Looks like most people want Kerry to make up his mind.........

its not his fault he cant make up his mind, his opinion changes depending on what the person who's asking wants to hear.
 
He is a "politician's" politician. The only decisions he makes are based on what his advisors tell him.

Both political parties suck, but at least one of the presidential candidates doesn't waffle. I'm old enough to have voted for Reagan, and I have voted for both sides over the years (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Gore), but this year's campaign sucks. Personally, I'll be voting for "conviction" over "waffling"... though I wish I could feel good about it. I also don't trust the Democrats approach to the Mid-East, as they won't admit that they have no understanding what-so-ever about the Muslim countries and the centuries of hate the Middle East has had for Westerners, Europeans, and contemporary Western Culture.

Please don't waste any breath trying to convince me otherwise -- any pontifications will look like circle-jerking to me.
 
[quote name='donssword']Please don't waste any breath trying to convince me otherwise -- any pontifications will look like circle-jerking to me.[/quote]

Aw...well how do you feel about diatribes? Or maybe a nice haranguing?
 
[quote name='donssword']He is a "politician's" politician. The only decisions he makes are based on what his advisors tell him.

Both political parties suck, but at least one of the presidential candidates doesn't waffle. I'm old enough to have voted for Reagan, and I have voted for both sides over the years (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Gore), but this year's campaign sucks. Personally, I'll be voting for "conviction" over "waffling"... though I wish I could feel good about it. I also don't trust the Democrats approach to the Mid-East, as they won't admit that they have no understanding what-so-ever about the Muslim countries and the centuries of hate the Middle East has had for Westerners, Europeans, and contemporary Western Culture.

Please don't waste any breath trying to convince me otherwise -- any pontifications will look like circle-jerking to me.[/quote]

Given the results of our ill-advised foray into Iraq, I would think the country could use more thoughtful leadership. Unfortunately, in some circles a more nuanced and intelligent view of the world is derided as "waffling."

As far as the Democrats' approach to the Mid-East, I don't think you can say that Bush has had any measure of success at all. The Israel/Palestinian debacle is at a low point and the countries containing terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Iran) have been left alone while we attacked in the wrong direction (Iraq).
 
I can't believe how easily people fall into line, swallow, and regurgitate whatever message the Bush administration is pushing. Waffling? How about Bush resisting the 911 commission? If it wasn't for the families of the people who died we'd wouldn't know what went wrong in order to prevent a future attack. Why does Bush want to ban stem cell research when the very same organic waste materials are disposed of in invetro fertilization clinics. I guess that's not waffling, though, that's being inconsistant.

It all comes down to a simple tactic of the republican party. If you can't dispute the message, try and discredit the messenger. Richard Clark, anyone?
 
Wouldn't you want someone who waffled? That means he changes his mind depending on what his constituents feel is best, which is the whole idea of electing someone to represent you. You don't want to elect someone and then have them arbitrarily do things that are seriously against public opinion (Bush).
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][As far as the Democrats' approach to the Mid-East, I don't think you can say that Bush has had any measure of success at all. The Israel/Palestinian debacle is at a low point and the countries containing terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Iran) have been left alone while we attacked in the wrong direction (Iraq).[/quote]

This just in, Democrats insist on invading two more countries!

News at 11!

On a related note, every Dem who says that is a freaking lying hypocrite and they KNOW IT. There is not one dem who truly believes we should have invaded Saudi Arabia or Iran, they just throw up that nonsense smoke-screen for "I'm not a wussy" cover.

Get a platform, and a backbone while you're at it.

If Bush is doing so badly in Israel, tell me why the heck PALESTINE is falling apart? Maybe because the people there realize that Araft is a freaking tool who won't offer progress no matter who is at the helm. If Bush is doing so badly, how will Kerry fix it?

Do you know how many people would happily vote for Kerry if he just, I don't know, offered a plan to make things better instead of simply saying "boy it sucks around here, but I'm strong!"
 
If you want to talk about a wussy smoke screen, how about attacking Iraq instead of North Korea. I wouldn't have condoned invading the DPRK, but at least if we're going to bomb the crap out of someone to make americans feel better about 9/11 and to take their minds off the failed hunt for Osama, at least let us bomb the crap out of someone who is an actual threat to us.
 
Just a few things Dubya has flipflopped on:

1. Creating a Homeland Security Dept.
2. Nation building
3. The 9/11 Commission
4. Reasons for invading Iraq
5. Being a uniter instead of a divider
 
Well, In Afghanistan, we kicked the Talibon's ass (our elite military kicking some dirty thugs asses isn't too much to brag about) and "ousted" Al Quada. Wait, I thought we we're supposed to destroy Al Quada and, I don't know, maybe capture or kill Osama?
 
Yes, we invaded Iraq under the pretence that they had WMDs (which everyone, thought, granted but Bush ignored the evidence and pushed us to war before the truth could be revealed). Then said "Oopsie, but it was the right thing to do, anyway because Saddam is bad". No matter that many of our troops and Iraqui civilians died. North Korea insists they have nukes and say they might pursue a preemptive strategy against those they feel is a threat (us). Let's just ignore them...and while we're at it, ignore the people dying in the Sudan while we debate if it's genicide or ethnic cleansing...
 
Bush Administration "waffling"....
Iraq has WMDs that can be launched at us within 45 minutes...George Tenant "it's a slam dunk case that Iraq has WMDs"...Mission "waffled" accomplished...Iraquis will welcome us with open arms and roses...The autrocities at Abu Graib are the work of a few bad seeds (oops, happened in Afghanistan, too)...
No, I think it's more deceitful than waffling...
 
Oh, please, don't talk about foreign policy if you know nothing about it, which you demonstrate when you question why we don't invade North Korea.

Here's a quick example, if we invade Iraq, what can Saddam do? Attack some of our soldiers? Pretend to have chemical weapons to use against our men?

Let's see if we invade North Korea, what can they do? Kill MILLIONS of innocent civilians of our allies. Forget WMD's in North Korea, they don't need them. They have so much artillery just a few miles away from a huge population center, they WILL wipe everyone out there if they are attacked. (along with 30,000 American troops) Forget mutual destruction, they don't care. They've already sacrificed millions of their own countrymen to famine, but as long as their army gets fed, their leader is happy.

North Korea already has a gun to our heads. Others wanted us to wait until Saddam had one pointed to our heads before we invaded.
 
Who questioned why we don't invade North Korea? I don't think anyone wants that as we know it would cost massive death and destruction. I think I was just pointing out the incosistancy of Bush's policy. He was so sure that Iraq had nukes and chemical weapons (that could reach us) yet we know that North Korea has nukes (which prevents us from attacking them because of the scenerio you so elloquently described). Of course other nations want nukes because that's the only thing that prevents us from toppling their government if we think they're a theat. Do you see the problem here?

I did say that we we're ignoring North Korea. Yes, they broke their end of the last bargain we made with them but we have to deal with them somehow. Not refuse to talk to them.
 
[quote name='Fang-[CE']]
Here's a quick example, if we invade Iraq, what can Saddam do? Attack some of our soldiers? Pretend to have chemical weapons to use against our men?
[/quote]
But we were told that Saddam had WMDs before we attacked them. Wouldn't it follow that (assuming that was true) he would use them on us and his own people just like you warn North Korea would?

Okay, I'll quit pretending I know anything about foreign policy now...

EDIT: I'll admit I don't know how to attach quotes correctly...
 
[quote name='Fang-[CE']]North Korea already has a gun to our heads. Others wanted us to wait until Saddam had one pointed to our heads before we invaded.[/quote]

If North Korea is a bigger threat to us than Iraq was, why aren't we hearing about how much of a mad monstrous madman Kim Jong Il is? Bush made a lot of noise about Saddam, and this guy is much worse. Oddly, regimes that actually *can* kick our asses get much better treatment.

To the rest of the world it looks like the US only bullies opponents that are small enough to not constitute real threats. Like Iraq. And its natural resources didn't exactly hurt the case for war either.
 
