupation of Iraq
9/17 Bush admits there is no evidence tying Saddam Hussein to 9/11 ttack
9/22 Bush approves merger giving 80% of Spanish radio and TV to one company
10/29 Bush refuses to nation build in Afganistan, UN warns afganistan will turn into failed state ruled by drug
cartels and narco terrorists
11/23 FBI admits collecting intelligence on anti war protestors
11/24 republicans agree to an ownership cap of 39% for media ownership
11/25 senate passes prescription drug bill that prevents the government from negotiating lower prices
12/03/03 Shoot this fucker, Medicare Chief, Tom Scully, decides to step down and work for three lobbying and
two investment firms
1/5/05 Cheney and justice Scalia go duck hunting together three weeks after the supreme court agrees to hear
the case about the vice presidents energy task force.
1/16 During a congressional recess Bush appoints Thomas Pickering whose nomination was blocked twice by
the senate, to the US court of appeals
1/23 Chief US weapons inspector David Kay resigns saying he doesn’t believe Iraqs weapons of mass
destruction ever existed
2/9/04 Bush’s council of economic advisors suggests positions at fast food restaurants be counted as
manufacturing jobs
4/28 CBS airs first images of turture at Abu Ghraib prison
6/8/04 Ashcroft refuses to give the senate judiciary a memo outlining a legal justification for the torture of
suspected terrorists
6/16 Dick cheney claims overwhelming evidence of a connection between iraq and Saddam after 9/11
commission finds no credible evidence
6/24 Supreme court rules Cheney doesn’t have to give up records of secret energy task force
7/15 National Labor relations board rules that teaching assistants at private universities do not have the right to
organize
7/20 Bush lawyers move to block lawsuits against drug companies and medical device makers, argueing that
consumers may not seek damages for injuries received from products approved by the FDA
7/30 Bush issues 20 recess appointments , skirting senate approval to install, among others , head of the
federal trade commission, manufacturing czar, and three ambassadors-two of whom are major fundraisers
7/24 Bush/Cheney top council admits advising the swift boat veterans for truth
8/27 For third consequtive year more Americans are in poverty and without health iinsurance. Poverty hits
12.5% (actual poverty is twice that rate) and 45 million without health insurance. And many with insurance have
shit coverage.
9/8 1000th soldier killed in Iraq
9/25 Iraq health ministry show allied forces killing twice as many Iraqi civilians than insurgents
10/6 Chief US weapons inspector Charles Duelfer reports that Iraq had no biological or chemical weapons and
no nuclear program before the US invasion , no evidence Iraq produced WMD after 1991
Class Warfare:
Before latest round of tax cuts skewed to the rich, Bush cut corporate government expenses by nearly half and
provided the top one percent of households an average tax cut of 35,000 this year. 54 times the average for
the middle 20%
One million fewer jobs now than in 2000. eight million fewer jobs than would exist now than would exist now in a
normal recovery
Five million more lack health insurance than in 2000 including 2.4 million children. A 60% hike in employer paid
coverage since 2000. Bush blocked bargaining for lower prescription costs and boosted subsidies to private
insurers
Seeks to eliminate overtime pay for 6 million workers.
Bush has the national labor relations board undermine unions most effective organizing strategy
There has been no minimum wage increase and inadequate job training and unemployment compensation
Bush refuses to link labor rights to trade and pushes a souped up version of Nafta. Both manufacturing and
white collar jobs moving off shore with the encouragement of the administration
Bush has done nothing to control healthcare costs which went from 4,670 in 2000 to 6,167 this year
Committed 40 billion to help private medicare HMO’s compete with the traditional medicare program
Passed a medicare drug bill that gives most of the money, 570 billion for ten years to the drug industry and
paltry coverage for seniors
Used patent and trade regulation to keep affordable drugs of the market in the US and the third world
Forced the FDA to abandon objectivity and kowtow to drug and medical device makers
In sum, taken every opportunity to pander to corporate profiteers, no matter the cost in lives
First president since Hoover to actually lose jobs during term
Locking in tax cuts for the rich threatens the country with massive deficits
Bush boosted military spending by 100 billion a year in addition to his war related spending.
Bush has stacked the courts with ideologues whose unstinting attacks on human rights
See my link to ‘How Bush Stole the Election”
Bush hired the jew Karl Rove to run his campaign. Bush is responsible for Roves tactics that have destroyed
American democracy. Besides rigging the vote with new voting machines, the various methods he devised to
prevent various ethnic groups from having their vote counted, intentional vote miscounts, the assassination of
two democratic senators, one from Minnisotta and one from St Louis right before two previous elections that
was never presented in the jew press as a possible policical assasination to assure conservative control of
congress, and indoctrination of all the brain dead voters in all the redneck states achieved through absolute
media control and the intimidation of reporters like the firing of all those responsible for telling the American
public the truth regarding Bushs military record. Not to mention the manner in which Rove had Bush slandered
John McCain in the primary and the redistricting in Texas.