-OK- I am going to make this real easy. You won't even have to type in the words "John Kerry," I will make it a link: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

Having a platform, and getting people to cover that platform are two different things. If you watch the convention on Thursday night, he will undoubtedly make his platform a majority of his acceptance speach.
 
All of you bleeding-heart liberals listen up!!

John Kerry voted YES to invade Iraq. He had the same (mis)information as Bush. You all act like Bush has complete control over every decision this country makes. We have three branches to our government.

I believe someone stated earlier that if Kerry would just HAVE a stance on an issue, a lot of the fence-riders would vote for him. The only problem is, he has no clue how to fix any of this. The only thing he has done is tell everyone how bad it is. He offers no solution, he only picks at the scab.

To further my point about Kerry not knowing what to do...

One of his main "platforms" is outsourcing. He thinks that America should stop outsourcing all of our jobs to foreign nations. How on earth is he going to get the nation to stop, when he can't even get his own wife to stop it??? She is the heiress to the Heinz company. One of the nations largest outsourcers.

Don't try to feed me a line saying that he is going to change everything. God help us if Kerry wins...
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Wait til Thursday night...[/quote]

Why wait?

We already know:

Two Trillion in Ten Years

By Kevin Hassett
1,026 words
27 July 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A16
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

An economic platform can offer a glimpse into the ideological soul of a candidate and provide crucial information to swing voters. Bill Clinton signaled his "New Democrat" credentials in 1992 when he advocated a generous business tax break, and signaled many events to come when he immediately dropped the idea after his election. President Bush sought swing voters with an aggressive federal expansion in education spending -- and then lived up to his promise. What does John Kerry's economic platform tell us? Very little about his ideology, but a great deal about the man himself.

Mr. Kerry promises higher spending, higher taxes and overall deficit reduction. But the details do not add up.

The centerpiece of his campaign is a proposal that would increase the proportion of Americans with health insurance. But succumbing to the tendency for presidential candidates with long experience in the Senate to include almost everything they ever voted for in their campaign platform, Mr. Kerry has added an astonishingly broad grab bag of other spending proposals -- 70 in all.

How much would all of these promises cost? Let's begin with the biggest proposal. The only existing score for the health plan was provided by Kenneth Thorpe, a former Clinton official and Emory University professor. He at first placed the cost of Mr. Kerry's health plan alone at about $1 trillion. Mr. Thorpe subsequently revised the figure downward to $653 billion to account for some rather mysterious "savings," apparently because the health plan's vague statements concerning prevention will yield miraculously precise lower expenses in later years.

The higher number is more reasonable. But starting with the lower number, the National Taxpayers' Union Foundation recently estimated that Mr. Kerry's proposals would increase government spending by $226 billion in his first year in office. That's about $2,000 per American family, or 10% of the federal budget. While the report did not include a 10-year score, the construction of one is hardly rocket science. My own calculations suggest that the total costs of Mr. Kerry's proposals would be at least $2 trillion from 2005 to 2014.

Mr. Kerry's tax proposal is to renew the cuts that were provided in recent years to the so-called "middle class," to reverse reductions provided to those with incomes above $200,000, and to introduce a new tax credit for higher education. All of the tax cuts enacted by Congress and President Bush are currently scheduled to expire, so Mr. Kerry's tax plan actually reduces tax revenue by more than $400 billion over 10 years. If Congress extends President Bush's tax cuts before departing this year -- something only Mr. Kerry's campaign thinks will happen -- then the Kerry plan would increase revenue by approximately $800 billion.

If we put the spending and tax sides together, the first budget that Mr. Kerry will submit would increase the deficit over 10 years by a minimum of about $1.2 trillion and, more likely, by well over $2 trillion. While a few smaller proposals from Mr. Kerry raise a little more revenue, they do not go anywhere near the level necessary to close the enormous gap between spending and taxes.

This is a strange result for a party that clucks like a nest of saintly deficit hawks. Even with the economy roaring ahead, one can hardly turn on the television or open a magazine without finding some anti-Bush intellectual waxing poetically about the perils of deficits. George Akerlof, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and adviser to Mr. Kerry, warned in one interview concerning President Bush's fiscal policy that "Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting," adding that "now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience."

The Kerry plan increases the deficit a great deal more than the dividend tax reduction that aroused so much inflammatory rhetoric last year. In order to provide his army of virtuous talking heads with virtuous talking points, Mr. Kerry has proposed budget rules that, on the surface, limit the growth of government spending. But he has walled off many of his proposals. In a debate during the primaries, John Edwards, now Mr. Kerry's running mate, said quite accurately that the Kerry plan would "drive us deeper and deeper into deficit." Even Mr. Akerlof, no political opportunist, complained openly in the Washington Post that the Kerry message is muddled. The candidate talks about deficit reduction but protects his pet programs.

How could such an internally inconsistent plan have been constructed? One explanation may be that there are too many cooks; Mr. Kerry's current advisory team includes 200 economists. But a more plausible explanation is that the economic platform is merely another manifestation of Mr. Kerry's own contradictions and confusions.

In economics, at least, Mr. Kerry is not a "flip-flopper," as the Bush campaign likes to say. If he were, his relationship to policy would be like that of Elizabeth Taylor to Richard Burton. But he does not hold a position passionately one day and then drop it for the opposite position the next day. The truth is that, right from the start, Mr. Kerry cannot make up his mind whether he is a free-spending liberal or a deficit hawk. He could not possibly reverse course on his economic plan because the current course is impossible to discern. If he backtracks on deficit reduction, he advances his health plan. His relationship to the deficit is Hamlet's toward King Claudius: anguished and indecisive.

Because of this indecision, Mr. Kerry has failed where almost every presidential candidate before him has succeeded. Americans will depart this week's convention with no idea what will happen to economic policy if the Democrats sweep into office in November. That may be acceptable to a Democratic base that has apparently been hypnotized by Michael Moore, but it will surely leave swing voters scratching their heads.

---

Mr. Hassett is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample']Wait til Thursday night...[/quote]

Why wait?

We already know:

Two Trillion in Ten Years

By Kevin Hassett
1,026 words
27 July 2004
The Wall Street Journal
A16
English
(Copyright (c) 2004, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

An economic platform can offer a glimpse into the ideological soul of a candidate and provide crucial information to swing voters. Bill Clinton signaled his "New Democrat" credentials in 1992 when he advocated a generous business tax break, and signaled many events to come when he immediately dropped the idea after his election. President Bush sought swing voters with an aggressive federal expansion in education spending -- and then lived up to his promise. What does John Kerry's economic platform tell us? Very little about his ideology, but a great deal about the man himself.

Mr. Kerry promises higher spending, higher taxes and overall deficit reduction. But the details do not add up.

The centerpiece of his campaign is a proposal that would increase the proportion of Americans with health insurance. But succumbing to the tendency for presidential candidates with long experience in the Senate to include almost everything they ever voted for in their campaign platform, Mr. Kerry has added an astonishingly broad grab bag of other spending proposals -- 70 in all.

How much would all of these promises cost? Let's begin with the biggest proposal. The only existing score for the health plan was provided by Kenneth Thorpe, a former Clinton official and Emory University professor. He at first placed the cost of Mr. Kerry's health plan alone at about $1 trillion. Mr. Thorpe subsequently revised the figure downward to $653 billion to account for some rather mysterious "savings," apparently because the health plan's vague statements concerning prevention will yield miraculously precise lower expenses in later years.

The higher number is more reasonable. But starting with the lower number, the National Taxpayers' Union Foundation recently estimated that Mr. Kerry's proposals would increase government spending by $226 billion in his first year in office. That's about $2,000 per American family, or 10% of the federal budget. While the report did not include a 10-year score, the construction of one is hardly rocket science. My own calculations suggest that the total costs of Mr. Kerry's proposals would be at least $2 trillion from 2005 to 2014.

Mr. Kerry's tax proposal is to renew the cuts that were provided in recent years to the so-called "middle class," to reverse reductions provided to those with incomes above $200,000, and to introduce a new tax credit for higher education. All of the tax cuts enacted by Congress and President Bush are currently scheduled to expire, so Mr. Kerry's tax plan actually reduces tax revenue by more than $400 billion over 10 years. If Congress extends President Bush's tax cuts before departing this year -- something only Mr. Kerry's campaign thinks will happen -- then the Kerry plan would increase revenue by approximately $800 billion.

If we put the spending and tax sides together, the first budget that Mr. Kerry will submit would increase the deficit over 10 years by a minimum of about $1.2 trillion and, more likely, by well over $2 trillion. While a few smaller proposals from Mr. Kerry raise a little more revenue, they do not go anywhere near the level necessary to close the enormous gap between spending and taxes.

This is a strange result for a party that clucks like a nest of saintly deficit hawks. Even with the economy roaring ahead, one can hardly turn on the television or open a magazine without finding some anti-Bush intellectual waxing poetically about the perils of deficits. George Akerlof, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and adviser to Mr. Kerry, warned in one interview concerning President Bush's fiscal policy that "Past administrations from the time of Alexander Hamilton have on the average run responsible budgetary policies. What we have here is a form of looting," adding that "now is the time for people to engage in civil disobedience."

The Kerry plan increases the deficit a great deal more than the dividend tax reduction that aroused so much inflammatory rhetoric last year. In order to provide his army of virtuous talking heads with virtuous talking points, Mr. Kerry has proposed budget rules that, on the surface, limit the growth of government spending. But he has walled off many of his proposals. In a debate during the primaries, John Edwards, now Mr. Kerry's running mate, said quite accurately that the Kerry plan would "drive us deeper and deeper into deficit." Even Mr. Akerlof, no political opportunist, complained openly in the Washington Post that the Kerry message is muddled. The candidate talks about deficit reduction but protects his pet programs.

How could such an internally inconsistent plan have been constructed? One explanation may be that there are too many cooks; Mr. Kerry's current advisory team includes 200 economists. But a more plausible explanation is that the economic platform is merely another manifestation of Mr. Kerry's own contradictions and confusions.

In economics, at least, Mr. Kerry is not a "flip-flopper," as the Bush campaign likes to say. If he were, his relationship to policy would be like that of Elizabeth Taylor to Richard Burton. But he does not hold a position passionately one day and then drop it for the opposite position the next day. The truth is that, right from the start, Mr. Kerry cannot make up his mind whether he is a free-spending liberal or a deficit hawk. He could not possibly reverse course on his economic plan because the current course is impossible to discern. If he backtracks on deficit reduction, he advances his health plan. His relationship to the deficit is Hamlet's toward King Claudius: anguished and indecisive.

Because of this indecision, Mr. Kerry has failed where almost every presidential candidate before him has succeeded. Americans will depart this week's convention with no idea what will happen to economic policy if the Democrats sweep into office in November. That may be acceptable to a Democratic base that has apparently been hypnotized by Michael Moore, but it will surely leave swing voters scratching their heads.

---

Mr. Hassett is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.[/quote]

CTL, you really need to learn to paraphrase. Why would I waste 5 minutes of my life reading republican propaganda b.s.?
 
I can post long points too that aren't my own. How about this?:

From his first days in office, President George W. Bush has assailed the interests of workers and their families. The result is a long and sobering record of Bush administration attacks on workers’ jobs, health, safety, civil rights and more.

National Labor Relations Board says federal law doesn’t apply to graduate employees

The Republican majority on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on July 13 ruled graduate assistants are students, not employees, and therefore not entitled to the protections of federal labor law. The Bush NLRB—the federal agency that oversees union elections and determines how labor laws are applied—sided with administrators at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who fought efforts by graduate employees to form a union with the UAW. The ruling overturns a 2000 decision giving graduate employees at New York University the right to a union voice on the job. The NLRB has asked the agency’s regional directors to examine six pending cases involving graduate employees in light of the decision.

Threatened to fire Medicare official for telling the truth

A new investigation confirmed a former top Bush administration official threatened to fire Medicare’s chief actuary if he revealed to Congress that the administration’s cost estimates for the Medicare prescription drug law were more than $100 billion higher than the figure provided to lawmakers. In a report released July 6, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) said Thomas Scully, President George W. Bush’s former top Medicare administrator who now lobbies for drug companies, threatened to fire actuary Richard Foster. The report confirms news accounts from March detailing the Bush administration’s successful efforts to hide the true costs of Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill from members of Congress as they prepared to vote on it. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers said they would not vote for the bill if it cost more than $400 billion over 10 years. The Bush administration touted a cost estimate of $395 billion from the Congressional Budget Office—though Foster pegged the cost at more than $500 billion. Scully refused to disclose that figure to members of Congress though repeatedly pressed by congressional staff, according to the new report. Congress narrowly passed the Medicare bill in November 2003. It was not until January 2004 that the Bush administration acknowledged the bill would cost at least $534 billion.

Though the new report did not accuse Scully of breaking any laws, the OIG said Scully might be subject to disciplinary action if he still worked for the government. He does not. After the Medicare drug law passed, Scully got a new job as a lobbyist for several pharmaceutical companies and other health care interests.

Supports bill that would increase student loan debt

The Bush administration supports legislation that could force college graduates to pay nearly $5,500 more in interest on their student loans. Currently, the federal government helps students pay for college by allowing them to consolidate their loans with a low fixed interest rate, enabling them to save thousands of dollars over the life of the loan. A bill by Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) would eliminate graduates’ ability to consolidate their loans with a low fixed interest rate and instead allow the interest rate to be variable. The move would benefit banks and lenders. The Congressional Research Service found the change could cost $5,484 in interest over the life of a 15-year, $17,000 loan. “Instead of yet another raid on the pocketbooks of students and their families, Congress should be investing federal resources to make college affordable,” says Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

Bush’s National Labor Relations Board seeks to restrict workers’ rights

The Bush administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on June 7, 2004, announced it will review the legality of rules regarding majority verification and neutrality procedures to form unions. Often called “card-check recognition,” the process enables workers to more fairly and rapidly indicate whether they want a union and is an alternative to the lengthy NLRB election process, which allows employers to block workers’ free choice. The three-member board majority, Republicans appointed by President George W. Bush, agreed to hear arguments by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a national anti-union group, saying it was time to take a new look at recognition agreements. The board’s two dissenting members, both Democrats, wrote that reviewing card-check procedures serves no purpose except to undermine well-settled policy in favor of voluntary recognition agreements.

Proposes eliminating training program for Latino farm workers

The Bush administration has proposed eliminating the National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP), which Congress passed last year with strong bipartisan support. The NFJP, which the U.S. Department of Labor recognized earlier this year as one of its top training program, assists farm workers who are American citizens or are immigrants in this country on an agricultural work visa. NFJP provides job training and other assistance to improve the working and living conditions of the predominately Latino farm laborers, nearly all of whom live well below the federal poverty line. Cutting the program would result in lost job opportunities and an uncertain future for nearly 25,000 families and create a less healthy and less reliable workforce for farmers and agribusinesses, according to the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP), an advocacy group for agricultural workers.

Plans to cut domestic programs in 2006 if re-elected

President George W. Bush’s budget office has put federal agencies on notice that $2.3 billion is likely to be cut from Bush’s domestic budget if he is re-elected, according to a May 27 report in The Washington Post. The Office of Management and Budget directive would entail spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including many Bush has promoted while campaigning, such as education; homeland security; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; veterans programs; job-training; medical research; and science programs. “The Bush administration, unfortunately, is more committed to unwise, unaffordable tax cuts than providing adequate funding for education, healthcare, job training and other critically important programs that make our nation and its citizens stronger,” AFT Secretary-Treasurer Edward J. McElroy said.

Refuses to meet with the G-8 union leaders

President George W. Bush refused to meet with top union leaders of the world’s major industrial nations, known as the G-8, when they meet in Washington, D.C., June 2–3. Bush is the first U.S. president and first head of state of any nation to refuse such a meeting since the summits began in 1977. The labor leaders are meeting to finalize the trade union statement for G-8 leaders meeting in Sea Island, Ga., June 8–10. Previous U.S. presidents who hosted the summit—Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and Bill Clinton—met with the labor leaders. The G-8 includes the elected leaders of Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and representatives from the European Union.