I read the excerpt below from the end of Chapter 5 "Worse Than Watergate" and then I realized the
establishment in this country can impeach Bush anytime they want but won't because they put him in office with
the media and vote fraud, they tell Bush what to do and they told Clinton what to do once Kenneth Star had
him by the balls. Kenneth Star was from Chicago and Peter Fitzgerald who has authority over the following case
is from Chicago. When so many people are from Chicago I have to believe that this country is ruled by some
group somewhere in Chicago. Whomever put the right wing media in place in this country are responsible for
Bushs election and his actions as president. They are also responsible for the war in Iraq. These sick fucking
parasites fucked up again and the people have to pay for their mistakes. I can tell the beliefs of the real rulers
of this country by the content of the media. One can infer a great deal about these people who put Bush in
power and tell him what to do. Robert Kuttner once wrote a article about the invisible hand behind the nobel
prize in economics selection. The winner was invariably someone who expoused their beliefs. Or I get an idea of
theire beliefs by listening to the economic ideology of who they chose to commentate programs like CNBC or
FOX news. You can tell what they don't believe in by who they have the media destroy like Howard Dean (the
only one with the brains to vote against the gulf war) or Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, John Kerrry or Dick Gephard.
Or by who they assasinate-Paul Welstone. These guys had ten times the brains of George Bush but they
wanted Bush to be president so they could tell him what to do. The most rational mind I heard was Mario Cuomo
and he must have been banned from the media back in 1991. Thats about the last time I followed current
events. These stupid morons created their Frankenstein, George Bush, and now he's fucked up the economy
and started a war. But they are so ignorant and full of themselves they persist in forcing their ideology on the
rest of the world with programs like agenda 2010 for European Union. The european people are happy. They
want Europeans and the Japanese to be as miserable as americans. After the US has forced its policies on
Germany the past twenty years, polls in Germany indicate the people are just as miserable as they are here.
But these sick fuckers can't rest till they dictate their vile maxims (Chomsky) to the world.
Dirtiest of Dirty Tricks
On July 14, in his syndicated column, conservative Chicago SunTimes journalist Robert Novak reported that
Valerie Flame WIlson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. WIlson IV
was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm.") Novak
reported that he learned this top-secret information from "two senior Administration officials." Usually, the term
senior official refers, to a vice president, cabinet officer, or top White House aide. On July 17, Time published
the same story, attributing it to "government officials," and in a later story the Washington Post confirmed that
two officials had called around trying to stir greater interest in the planted story. Reportedly, some six different
reporters were told of Flame's CIA work, but only Novak and Time reported it. (It is unclear whether Time has
the same information as Novak or obtained it later.) On July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed that
"Valerie Flame . . . works at the agency [CIA] on \( weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover
capacity."
More specifically, according to a "senior intelligence official_
Newsday reported, she worked in the "Directorate of Operations"
[as an] undercover officer." In other words, Valerie is/was a spy involved in the clandestine collection of foreign
intelligence, covert operations, and espionage, part of an elite corps of those willing to take great personal risk
for their country. Revealing her identity damaged both national security and her career, and resulted in the loss
of a valuable government asset (for much time and training go into such work).
Planting (or leaking) this story about Valerie Flame Wilson is _
one of the dirtiest tricks I've seen in lowball/hardball politics. When the American Prospect wrote that "we are
very much into Nixon territory here," it was an understatement. I thought they played dirty at the Nixon White
House, but this is worse for two
reasons. Nixon never went after his enemies' wives, and he never employed a dirty trick that was literally life-
threatening. Anyone in the White House with sufficient access to this information had to be sophisticated
enough to realize that revealing the identity of a covert agent placed not only her life in danger but also the
lives of those with whom she had worked in foreign countries. In fact, covert agents' names are seldom
provided even to the president, not to mention his staff. It was clear from the timing of Novak's first article that
the leak was an act of revenge against Wilson for speaking the truth about the Bush administration's bogus
claim that Niger provided uranium to Iraq. Novak ran his story only days after WIlson had set the record
straight. And it was leaked to suggest the ambassador's wife was behind his fac finding mission - which was not
true. It also sent a message to the intelligence community that if you mess with this White House, we will mess
with you, which they did by attacking WIlson's wife.
On July 24, 2003, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) requested an FBI investigation of the planted leak.
Schumer's letter states: "If the facts that have been reported publicly are true, it is clear that a crime was
committed. The only questions remaining to be answered are who committed the crime and, why?" The crime
Senator Schumer was referring to is the criminal provision prohibiting the revelation of the identity of a covert
CIA agent, an action that Bush senior, a former CIA director, had told his former associates in Langley, VIrginia
(when they named their headquarters building after himin 1999), was tantamount to the work of the "most
insidious of traitors." The leak of Valerie Wilson's identity was a clear breach of national security and an
obvious misuse of government information, making it potentially subject to several criminal laws, particularly
given Ashcroft's aggressive use of existing laws against leaks.