Fails to fund port security

Although Congress in 2002 enacted a major port security law in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has failed to adequately fund the program. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates the nation needs $1.1 billion a year to safeguard U.S. ports, but President George W. Bush’s fiscal year 2005 budget proposes only $46 million. In 2002, Bush vetoed $39 million for ship container security. Some 30 percent of port security grants have gone to big oil and chemical companies while ports and their workers are left without the security protections they need, according to Rep. Martin Sabo (D-Minn.). An April 28 explosion inside a shipping container at the Port of Los Angeles should serve as a “wake-up call” for the administration and the port industry to address port security threats, said Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department. The explosion occurred inside a container that was brought into the port without any support documents and was never inspected, Wytkind said.

Reverses position on HMO accountability and fights to block patients’ rights

During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush touted his support for his state’s Patients’ Bill of Rights law—which includes patients’ rights under some circumstances to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed medical treatment. “If I’m the president…people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court,” Bush said during a presidential debate. “That’s what I’ve done in Texas and that’s the kind of leadership style I’ll bring to Washington.” (In fact, according to The Washington Post, Bush initially vetoed the Texas law then allowed it to become law without his signature.) As president, Bush is fighting the Texas law and similar laws in nine other states. On March 23, Bush’s Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block patients’ legal challenges under the Texas law. In two related cases, the insurance industry argued that states have no power to adopt laws giving patients who are denied needed care the right to sue insurance companies and HMOs. On June 21, 2004, industry attorneys and Bush’s solicitor general succeeded in their arguments that the Supreme Court strike down the state laws.

Makes misleading claims about health of Social Security, Medicare

The Social Security and Medicare trustees—dominated by Bush administration officials—released their annual reports March 23. By calculating Social Security and Medicare costs into infinity, the trustees’ reports provided results that are “highly misleading,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The reports predict that over an “infinite horizon,” Social Security and Medicare face a multitrillion dollar shortfall. Yet, experts say predictions into infinity are especially uncertain. With such projections, the trustees are able to show large shortfalls that likely will mislead the public into believing the vital retirement programs are on the brink of disaster and need to be radically restructured. In fact, the Social Security trustees’ report shows the program is fully funded through 2042 and will have enough money to cover 73 percent of benefits after that time, even without changes to strengthen the system.

Threatened to fire Medicare official for telling the truth

According to The Washington Post and several other news reports, the Bush administration threatened to fire Medicare’s chief actuary if he revealed to Congress that the administration’s own cost estimates for the Medicare prescription drug legislation were more than $100 billion higher than the figure provided Congress. Congress narrowly passed the Medicare drug bill in November based on the lower cost estimate, which swayed several wavering lawmakers concerned about the bill’s cost. According to news reports, several Bush administration estimates pegged the cost of the bill at more than $500 billion, but lawmakers were told the cost was $395 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. In June 2003, five months before Congress approved the bill, then-Medicare Director Thomas A. Scully told Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that Foster would be fired if he revealed the administration’s estimates to Congress. (Before his appointment to head Medicare, Scully was a health-industry lobbyist, and after the Medicare drug bill passed Congress, he joined a law firm that represents health insurers and hospitals.) Before the bill passed the House by just five votes in November, more than a dozen Republican members threatened to vote against it if the cost were greater than $400 billion. In January 2004, the Bush administration admitted the drug bill would cost at least $534 billion.

The final bill creates a huge gap in coverage for beneficiaries, will cost many seniors more in premiums and other fees, forbids the government from negotiating lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry, threatens employer-provided coverage for millions of retirees and moves Medicare toward privatization.

Seeks to exempt industrial laundries from EPA requirements

Every year, businesses in the United States produce about 3.8 billion contaminated shop towels filled with toxic or hazardous chemicals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Manufacturers and printers use these towels to clean machinery and pick up chemical spills. The towels often are soaked in toxic solvents and most are washed in industrial laundries where the hazardous chemicals and wastewater are discharged to public sewers. Now the Bush administration’s EPA has proposed exempting these industrial laundries from federal hazardous and solid waste requirements for “industrial wipes.” If approved, the exemption would allow such companies as Cintas, the largest industrial launderer in North America, to profit from policies that endanger workers and the environment. Production workers and drivers have reported illnesses from exposure to towels soaked in solvents linked to cancer and reproductive disorders, according to UNITE, which, along with the Teamsters, testified against the proposed regulations at a March 9 congressional hearing.

Asks whether fast food jobs are manufacturing jobs

Faced with the relentless decline in good manufacturing jobs, the Bush administration’s Economic Report of the President opens the door to classifying fast food workers as manufacturing workers instead of service workers. In a special section titled “What is manufacturing?” the report asks, “When a fast food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a ‘service’ or is it combining inputs to ‘manufacture’ a product?” The report, presented Feb. 9 and signed by President George W. Bush, notes the current system of defining manufacturing jobs “is not straightforward.” According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Occupational Handbook,” some 2.2 million food preparation and serving workers, plus another 421,000 counter attendants were at work in 2000—just a few million short of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost since the Bush administration took office.

Calls teachers’ union ‘a terrorist organization’

President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Education Rod Paige on Feb. 23 called the National Education Association (NEA) a “terrorist organization.” Paige made his comment during a private meeting with the nation’s governors at the White House. “At a time when our nation faces the very real threat of terrorism, it is both unconscionable and irresponsible for any public figure, let alone a U.S. cabinet member, to undertake this kind of name-calling,” says AFT Secretary-Treasurer Edward McElroy. Members of the NEA—along with other educators and state legislators from the Republican and Democratic parties—have disagreed with the Bush administration’s failure to adequately fund the No Child Left Behind education reform act. The NEA and others laud the new law’s goals of raising standards for all students, testing to see if those standards are being met and providing extra help for students falling behind. But they note Bush is not giving school districts the resources they need to implement the law. In Utah, the majority of the state House recently considered dropping out of the No Child Left Behind effort and forfeiting federal education funding that comes with it. The lawmakers in the Republican-majority chamber voted to stick with the portions of the program that are federally funded, but bar school districts from using state and local funding to implement the act. Lawmakers in several other states are considering similar measures.

Circumvents Congress to appoint extremist judge

For the second time in recent months, President George W. Bush has bypassed the Senate to appoint an extremist judge to a federal court. On Feb. 20, the president made a recess appointment to avoid a Senate confirmation vote and placed ultraconservative William H. Pryor Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Pryor was unable twice to win Senate confirmation because of his extremist views on civil rights and the rights of workers, women and people with disabilities. As Alabama attorney general, he urged Congress to roll back provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for African Americans and other minorities. Pryor also challenged a key provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit Congress’ right to establish uniform protections covering states in areas such as employment discrimination and environmental protections. Presidents are allowed to make recess appointments when Congress is not session, but legal observers say it is unusual for a president to use a recess appointment to seat an appellate court judge.

Altered report on racial and ethnic disparities in health care

The Bush administration’s Department of Health and Human Services altered a report to downplay findings about the differences in health care services the nation’s minorities receive. The original report said disparities in the U.S. health care system are pervasive and contribute to poorer health and higher rates of disease and disabilities among people of color, according to The New York Times. African Americans and Native Americans die younger than those in other racial or ethnic groups and, along with Hispanic Americans, are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and serious complications. Instead, the final report begins, “The overall health of Americans has improved dramatically over the last century.” The altered report dropped several statements noting health care disparities, including “black children have much higher hospitalization rates for asthma than white children.” After congressional leaders and health care professionals criticized the report, and after the changes became public, the Bush administration said it would release the full, undoctored report. The revelation of the report’s change came just days after 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, charged the Bush administration with misusing science to bolster its policies on the environment, health care and arms control.

Backs away from presidential report claiming 2.6 million new jobs in 2004

President Bush and administration officials acknowledged previous job growth claims are unrealistic as they backed off claims in the annual Economic Report of the President—signed by the president and delivered to Congress—that the U.S. economy will create 2.6 million new jobs in 2004. After the Feb. 9 report was criticized heavily, Bush, Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and other White House officials backpedaled from the prediction that would mean some 217,000 new jobs will be created each month. In 2003, Bush said his economic policies would create some 1.8 million jobs. That prediction fell 1.6 million short. Since Bush took office, 2.9 million private-sector jobs have disappeared, including 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. Bush administration officials claimed the report was prepared by a group of White House economists and said Bush is not “a statistician” capable of checking the figures for accuracy. Bush has long noted he is the first president to hold an M.B.A. from Harvard University and has experience running businesses. Bush’s abandonment of his promise of 2.6 million new jobs came just days after White House economist N. Gregory Mankiw said, “Outsourcing American jobs overseas is good for the U.S. economy in the long run.” The Economic Report of the President makes the same argument.

Encourages outsourcing of U.S. jobs

The Bush administration is backing moves to outsource more U.S. jobs, according to its Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) annual report to Congress. “Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade,” said N. Gregory Mankiw, Bush’s CEA chairman. “More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that’s a good thing.” The report also predicts the economy will generate 3.9 million new jobs this year­­—a claim that would mean an average 325,000 new jobs each month. In spring 2003, the council said the president’s “Jobs and Growth” millionaire tax cut plan would create 306,000 jobs monthly starting in July. Yet by February 2004, the Bush administration was 1.8 million jobs short of that prediction. So far, the economy has lost 2.9 million private-sector jobs and 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office. Meanwhile, the number of long-term jobless workers has been roughly 2 million for months, and for much of that time, long-term unemployment has been at its highest rate since 1983.

Fails to alert Postal Workers and public about ricin poison in U.S. mail

The Bush administration, in November 2003, failed to alert postal employees they may have handled a package of the deadly poison ricin. News reports revealed in February a letter was mailed to the White House from a Chattanooga, Tenn., post office. The letter was intercepted at an offsite White House mail sorting facility in the Washington, D.C., area and contained a powdery substance that tests indicated was ricin. The November incident came to light in February after it was discovered ricin had been sent to the office of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Several Senate office buildings were then closed as a precaution while tests were conducted. According to The Washington Post, the Secret Service did not notify the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service or other federal agencies about the November ricin discovery until six days after the letter was intercepted. In 2001, after a series of anthrax mailings led to the deaths of five people, including two Postal Workers members, unions and other groups said the Bush administration was not forthcoming or timely with information about the attacks, the health risks and the cleanup of postal facilities.

Bush FY 2005 budget shortchanges America’s working families

The White House’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget proposal shortchanges America’s workers while showcasing the Bush administration’s top priority—cutting taxes for the nation’s super rich. Ignoring the plight of the nation’s millions of jobless workers, the Bush budget would create 5.6 million fewer jobs than the leading congressional proposal. The Bush budget proposes to cut worker safety training programs by $7 million compared with actual levels approved by Congress for FY 2004. It rejects the best vehicle for quick and significant job creation—investment in infrastructure—and requests only two-thirds of the transportation funding needed to upgrade roads, bridges and mass transit. The budget continues to underfund the No Child Left Behind Act so significantly that hundreds of thousands of children remain left behind—in classes that are too large, with teachers who can’t acquire training needed to upgrade their skills and with too few opportunities to participate in pre-kindergarten programs.

Spends $12.6 million in taxpayer dollars on misleading Medicare ads

The Bush administration’s $12.6 million nationwide television, radio, print and Internet advertising campaign—paid for with taxpayer dollars—promotes the new Medicare prescription drug law by making misleading claims, according to the nonprofit Center for American Progress. In addition, a media firm that creates political ads for President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign was awarded part of the taxpayer-funded contract. The ads do not mention the law prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for lower drug prices, does nothing to control prescription drug price inflation, gives insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare and drops coverage for seniors’ out-of-pocket expenses between $2,250 and $5,100.

Refuses to strengthen workplace reactive chemical explosion rules

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has refused to strengthen the rules to prevent chemical explosions. Specifically, OSHA has failed to expand the Process Safety Management Standard to cover reactive chemicals. On Feb. 2, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)—with three of its four members Bush administration appointees—voted to declare OSHA’s response “Unacceptable” and urged OSHA to reconsider. During the past 20 years, reactive chemicals have caused explosions and other serious workplace accidents, claiming 167 lives and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage, according to the CSB. The CSB, an independent federal agency that investigates chemical accidents, says reactive hazards exist when a single chemical or a mixture of chemicals has the potential to undergo a violent, uncontrolled reaction when improperly processed or combined. Such chemical reactions can release large quantities of heat, energy and gases, causing fires, explosions or toxic emissions. In 2002, CSB found reactive chemicals posed a “significant safety problem” and recommended OSHA broaden the rules governing chemical safety. Several unions joined in the call for a tougher standard. Instead, OSHA halted work on a new safety standard and announced in 2003 it would rely on voluntary cooperation from the chemical industry to address the problem.

Bush's budgets shortchanged working families and starved state budgets

Bush's fiscal year (FY) budgets won massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations but rejected the best vehicle for quick and significant job creation—investment in infrastructure—and requests only two-thirds of the transportation funding needed to upgrade roads, bridges and mass transit. Bush also has failed to provide meaningful assistance to states, which are struggling with the worst fiscal crises since World War II. The states' fiscal crises are compounded by enormous unfunded federal mandates, which in FY 2004 cost the states $29 billion. As a result of the states' crises, 21 states were forced to lay off public employees between FY 2003 and FY 2004 to close or cut their state budget gaps.

Proposed temporary work, not citizenship, for immigrants

President Bush in January 2004 proposed a new temporary worker program that would match immigrant workers with a U.S. employer if no U.S. worker was available or willing to take a job. The program also would grant temporary worker status to currently working undocumented aliens but would require temporary workers to return to their home country after their work was finished. Rep. Ciro D. Rodriguez (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, described Bush’s plan as a "21st Century bracero program," a modern day equivalent of the 1940s bracero program that tore families apart and took away the earnings of laborers. "The president’s program would create a generation of second-class citizens who are baited to work for America with the false promise of ever being able to enjoy the benefits of citizenship."

Did nothing to address health care crisis

Explosive health care costs are pummeling working families. Millions are forced to forego necessary care because they cannot afford the cost. Between 2000 and 2003, the average cost of workers' premium contributions for family coverage rose nearly 50 percent. And American companies that are trying to do the right thing by their workers carry an enormous competitive burden. Since Bush took office, at least 4.9 million more people, including 126,000 more children, have become uninsured. The increase between 2001 and 2002 was the largest in 10 years. Nearly 75 million non-elderly Americans were uninsured for all or part of the two year period 2001-2002. Yet President Bush has put forward no plan and taken no effective steps to remedy this crisis. His prescription drug plan helped pharmaceutical companies more than patients and the Bush budget included a $46 billion taxpayer giveaway to the HMOs. Yet according to Families USA, his budget would reduce net funding for Medicaid by nearly $1 billion in fiscal year 2005 and by almost $16 billion between 2005 and 2014.

Allows private contractors to write nuclear weapons plants’ safety rules

The Bush administration recently proposed shielding private contractors that operate federal nuclear weapons plants and nuclear research facilities from government safety standards by allowing those private contractors to write their own safety rules. There are some two dozen U.S. Department of Energy contractor facilities exempt from workplace health and safety standards established and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and instead subject to Energy Department oversight. During the Clinton administration, the Energy Department issued guidelines calling for contractors to establish health and safety programs that followed OSHA standards. In 2002, Congress passed bipartisan legislation requiring the Energy Department to develop enforceable nuclear facilities health and safety regulations offering the same safety standards as under OSHA. But the Bush administration’s Energy Department proposed rule calls for the contractors to develop their own safety and health standards and allows those contractors to decide on a case-by-case basis which rules should be followed. “The decision making will largely be in the hands of contractors to decide what protections are appropriate. It’s the fox guarding the hen house,” says Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio). Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), who helped write the 2002 legislation, says the Bush administration plan “will likely decrease worker protection.”