Given his father's strong and well-founded feelings about such leaks, one would have thought that Bush would
have gone after the leaker with a vengeance, starting with his own White House, which is almost universally
believed to be the source of the information. For a president as sensitive to leaks as he is, who has jumped all
over Congress for leaking information, it would have been expected that he would tell his attorney general to
get cracking. Bush could have taken the initiative with his own staff and demanded that they provide sworn
affidavits, one of the more effective tools for dealing with such matters. Having everyone who might possibly
have had access to information about Valerie Wilson's covert work sign a sworn statement that he or she was
not involved would also have shown that the president was serious. (Most people think twice before signing a
false statement and subjecting themselves to perjury charges.) On the contrary, Bush has given every signal
that his White House is covering up this incident, hoping it will go away. Indeed, Bush told reporters he did not
think the leaker would be found once the Justice Department commenced an investigation, effectively saying in
advance that the whole effort would be a waste of time - so why bother?' /
The matter was referred to the Department of Justice by the' CIA, which meant that based on a preliminary
examination of the law and facts by the attorneys at the CIA, there appeared to
be a violation of federal law. The Justice Department investigation is ongoing, and slow going. After months of
dillydallying, Ashcroft recused himself* and had his deputy - Jim Comey = assign the case to the U.S. attorney
from Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is an old friend of Comey's, and the god father of one of his
children. Comey said that he has delegated his authority to investigate (which is the authority of the attorney
general, since Ashcroft's withdrawal) to Fitzgerald, but the Justice Department is unwilling to release the formal
delegation _of authority. Unlike Watergate, which the Washington Post kept alive on its" front page with the
smallest increments of information, this story, after its initial splash, has largely disappeared. To some extent
this is because news cycles move faster today than three decades ago. But the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft team
also pushed the story out of the thinking of Washington journalists by making certain they had nothing new to
consider. At first blush, the appointment of Fitzgerald in late December 2003 suggested that any action would
be delayed until after November 2004 - that is, after the _election. But the sudden recusal of Ashcroft and the
*A much-rumored source of the leak has been Karl Rove, who was a consultant to Ashcroft during one or more
of his political campaigns and the person many believe secured Ashcroft his post as attorney general. For this
reason, as soon as the investigation commenced, there were demands that Ashcroft either appoint a special
counsel or recuse himself. He stalled as long as possible before finally giving way, sending more signals that he
did not want this investigation to get out of hand.
selection of Fitzgerald, who will remain in his post in Chicago, suggests that a cooperative witness may have
surfaced over the Christmas holiday (a time when a White House staff member could quietly engage a criminal
lawyer, who would immediately try to make a deal with the Justice Department). At this writing, it is too early to
know the outcome - with one exception. Any investigation of the White House in a post-Watergate world will be
incomplete and suspect, absent a sworn statement by the president as to what he knew and when he knew it. In
this case, that applies to the vice president as well.
Valerie Flame has several potential civil causes of action. If she files a civil lawsuit and starts taking depositions,
the dynamics of unraveling the matter will also change, for this is no mystery, with over half a dozen news
people privy. In Washington, D.C., the law protecting news people and giving them a qualified privilege to keep
secret their news sources is tenuous at best when criminal activity is involved. In civil lawsuits, when a party has
exhausted all other sources to locate such information, the courts also require reporters to reveal their sources.
*
*The New York Times (December 18, 2003) reported that two of its reporters had been ordered to testify in a
civil lawsuit filed by former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee against the government for leaking his
employment records to the Times, although the reporters had stated in court papers that they were
prepared to go to jail rather than reveal their sources. In ordering the two reporters to testify, Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson said, "The court has some doubt that a truly worthy First Amendment interest resides in
protecting the identity of government personnel who disclose to the press information that
the Privacy Act says they may not reveal." Add to the Privacy Act national security, as is the case with Valerie
Plame Wilson, and the justification for protecting a source is even less compelling.
There is no question that Fitzgerald, who has empaneled a grand jury, can force members of the news media to
testify about a criminal activity. They could, in fact, potentially be charged with criminal conspiracy. Hard-nosed
prosecutors think nothing of putting journalists before grand juries and forcing them to reveal their sources
relevant to a criminal investigation, and the Supreme Court has said they can do so. Thus, it will not take too
long to determine how serious Mr. Fitzgerald is pursuing his investigations, for hauling journalists before a
grand jury is the I quick way to get the answer of whodunit.
Inevitably, I believe, the source of this leak is going to surface. ,And the government will be hard-pressed not to
prosecute. "While some leaks are never uncovered - as Bob Woodward
" and his friend Deep Throat can attest - that occurs only when the information is known by only two parties (I
have always entertained doubts that Woodward shared this information with his reporting partner and editor)
and the source is not involved in criminal behavior (a point Woodward goes to some length to make about
Throat). In this instance, with no fewer than six journalists and two senior officials reportedly privy to the source
who planted the story with Novak, it will be difficult to keep the identity of the source bottled up. There are
several ways the truth is likely to get out: (1) the FBI/]ustice Department may get lucky and find the guilty'
person(s) - but no one should hold his breath waiting, unless a witness comes forward or journalists start
appearing before the grand jury; (2) one of the journalists who is privy to the truth may leak it to another
journalist for an election-year scoop of no small proportion; (3) one or more journalists who know the source of
the leak may find their conscience and reject being a tool of a White House-engineered crime; (4) one or more
journalists may leak the information to help one or more of their professional colleagues who they know will
refuse to testify and thus be sent to jail for contempt; (5) if Valerie WIlson files a lawsuit and subpoenas the key
players to testify in depositions; or (6) if Congress decides to investigate. The known facts - that the activities
involved two (or more)
senior officials - indicate there is evidence of a criminal conspiracy. That criminal conspiracy is ongoing, and
now involved with covering up the initial crime, thus creating secondary transgressions. (Sound familiar?) The
federal law of conspiracy, . along with the federal laws dealing with obstruction of justice, are among the most
far-reaching of the federal criminal laws. Whether they know it or not, the Bush II White House given this active
and ongoing criminal activity - has dangers it has never dreamed possible by not ending this matter itself. It is
only going to get worse before it gets better. And if Patrick Fitzgerald fails to investigate this aspect of the
situation, he has only a fraction of the prosecutorial talents and integrity of his advance billing.