Publishes so-called 'Labor Advocate'

The Bush administration’s Department of Labor launched a new publication, The Labor Advocate, intended to portray the department as an advocate and defender of workers and unions. Rather than act as labor advocate, the Bush administration in the past three years has gutted the collective bargaining rights of tens of thousands of federal workers, overturned and weakened workplace safety rules, sought to eliminate Fair Labor Standards Act overtime pay protections for up to 8 million workers, attacked prevailing wage laws by banning project labor agreements, opposed raising the federal minimum wage and supported efforts to silence workers’ political voice. The current issue of The Labor Advocate helps fill its five pages with six photographs of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

Downplays increase in coal mining fatalities, withdraws safety rules

The Bush administration’s 2003 report on mining fatalities reports that deaths in the nation’s mines fell by 18 percent, but the report downplays the fact coal mining deaths actually increased by 7 percent. The drop in mine fatalities occurred in metal and nonmetal mines, not in coal mines where the death rate increased, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Coal miners were more likely to die on the job in 2003 than in 2002, MSHA’s figures reveal. In 2003, 29 coal miners were killed on the job, 27 died in 2002.

Strong-Arms Congress to Pass Voucher Program for District of Columbia Schools

In January 2004, President Bush maneuvered Congress to pass a voucher program for the District of Columbia schools. The legislation provides $14 million in public funds for 1,700 students to attend private schools—and $13 million for the 65,000 students in the city’s public schools. AFT leaders say the plan is intended to be a first step toward a national voucher program, which would siphon off funds for the public schools children of working families attend.

President Bush used a Jan. 16 recess appointment to place Charles Pickering on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The use of a recess appointment allowed Bush to evade a Senate confirmation vote on the controversial Pickering, who previously had failed to win Senate confirmation. He was opposed by a broad coalition that included unions and civil rights and women’s organizations because of his controversial and negative record on civil rights and other issues. Pickering has been severely criticized when, as a Mississippi judge, he intervened with the prosecution to get a reduced sentence for a convicted cross-burner. Pickering has criticized the “one-person, one-vote” principle and important provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Pickering has ruled against the vast majority of people bringing job bias suits in his court. The recess appointment allows him to serve until the current Congress adjourns later this year. Pickering’s nomination to the court was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002. He also was unable to overcome a Senate filibuster after Bush renominated him in 2003.

Funds groups promoting policies that harm public education—with education department money

The Bush administration’s Department of Education is helping to fund private groups that push for private school vouchers—all with federal taxpayer dollars. In its recent report Funding a Movement, People For the American Way (PFAW) found the Education Department gave grants totaling $75 million over the past three years to groups promoting such policies as voucher programs that weaken public schools—even though education leaders say Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” school reform law is chronically underfunded. “The mission of the Department of Education is to advance and promote public education,” says Ralph Neas President of PFAW, a civil liberties advocacy group. “Why is the department handing out $75 million to groups whose work undermines public education?”

Withdraws proposed rules on tuberculosis exposure

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) decided not to go forward with protections against workplace exposure to tuberculosis Dec. 31. The move to establish a TB rule began in 1993, and OSHA proposed a TB rule in 1997 under the Clinton administration. The proposed exposure standard would have protected workers from tuberculosis by requiring airborne disease control measures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization recommend many of the same precautions to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) that were included in the proposed tuberculosis rule.

Signs a Medicare prescription drug bill that threatens seniors’ health care

The Medicare prescription drug bill President George W. Bush signed Dec. 8, now revealed to cost $139 billion more than estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in December, is a serious setback for many of the nation’s seniors. The new legislation could cost nearly 3 million retirees their employer-sponsored prescription drug benefits, according to estimates by the CBO. It prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for lower drug prices, as do other governmental agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, and does nothing to control prescription drug price inflation. The bill gives insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare and drops coverage for seniors’ out-of-pocket expenses between $2,250 and $5,100. Ultimately, the Medicare prescription drug bill Bush signed forces 32.5 million current Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher Medicare premiums and other Medicare costs.

Senate approves the “first step toward dismantling Medicare.”

Drops steel tariffs after only 20 months

After promising to impose tariffs for three years to protect the nation's steel industry from cheap, subsidized imports, President Bush on Dec. 4 rescinded the tariffs after only 20 months. The Bush White House claimed the tariffs had achieved their purpose, even though five major steel companies have declared bankruptcy since the tariffs began. The European Union and Japan had threatened to retaliate if the tariffs were not lifted. The Steelworkers condemned the decision as "clear evidence of capitulating to European blackmail and a sorry betrayal of American Steelworkers and steel communities." All together, 42 steel companies have gone bankrupt since 1998, putting more than 50,000 steelworkers out of jobs. In the same period, 17 of the companies have liquidated, wiping out the health care benefits of more than 208,000 retirees.

Cancels holidays for airport screeners

After eliminating 6,000 airport security screener jobs earlier this year, the Bush administration’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) canceled all holiday leave for the remaining 48,000 screeners and will force many employees to work overtime during the Thanksgiving holidays. AFGE President John Gage says TSA’s mismanagement and “contractor waste and abuse” caused cost overruns and job cuts. As a result, says Gage, passengers must deal with “staffing shortages on a daily basis at many airports across the country, not just at peek holiday travel days.” Earlier this year, the Bush administration took away the collective bargaining rights of airport screeners.

Refuses to test OSHA workers for exposure to toxic metal beryllium

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has refused to order blood tests for hundreds of its active and retired inspectors who may have been exposed to the toxic metal beryllium, one of the agency’s own regional administrators says in a complaint filed Oct. 9 with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Metal beryllium is believed to cause a fatal lung disease. The administrator, Dr. Adam Finkel, said as many as 500 OSHA workers may have been exposed to the metal during inspections of plants where it is used. Metal beryllium is used in many industrial and consumer products, including nuclear weapons and electronics. The nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed the complaint on behalf of Finkel.

Adam Finkel’s statement

Nominates pro-privatization and party fund-raiser candidates to Amtrak board

Among the three members the Bush administration is nominating to serve on the Amtrak board of directors are an advocate of railroad privatization and a longtime fund-raiser for the Republican party, The Washington Post reported Sept. 12. Current Bush-backed efforts to privatize the nation’s railway system threaten the jobs of some 20,000 Amtrak workers. Louis S. Thompson, who retired this year from the World Bank, led the World Bank’s effort to privatize railroads in several countries. Floyd Hall is a longtime Republican party fund-raiser and former chairman of Kmart. The other nominee is former American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall.

Pressures EPA to omit mention of toxic substances in reports to public about safety of air quality at World Trade Center disaster site

In the days immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center, the Bush White House pressured the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tone down reports about potential health hazards resulting from the buildings’ collapse, according to a report by the EPA’s inspector general. Thousands of emergency workers and construction workers toiled months at the site and residents and workers returned to their homes and jobs believing it was safe to do so. The report, issued Aug. 18, notes all EPA statements about the disaster and clean-up were required to be approved by the National Security Council via the White Houser Council on Environmental Quality. The report says EPA was pressured by the White House to omit cautions about hazards from air pollutants such as lead, cadmium, asbestos and smoke from fires, some of which burned for four months. A Sept. 18, 2001, EPA announcement reported the air around the World Trade Center was safe to breath, but the inspector general’s report says EPA “did not have sufficient data and analysis to make such a blanket statement.”

Slashes congressionally approved pay raise for federal workers

President George W. Bush on Aug. 27 announced his intention to limit next year's pay raises for federal workers to 2 percent, citing executive authority that allows the president to limit increases in times of “national emergency or serious economic conditions.” Since Bush took office, 3.2 million private-sector jobs have disappeared, unemployment hit its highest level in 10 years in June and the Bush administration has run up the highest federal deficit in history. Bush cut an automatic 2.7 percent raise for federal workers to a maximum of 2 percent—or as little as 1.5 percent—depending on locality. Two years ago, Bush restored cash bonus payments for 2,100 political appointees, eight years after the bonuses were eliminated because of abuse.

Charged Department of Health and Human Services for event expenses coinciding with campaign and fund-raising stops

The Bush administration has charged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) more than $252,000 for HHS events attended by President George W. Bush that coincided with Bush’s attendance at same-day rallies and campaign fund-raisers and for Republican candidates across the country, according to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Some $235,000 was charged to the Office of Administration for Children and Families, which runs the federal welfare program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). The other HHS offices charged were the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of Public Health and Science. The GAO report shows Bush attended 15 HHS events, with each covered by a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the White House and HHS regarding the amount Bush could charge to the department. As of May 2003, the Bush administration had collected $252,372 from HHS for eight of the events. According to the report, there is often a lag time between an event and the White House billing and the remaining seven events could cost HHS another $217,000. The events occurred between February 2002 and January 2003. In comparison, the GAO report found that former President Bill Clinton attended 37 HHS events between April 21, 1997, and Sept. 29, 2000, and HHS was charged just $101,000.

General Accounting Office

Backs cutting $270 million and 84,000 students from college grant program

The Bush administration’s Department of Education approved changes in the formula families use to determine if their college-bound students are eligible for financial assistance under the Federal Pell Grant Program. The changes, announced May 30, will rob 84,000 of aid and reduce financial help to hundreds of thousands of other students beginning in the 2004–2005 academic year, according to a memo from the Congressional Research Service. Education experts predict the impact of the changes will ripple into many state and university administered aid programs that base their eligibility formulas on the federal model, denying educational opportunity to even more students.

Doles out big bonuses to political appointees

Administration political appointees received $1.44 million in bonuses last year—even as the Bush administration sought to limit pay raises for federal workers, pushed for privatization of federal jobs and took away the bargaining rights of tens of thousands of federal employees. An Office of Personnel Management report lists 470 political appointees who got the bonuses—reviving a practice the Clinton administration halted eight years ago. At the same time, Bush originally proposed a 2.6 percent raise for federal employees for 2003—which Congress rejected and increased to 4.1 percent.

Threatens to veto labor appropriations bill if it includes ban on eliminating overtime

President George W. Bush on July 9 threatened to veto the fiscal year 2004 Labor and Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660) if it includes an amendment that would halt Bush’s plan to change federal overtime rules. The Bush administration is pushing for changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act that could eliminate overtime pay for as many as 8 million workers, according to an Economic Policy Institute study. The proposed House amendment would prohibit the U.S. Department of Labor from using funds to implement regulations cutting overtime pay. It also would enable the Labor Department to implement a regulation allowing additional workers to qualify for overtime. The amendment to the appropriations bill, offered by Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and David Obey (D-Wis.), is similar to a stand-alone bill introduced July 9 by Miller and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).

No longer requires employers to keep track of such injuries as carpal tunnel syndrome

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) June 30 revoked a 2001 requirement that employers track workplace ergonomic injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome. The record-keeping rule, issued in 2001, required employers to check a box on standard workplace injury and illness logs if an injury was a musculoskeletal injury. The rule was designed to help employers, workers and OSHA identify and keep track of ergonomic injuries. Studies show nearly 2 million workers a year suffer from crippling musculoskeletal injuries. In 2001, Bush signed the repeal of the first nationwide ergonomics standard that would have required employers to control ergonomic hazards and given OSHA the power to enforce the standard. Bush claimed voluntary guidelines would better reduce ergonomic injuries.

Backs employer efforts to use taxpayer money for anti-union campaigns

The Bush administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is helping Big Business fight a California law that mandates accountability for the way state dollars are spent and requires state neutrality in worker organizing campaigns by banning the expenditure of state monies—pro-union or anti-union—in such campaigns. In 2000, the California legislature passed and Gov. Gray Davis (D) signed AB 1889, which prohibits employers from using taxpayer dollars to pay for employer-run campaigns to influence workers in their efforts to form or join a union. The law ensures the billions of dollars that flow to private employers each year through California grants and subsidies are used only for the purposes intended: public services and programs. In a 3-2 vote, the five-member NLRB voted May 29 to intervene in a federal court case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, taking a position that protects employers who want to use taxpayer money to subsidize their anti-union campaigns and which denies states the right to control their own spending authority. The NLRB’s purported justification for its action is that federal labor law pre-empts the California statute. This position by the NLRB is directly contrary to that taken by the U.S. Department of Justice in two recent cases, which argued that federal labor law does not pre-empt Bush administration restrictions on the use of federal funds. The AFL-CIO and the California Labor Federation filed briefs in support of the California statute last April.

Buried Treasury report that predicts huge deficits and need for tax hike

The Bush administration, when it sent its proposed budget to Congress in February, omitted a U.S. Treasury Department report that predicted huge deficits far beyond the administration’s projections. The study also said tax increases were needed to close the astonishing $44 trillion deficit the study predicted. Yet, Bush’s budget instead called for a $726 billion tax cut and projected a deficit of just above $200 billion. A May 29 report in the Financial Times revealed the study was commissioned by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who resigned under pressure in December.

Establishes system to privatize 850,000 federal jobs

The Bush administration on May 29 unveiled the details of its plan to ultimately eliminate federal jobs and contract out the work to private companies. The changes are in the rules that govern contracting out—OMB Circular A-76—and give private companies the advantage over federal workers in the private-public competition process, federal workers’ unions say. In November, the Bush administration announced its goal of putting 850,000 federal jobs up for bid, including at least 15 percent, or 127,500 jobs, by October 2003. Administration officials reaffirmed that goal in their latest announcement. Last year, Bush demanded and won legislation allowing it eventually to unilaterally cancel the collective bargaining rights of 170,000 workers as part of the bill creating the Homeland Security Department. In January, the Bush administration took away the right of 60,000 airport screeners in the Transportation Security Administration to join a union.

The Bush administration halted efforts to establish workplace health rules protecting workers and patients from exposure to tuberculosis. On May 27, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) withdrew a proposed TB rule from its regulatory agenda. In 1997, OSHA published a proposed tuberculosis rule and in 1998 and 1999, held hearings and took comments. After the Bush administration came into office, OSHA reopened the comment period on the rule in 2002, but its newest move halts further action on the rule. The proposed rule would have established procedures to prevent and limit the spread of the infectious airborne disease. Health experts say the TB rule also would help guard against airborne diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In 1997, OSHA estimated the new rule would help protect an estimated 5.3 million workers in more than 100,000 hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional facilities, homeless shelters and other work settings with a significant risk of TB infections. It did not offer an estimate of how many millions of patients, residents, prisoners and others in those settings also would be protected.

Proposes to end federal low-income housing program for 2 million families

The Bush administration proposed legislation April 29 to end a federal, low-income housing assistance program that helps some 2 million families afford modest housing. The Section 8 housing voucher program provides low-income working families, the disabled, retirees and families on assistance with vouchers. Those vouchers, given to private landlords, effectively limit a family’s housing cost to 30 percent of its income. The Bush administration proposal would rename the voucher program Housing Assistance for Needy Families and convert it into a block grant for states to administer with few federal guidelines and no guarantee the annual funding would cover the costs to provide needed housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 53 percent of voucher holders are families with children, 40 percent are seniors or people with disabilities and only one in five receives welfare benefits.

Proposes to eliminate civil service protections for Department of Defense workers

The Bush administration has developed legislation that would enable the Defense Department to gut the current personnel system that governs the department workers’ pay, salary increases, hiring, firing, job classifications, performance evaluations, due process and appeal rights, reduction in force rules and many other federal workplace rules. In all, the proposal would allow the department to waive a dozen chapters of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which covers government organization and federal employment. It would allow the department to create an entirely new personnel system that could eliminate congressional oversight of many personnel policies, strip workers and their unions of current workplace rights and place much more personnel decision making power in the unchecked hands of supervisors.