To look closely at only a few key activities of Bush and Cheney explains why they hide their real agenda. Thus,
because there was no solid evidence to justify a preemptive war, they lied. At least Nixon and Kissinger, with
their secret bombing of Cambodia, whispered the truth to Congress. Even when defending himself during
Watergate, Nixon never sent Congress a document as spurious as Bush's formal determination to go to war
with Iraq. While Nixon thought environmentalists were "clowns" and their programs "crap," by the standard of
Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, Nixon could have run for reelection on the Green Party ticket, given
his panoply of environmental initiatives that Bush and Cheney now seek to eradicate. I find no evidence that
with his "responsiveness program" to handle the needs of his supporters, Nixon ever opted for a potentially
fatal alternative to help his contributors, nor am I aware of his ever having denied Americans vital health and
safety information. Nixon did not order "hits" of those on his enemies list, either.
Watergate, of course, initially appeared an effort by Nixon to win reelection by any means, fair or foul. It was
that. But it was also the manifestation and culmination of Nixon's highly political governing style to win reelection
- which had been the overriding purpose of his first term, as it has been for Bush and Cheney. It is too early to
know how Bush and Cheney will play their 2004 reelection, but given the pattern of their presidency, watch for
them to pretend to be on the high road, busy running. the country - as Nixon played it - while Rove dispatches
surrogates and activates his sleeper cells of loyalists to savage their political opponents. Watch this devil's
brew of obsessive secrecy, hidden agendas, and hard-nosed presidential politics to be stirred by the 2004
presidential campaign, but hopefully this " mess will not be tested by another terror attack in the United " States,
given that Bush and Cheney have made themselves and thus the nation - unnecessarily vulnerable."
To promote a semblance of fairness to media indoctrination with respect our democracy, the democrats need a
24hr propaganda channel like the conservatives have in FOX News. Or FOX needs to be shut down. FOX is
24hr a day of lies and propaganda. Otherwise democracy is a joke.
Here is a brief article on the topic.
RUNNING A MEDIA DEFICIT
The joint rise of the conservative media and creeping authoritarianism is no coincidence.
BY ROBERT PARRY
THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, MAY have ignited the fire that has driven the United
States in the direction of a more authoritarian system. But the kindling was put in place over three decades.
The conservatives who set the United States off in this political direction in the '70S had no idea where the
journey would end. Their original thinking was more defensive than offensive. The elder George Bush _started
out as a kind of Mr. Fix- it with gold-plated connections in both the Eastern Establishment and the Texas Oil
World. He knew how to defuse a scandal and hide the incriminating evidence. He worked diligently, though
ultimately unsuccessfully, to protect Richard Nixon from Watergate. He was more successful in getting the CIA
off the front pages for Gerald Ford in 1976. Bush's cover-up skills enhanced his own power during the Reagan-
Bush era of 1981 to 1993 and saved the family name so his sons could build their own political careers.
In the '90S, the younger George Bush entered a political world where the conservatives were already in the
ascendancy and the liberals were on the run. His contribution was an intuitive grasp of how hardball Republican
strategies, aggressive conservative news outlets and mystical Christian fundamentalism could blend into a
potent political coalition and consolidate the Right's dominance of US. government power.
Indeed, Bush picked up useful lessons during his father's 1988 presidential campaign against Michael Dukakis.
Doug Wead taught Bush how to signal to the Christian fundamentalists. Lee Atwater passed on the tricks for
turning a decent opponent into a national laughingstock.
Some liberal activists wonder why Democratic leaders are often so circumspect. Why, they ask, don't the
Democrats just let it fly like the Republicans do? The cautious tone turns off much of the Democratic base while
leaving many independent voters questioning whether the Democrats really know what they stand for.
The Democratic-defensive dynamic, however, is a consequence of the media-political infrastructure that
Republicans and conservatives have spent three decades-and billions of dollars-creating. This conservative
infrastructure has helped the Republicans achieve a unity that often has been lacking on the Democratic side.
Conservatives can consult dozens of well- financed media outlets to hear the latest pro- Republican "themes;'
often coordinated with the Republican National Committee or Bush's White House.
Liberals lack any comparable media apparatus, having failed to match the investment and dedication of the
right. Those committed liberal outlets that do exist are almost always under funded and often part-time. The
Republicans' right-wing media has given them a powerful advantage-and one that does not seem likely to go
away.
This media deficit puts the Bush critics at a particular disadvantage because their arguments require
explanation of historical context and acceptance of the frustrating work of diplomacy. On the other hand, Bush's
argument is easier to grasp: Kill the bad guys.
In the 2000 election, Bush's simple, easygoing style, which conceals a fierce competitiveness, made Bush a
sellable commodity to the American people (especially to white men), a darling of the conservative news media
and a favorite of many mainstream journalists.
Add the fear and the sense of victimization from the 9/11 attacks and a new political model suddenly lay open
as a possibility for the United States. It would be a post-modern authoritarian system that would rely less on
traditional repression of political opponents than on a sophisticated media operation to intimidate and
marginalize dissidents.
The new system would be the sum of the parts gradually arising out of the ruins of Watergate. At its core would
be the intelligence concept of "perception management" not so much Orwellian as post-Orwellian. While
Orwell's 1984 envisioned sophisticated torture to extract confessions and mass speeches to stir up ethnic
hatreds, this new system would rely on ridicule to make those who get in the way objects of derision, outcasts
whose very names draw eye-rolling chuckles and knee-slapping guffaws. Think of Dukakis wearing a helmet,
Bill Clinton and a semen-stained dress and Al Gore inventing the Internet, not to mention any number of lesser
known public figures who were so foolish as to object to the rush to war in Iraq.
George W. Bush was the perfect candidate for exploiting this transformation. Lacking a deep appreciation for
the American constitutional system of checks and balances, Bush wasn't personally repulsed by the notion of
shifting to a more authoritarian structure of governance and silencing meaningful dissent. Indeed, he was
attracted to the idea.
After claiming the presidency in December 2000, Bush once joked, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a
heck of a lot easier-so long as I'm the dictator:' It is hard to imagine that any other American president would
have said such a thing. .
ROBERT PARRY is the author of Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (www.
secrecyandprivilege.com), from which this article was adapted
It's Medicare, Stupid
BY ROBERT B. REICH
The real crisis is in Medicare, at an alarming rate-because of bad policy.
OF THE NATION'S TWO GIANT ENTITLEMENT Programs, only one is in real trouble. It's Medicare, not Social
Security. As our special supplement makes clear, the Social Security system isn't in a crisis. The system has
been in surplus for years now, and those surpluses have been used to cover part of the government's annual
budget deficits. After 2018 and continuing through mid-century, the federal government must repay the system
what it borrowed, the same way it pays back other bondholders, using revenues from other sources such as
income and corporate taxes.
As labor secretary, I was a trustee of the Social Security system. In 1994, we anticipated that Social Security
wouldn't be able to pay all of its obligations beyond 2029. But that projection was based on very conservative
assumptions about economic growth. The current trustees, updating the assumptions, have pushed the year of
reckoning outward to 2042, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pushed it further, to 2052. Even this
lowballs the effects of economic growth. If the economy grows anywhere close to its historic average of 3.2
percent a year-the average since the Civil War! the system won't ever run out.
George W. Bush's "privatized" accounts are a classic bait and switch: Use a perceived problem in order to
justify a "solution" that has nothing to do with it. Privatization would borrow some $2 trillion over the next
decade, much of which would line the pockets of Wall Street financial firms. Eventually the system would make
up the loss with steep reductions in future Social Security benefits, most likely by indexing the benefits to
consumer prices instead of wages. According to the CBO, this change alone would cut a typical retiree's total
benefits from the 42 percent of pre-retirement income they get today to 22 percent a few decades from now.
Such a drop might be tolerable if the returns from private accounts made up the difference, but they wouldn't.
The CBO estimate includes expected returns from private accounts! Rarely in history have so many people
been offered so bad a deal in order to enrich so few.
Even if it otherwise made sense, a privatized Social Security system would leave seniors prey to bad luck, bad
timing, or ill-advised investments. Remember that the purpose of Social_ Security is contained in its second
word, "security." And that security comes from spreading financial risks, hence the first word, "social." Bush's
plan for Social Security is neither social nor secure.
The real problem is Medicare, which is going bust at an alarming rate. And that's not mainly because of an
aging population; it's because of willfully bad policy. Private insurers have every incentive to game the system
through Medicare HMOs. Insurers are spending a fortune marketing and cherry-picking, seeking to avoid
seniors likely to require expensive treatments. Of course, this is precisely the approach the White House hopes
to expand with its proposal for private health accounts. The result would be to shift more costs and risks to
individuals, thus making health insurance less reliable. Other nations with older populations and universal
health systems spend less per capita on health overall, including less on the elderly, and yet have better health
results. The White House would rather not talk about any of this. Indeed, its new Medicare drug benefit makes
the Medicare problem much worse. The GAO (an arm of Congress formerly known as the General Accounting
Office) recently measured the projected costs of Social Security and Medicare over 75 years minus expected
revenues. Four years ago, before Bush's drug benefit was enacted, the long-run costs of the two programs
were roughly equal. Today, the cost of future Medicare promises is about twice that of Social Security.
The biggest reason why Bush's Medicare drug benefit is so expensive is that the legislation creating it explicitly
prohibits the federal government from using its bargaining power as the world's largest buyer of drugs to
negotiate lower prices from pharmaceutical companies. In other words, the law is a giant giveaway to the drug
companies, guaranteeing them a huge new market at which is going bust top-dollar prices.
So its a double cover up. The White House is trying to scare Americans about a Social Security "crisis"-first,
because it wants to privatize Social Security and give a big payoff to Wall Street, and second, because it wants
to divert attention from the exorbitant costs of its Medicare payoff to Big Pharma. If Democrats are truly
concerned about unfunded government liabilities decades from now, they should say no to Social Security
"reform" and demand that federal government use its bargaining leverage to get lower drug prices for Medicare.
Robert Kuttner on trade February American Prospect
Page 38, February 2005 American Prospect, Robert Kuttner
IF ECONOMISTS HAVE AGREED ON. one proposition for nearly 200 years, the virtue of free trade. The basic
proposition, dating to David Ricardo in has been that both trading partners realize net gains from trade thanks
to efficiencies of specialization. Economists have conceded that some individuals within nations might lose from
the dislocations of trade, but this was a subject for redistribution policy and not an impeachment of free trade;
nations as a whole benefited. No serious u.S. politician questioned free trade for nearly a century. Yet this past
summer, a revolutary article was published in The Jou' of Economic Perspectives. The dean modern
economists, Paul Samuelson: age 89, questioned whether the theory still always makes sense in an era" two
immense economies, India and China, can produce much of what is made in America with nearly the same
efficiency but at a fraction of the wages.
What made news was less what was being said than who was saying it.
In a December cover story headlined "The China Price;' Business Week described pressure on US. producers
to match prices of products made in China, sometimes below US. costs of production. Contray to the usual
story that China's production of low-wage goods simply invites American workers to move up to higher-valued
processes, BusinessWeek made clear that all of manufacturing and many service industries are vulnerable.
When immense low-wage nations such as India and China are the trading partners, the Law of Comparative
Advantage is overtaken by the Law of One Price. If productivity levels are roughly comparable thanks to
equivalent production technology, wages need to roughly converge. For American workers, that means
convergence downward.
In this new literature, there is belated acknowledgment of a real problem, but scant discussion of remedy. In a
sidebar to the main BusinessWeek story, Paul Magnusson suggests a range of policies, from tougher
enforcement of intellectual property and trade rules to u.s. budget balance. But none gets at the root of the U.S.
-India-China problem, which is wages in exporting countries that lag far behind productivity growth. The only
remedy that avoids downward convergence is some kind of global wage regime, to force faster increases in
wages and living standards in export powerhouses, based on rising productivity, so that India and China would
be more reliant on expanded domestic markets. That idea is on no body's political radar screen.
WHAT IS UNDER INTENSIFIED scrutiny, however, is the increasing
size of the U.S. trade deficit, the falling value of the dollar, and the role of the Bush budget deficits. Catherine L.
Mann, of the Institute for International Economics, writes of a "global co-dependency" in which the central banks
of China and Japan buy U.S. debt and American consumers keep buying their exports. This strategy, she
warns, is a"bargain with the devil" because "when their own currencies eventually do appreciate, not only will
their exports fall but so, too, will the value ofvthe u.S. assets in their portfolios:' Whether this adjustment will
occur gradually or with a nasty thud is anyone's guess. But nobody doubts that the Bush fiscal policy is
increasing the risk.
Reading these works, one glimpses pieces of a whole other strategy for the US economy-one that restores
fiscal balance and social balance by reclaiming a progressive tax system and public outlay. Growth would flow
more from the fruits of social investment than from the market casino. More research would stay in the public
domain, which would also be good for growth. The social product would be shared more equitably via-wha else?
-taxing and spending. International balance would improve as a consequence of the better fiscal balance, but
there would also be pressure on exporters to raise their domestic living standards so that they did not depress
ours. I know of no single book proposing this model. More alarmingly, it is far from what is being offered by
today's Democratic Party, traumatized as it is by successive election defeats, fiscal pillage, and counsels of
economic centrism. Beginning with Barry Goldwater, the right recovered by thinking boldly, way outside the
conventions of the day. Liberals would be well advised to do the same
This is what I would do:
Mario Cuomo will actually be president and tell Bush what to say and do. Bill Clinton will dictate US foreign
policy. Hillary Clinton will dictate a national health plan. Robert Reich and Kuttner will dictate the government
agenda for any and all things having economic implications. Bill Clinton will approve all judicial nominees
This briefly describes the healthcare system that is needed. If the profiteers try to prevent such a plan from
being implemented they will have to be shot.
Cure a Sick Healthcare System
Universal coverage under National Health Insurance
LIKE CAPISTRANO'S SWALLOWS, THE Democrats always return to health reform. Unfortunately, this year
they're showing little more brain power than the birds.
Don't get us wrong, we're no fans of President George Bush's health agenda: Ship tens of billions of federal
dollars to a panoply of health care firms privatize Medicare and dangle skimpy tax credits in front of the 44
million uninsured. But Kerry seems intent on refilling a failed prescription for reform: by proposing to give
hundreds of billions to private insurers in exchange for measly coverage for some of the uninsured. Our
healthcare system is so sick that even people with good insurance are feeling the fever. Premiums for
employers and their workers are rising 12 percent, even 18 percent per year. Employers have downsized
coverage by super-sizing copayments and deductibles. Insurance often proves illusory when it's most needed-
payment denials, visit limits, loopholes and policy cancellations leave millions stuck with huge medical bills
despite what they thought was good coverage. Most people's choice of doctors and hospitals is restricted.
Seniors can't afford drugs, Medicaid recipients face draconian cuts and everyone's rushed out of the hospital.
Investor-owned healthcare has flourished, despite definitive evidence that it raises both costs and death rates.
And bandit CEOs regularly raid our health system, making off with seven- and even eight-figure incomes as
their reward for cooking the books, defrauding Medicare and abusing patients to inflate profits.
Bush's signal healthcare achievement, passage of the $534 billion Medicare drug bill, already is unravelling.
Double-digit yearly price increases-even for older drugs-already have eaten up the paltry savings (about 15
percent) available from the recently introduced Medicare drug discount cards. Even the massive flow of federal
funds that will commence in 2006, when the full drug benefit kicks in, will only get seniors back where they
started last year in terms of drug spending.
W
hy Why will $534 billion in new federal spending (over 10 years) buy so little? First, the new drug coverage
will be purchased through private insurance plans with overhead costs that average four times Medicare's.
Second, the bill prohibits Medicare from negotiating with drug companies to lower their prices (and effectively
bans imports of Canadian drugs on the preposterous pretext that they're unsafe). Both the Canadian
government and our own Defense Department have used their purchasing clout to garner volume discounts.
Prohibiting such bargaining assures drug firms of hundreds of billions in excess profits.
Finally, the bill hands Medicare HMOs-which have been ripping off Medicare for years-an extra $46 billion.
Since 1985, Medicare has paid HMOs for seniors who choose to enroll. The payment formula has allowed
HMOs to collect far more than it would have cost the taxpayers to care for these seniors in the traditional
Medicare program. The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have estimated these
extra costs at about $2 billion per year. Yet HMOs-burdened by administrative overhead far higher than
Medicare's
complained they couldn't make a profit from Medicare patients.
Bush's solution? Send them more money. So in 2004, Medicare will pay HMOs an extra $552 above the cost of
traditional Medicare for each senior they enroll, according to an estimate by the Commonwealth Fund.
Incredibly, the Republicans (and many Democrats) describe this corporate welfare program as a "pro-
competition" health policy. Drug firms are granted patents that shield them from generic competitors, foreign
drug imports are banned, government is precluded from negotiating over prices and HMOs are given huge
subsidies to compete unfairly against Medicare-all in the name of competition.
Sadly, many Bush initiatives merely continued Clinton's policies. Kerry promises more of the same. He proposes
to spend about $65 billion annually to expand coverage through two mechanisms: One, offer government
subsidies for private insurance; two, expand Medicaid. As a nod to middleclass Americans, he'd try to hold
down private premiums by having the feds pick up the tab for any patient whose care costs more than $50,000-
a misguided effort that shifts some costs to the taxpayers but leaves control in the hands of private firms.
Kerry's massive new spending would leave at least 17 million uninsured (by his own estimate) and tens of
millions more with inadequate coverage, and stimulate the malignant growth of health care costs.
In contrast, a single payer national health insurance (NHI) program could simultaneously cover all of the
uninsured, upgrade coverage for most other Americans and save money. Under NHI, everyone would be
covered for care at any hospital, doctor's office or clinic without copayments or deductibles. Patients would
enjoy a free choice of provider, and doctors and nurses would be freed from the massive bureaucracy that
encumbers care and wastes money. For-profit ownership of hospitals and other clinical facilities would be
proscribed, and private health insurers and most HMOs would be eliminated-saving billions now squandered on
profits and executives' incomes, while upgrading quality.
Surprisingly, universal coverage under NHI would not increase health costs. At $6,200 per capita, Americans
already spend nearly twice as much for care as do Canadians, Australians, Germans, Swedes and the Swiss-all
of whom enjoy universal coverage and lower death rates than ours. Much of the cost difference is due to our
mammoth health bureaucracy, which wastes upward of $300 billion annually. NHI could slash bureaucracy by
replacing the current welter of private plans with a single public payer and simplifying payments. Even the
Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office concede that NHI could save enough on
bureaucracy to cover all Americans for what we're now spending.
On the contrary, Kerry's plan would actually boost bureaucracy. He'd funnel hundreds of billions of additional
public dollars through wasteful private plans. And he'd do nothing to cut the tens of billions that doctors and
hospitals waste on insurance paperwork. Kerry claims administrative savings for his plan-through computerized
billing and claims processing. But such claims are not credible; more than two-thirds of all healthcare bills
already are filed electronically. It's not sending the bill that's expensive. It's the insurance advertising and sales,
utilization review, eligibility determination, obtaining pre-approvals for referrals, cost-tracking, and co-payment
collections. All would continue under Kerry.
For the 85 percent of Americans who currently have insurance, Kerry offers virtually nothing. No plausible plan
to upgrade their coverage, slow premium increases, bring down drug costs, improve quality, or expand the
number of nurses. He'd just ask taxpayers facing skyrocketing premiums to chip in for the coverage of the
uninsured.
Much of what Kerry is proposing already was tried, and failed miserably. Medicaid expansion has been pushed
by Democrats for decades. Since 1987, 11.4 million people have been added to the Medicaid rolls, and
Medicaid spending has risen from $50 billion to $228 billion, eating a hole in state budgets. Yet the number of
uninsured has grown by 10.2 million people during this period, and Medicaid has remained second-class
coverage, segregating the poor. On many measures, Medicaid patients fare no better than the uninsured.
Medicaid should be replaced by mainstream coverage, not expanded.
Subsidies for private coverage also have a dismal track record. A 2002 federal program offers to pay 65
percent of premium costs for workers who've lost jobs due to foreign imports. As of December 31, 2003, 8,874
of the 500,000 eligible workers were taking advantage of the subsidy. With private coverage costing about
$10,000 per family, few low income workers can afford insurance, even with a big boost from government.
NHI isn't just good policy, its good politics. According to a recent Washington Post! ABC News poll, 62 percent
of Americans favor "a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like
Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers:'
Of course, NHI would be a death blow to the health insurance industry and it would threaten the super-profits of
powerful drug and hospital firms. Presumably, that is why only Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich have been
willing to buck the special interests, and say what Americans long to hear about health care: NHI can succeed.
Healthcare is a right, not a commodity. .
STEFFIE WOOLHANDLER and DAVID HIMMELSTEIN are professors of medicine at Harvard University and co-
founders of Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org).
THE .LASTWORD
Where_ Are the Rational Greedy Bastards?
BY ROBERT B. REICH
Why is big business so enthusiastic about another Bush term? Yes, corporations have gotten a few fat tax
breaks and regulatory rollbacks, and more face time with the president than do White House security guards.
But on the issues that count: the current administration and its allies are undermining the foundations of
American business. Consider the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office now says it will total more than $420
billion this year, with no end in sight. George W. Bush promises to halve it over the next four years. Wall Street
knows that's rubbish, which is partly why the stock market is stuck in neutral. There's just no human way he can
cut the deficit and also deliver on his promises to make his tax cuts permanent and adjust the alternative
minimum tax, while at the same time chasing terrorists, paying for the new Medicare drug benefit, maintaining
agribusiness' subsidies, and financing all the other things hardwired into the Bush budgets. Privately, CEOs
and Wall Street bankers fret about the mounting red ink. They remember what happened to the economy under
previous Republicans, and they know supply-side economics is bunk masquerading as a free lunch.
Or take Bush's go-it-alone nationalism. Most big businesses are global. They depend on worldwide networks of
consumers, suppliers, and investors, so they need international goodwill. But under Bush, the United States
has become the global village's town bully. Bush has thumbed his nose at long-standing allies and turned his
back on every international organization and treaty that stands in his way. The CEO of an American-based
clothing giant told me that his firm is "playing down" its U.S. parentage "in light of public opinion" where it does
business abroad. CEOs and Wall Streeters also see the steady decline of support for free trade around the
world, another casualty of the current unilateralism. And they see the slide in foreign investment. Foreigners
are investing less in America because global investors are worried about the direction this nation is heading
under W.
And then there are the right-wing evangelicals. Today their fanaticism is directed at the entertainment
industry,
Makers of contraceptives, and stem cell researchers, but will they stop there? Their next targets could be
the advertising industry, makers of cosmetics, perfume, and alluring clothes.
After all, American business packages sex in many forms. And not just sex: A large portion of our gross national
product is based on appeals to what might be called the baser instincts. American business is the giant engine
of modernism.
It embodies innovation and experimentation. It celebrates appetite and pleasure. Right-wing fundamentalism in
America could easily take the form of a backlash against pleasure-filling capitalism, as has fundamentalism
elsewhere.
Given all this, why are so many CEOs and Wall Street bankers enthusiastic about Bush? One investment
banker with Democratic leanings offered me the only explanation he could think of. "It's greed," he said, simply.
"They love the tax cuts. They just want to keep more of their money." And what of all the long-term dangers I've
enumerated? "They don't think long-term," was his snap response.
But not even this explanation seems totally convincing. After all, America's , tycoons did far better under Bill
Clinton than they’ve done under George II. Their salaries soared and stock options ballooned. The end
wasn't fun, of course, but that was because the market had reached unsustainable heights. But during the
Clinton years, stocks still tripled in value. After four years of George W. Bush, the Dow has barely moved. A
rationally self-interested greedy bastard who never thought about the future would far prefer the Clinton years
to another four years of Bush, even with Bush's tax cuts. John Kerry promises to continue Clinton's economic
policies, so the greedy bastard should line up behind Kerry.
The answer has more to do with ideology than with rational thought. The Bush administration is filled with CEOs
who speak the language of big business. They're at home with spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations,
They make "hard" decisions. They stick to their guns. The deficit may be out of control, the world may have
turned against us, right-wing religious fanatics may be beating at their doors, their own stock portfolios may be
disappointing. But their friends are in the White House, and, it seems that's all they really care about.