Proposes new rules to deny Earned Income Tax Credit to working poor

The Bush administration wants to require working poor families to submit extensive new documentation to prove their eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Supported by President Reagan, the EITC provides a crucial safety net for low-income working families. To be eligible for EITC, a family cannot have an income above $34,692 and the actual amount of the credit varies depending on family size and income. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims the new rules are designed to prevent between $6.5 billion and $10 billion in improper EITC payments, but tax experts say that the documentation requirements are likely to discourage many eligible families from applying for EITC. In addition, studies show improper payments to non-EITC individual filers amount to $132 billion plus another $70 billion to offshore corporate accounts and $46 billion for corporations. But while Bush requested some $100 million and 650 new IRS employees to track EITC filers, other tax investigations have fallen by 37 percent and prosecutions by 50 percent.

Proposes rule to end overtime pay for millions of workers

The Bush administration proposed new rules March 27 that would deny overtime pay protections for millions of workers. The changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations would affect a wide range of the more than 80 million workers protected by the FLSA. The proposed rules would enable employers to reclassify many workers currently eligible for overtime as managers, administrative or professional employees who are exempt from time-and-a-half overtime. They eliminate overtime protection for large numbers of aerospace, health care, defense, high tech and other workers and also for workers above a certain income level. While the rules raise the income ceiling for some low-income workers to automatically qualify for overtime, many low-income workers would remain uncovered by that automatic protection, and the new rules propose confusing standards on whether low-income supervisors qualify for overtime protection.

Backs bankruptcy bill that will hurt working families

The Bush administration backs an anti-family bankruptcy proposal that te U.S. House of Representatives passed 315–113 March 19. The measure includes a loophole that allows wealthy debtors in five states to shelter income in luxury homes and strips working families of the few financial protections they currently have under bankruptcy law and makes it harder for them to make a financial fresh start. It also forces those owed child support from someone who has declared bankruptcy to compete with other creditors for whatever money is available. Ninety percent of individuals who resort to bankruptcy have come to the financial crisis because of job loss, medical emergency, divorce or other catastrophic event, according to the nonpartisan American Bankruptcy Institute.

Denies airline workers due process in security assessments

The Bush administration issued new rules Jan. 24 that allow the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Aviation Administration to revoke an aviation worker’s certification without basic due process protections. The new rule was issued and took effect without any public comment period. It allows the government to revoke or deny needed federal certification for pilots, mechanics, flight instructors and other aviation workers if the government—under secretive and arbitrary procedures—concludes a worker is a “security threat.” The rule denies an employee the right to an impartial review of the facts and does not require workers be shown the evidence or be told the specific reasons behind a security-risk finding.

Delays new and stronger aircraft maintenance and repair rules

The Bush administration delayed new rules governing repair and maintenance work performed on U.S. airlines’ aircraft at overseas repair stations certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The March 14 action, just days before the start of a war with Iraq and amid growing concern about terrorism and security, came at the request of the airline industry and is opposed by aviation unions and aviation safety groups. In 1988, many U.S. airlines began contracting out their routine maintenance and repair work on aircraft that fly domestic and international routes when the Reagan administration watered down repair station safety regulations. Previously, most work was performed by U.S. mechanics at U.S. repair stations. The new rules, which were to be implemented April 6, would have strengthened the repair and maintenance regulations and requirements for overseas repairs stations to receive and maintain their FAA certification.

Seeking legislation to thwart Medicare appeals when benefits are denied

Bush administration officials are drafting legislation to make it harder for Medicare recipients to appeal the denial of benefits such as home health care and nursing home care. Under current law, beneficiaries who say they were unfairly denied coverage for theses services can take their cases to administrative law judges. In the past five years, about 53 percent of those appealing won their cases, according to The New York Times. But Bush administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services want other means to resolve the appeals—avenues that may unfairly tilt the scales against the people with disabilities and the elderly who qualify for Medicare. “The president’s proposals would compromise the independence of administrative law judges, who have protected beneficiaries in case after case, year after year,” Judith Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, told The New York Times March 16.

Negotiated 'Fast Track' trade agreements weaker than existing treaties on workers' rights

Armed with Fast Track trade promotion authority, the Bush administration is moving rapidly to rack up as many so-called free trade agreements as possible. The administration negotiated the first two agreements under Fast Track—deals with Chile and Singapore—in secret and said in February it is not releasing the details to the public until later this year. The deals will go to Congress later this year, and under Fast Track the lawmakers cannot amend the deals and can only approve or reject them as a whole.

Proposed school vouchers

In his fiscal year 2004 budget request, President Bush is asking for $75 million for school voucher programs in several cities, including the District of Columbia. District Mayor Anthony Williams met in early February with top Bush administration education officials to express his opposition to vouchers, which siphon public funds away from public schools and toward private schools that are not accountable to parents, students or taxpayers. The proposed vouchers program would further drain funding from public education at the same time that Bush wants to virtually freeze federal funding to school programs suffering because of state and local governments’ budget crises. Bush’s proposed education “funding levels are unacceptably low,” says the Committee for Education Funding (CEF), a coalition of groups supporting public schools.

Proposed cutting school funds for military

At the same time he is relying on American troops to fight a war in Iraq, President Bush is proposing to cut education funding for children in military families, according to news reports in late February. In his fiscal year 2004 budget request, Bush cuts federal impact aid funding—a federal program established in 1950 to compensate school districts for the property tax income they lose when tax-exempt property (such as military bases) are within their boundaries. Ending the $125 million program would affect 900,000 children, and officials of several school districts have said they would have to cut staff and defer needed building repairs. “I just can’t understand how, at a time when our military men and women are being deployed for a possible war with Iraq, this administration can turn its back on the children of our military personnel.
 
[quote name='queegqueeg'][quote name='Fang-[CE']]
Here's a quick example, if we invade Iraq, what can Saddam do? Attack some of our soldiers? Pretend to have chemical weapons to use against our men?
[/quote]
But we were told that Saddam had WMDs before we attacked them. Wouldn't it follow that (assuming that was true) he would use them on us and his own people just like you warn North Korea would?

Okay, I'll quit pretending I know anything about foreign policy now...

EDIT: I'll admit I don't know how to attach quotes correctly...[/quote]

Riddle me this:

If Saddam didn't have WMD, why did he endure sanctions for 12 years?

More to the point this is what Bill Clinton said after we launched missles at Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
Click to expand...


Now, was Bill Clinton lying when he attacked Iraq?

And the issue is not the degree of the attack, the issue is the reasonable belief Iraq possessed WMD.
 
[quote name='"E-Z-BCTL, you really need to learn to paraphrase. Why would I waste 5 minutes of my life reading republican propaganda b.s.?[/quote']

For the same reason you would waste approximately 2 hours watching F9/11.

And I will take your response as accepting the facts I presented since you certainly failed to rebut them.
 
1.) The American Enterprise Institute is a right-wing think-tank - basically where a lot of the neoconservative agenda was formulated. It's not exactly an unbiased source. Hell, it's not even not completely ideologically minded drivel. AEI is basically a right-wing sound-bite clearinghouse, and nothing more.

2.) If I'd declared a position, and later, found new information that made my earlier position incorrect, I'd change my mind. What would you do?

seppo
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B']CTL, you really need to learn to paraphrase. Why would I waste 5 minutes of my life reading republican propaganda b.s.?[/quote]

For the same reason you would waste approximately 2 hours watching F9/11.

And I will take your response as accepting the facts I presented since you certainly failed to rebut them.[/quote]

And I take it that you accept the facts that I presented above, every one of them, too since you haven't rebutted them.

You logic is flawed.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='"E-Z-BCTL, you really need to learn to paraphrase. Why would I waste 5 minutes of my life reading republican propaganda b.s.?[/quote']

For the same reason you would waste approximately 2 hours watching F9/11.

And I will take your response as accepting the facts I presented since you certainly failed to rebut them.[/quote]

And I take it that you accept the facts that I presented above, every one of them, too since you haven't rebutted them.

You logic is flawed.[/quote]

Not at all. I am not even going to waste time reading something you can't even provide a link for - so I have offered no opinion on your statement. However, FWIW, I don't give two shits about the average worker, because I am not the average worker.

[quote name='heleva']1.) The American Enterprise Institute is a right-wing think-tank - basically where a lot of the neoconservative agenda was formulated. It's not exactly an unbiased source. Hell, it's not even not completely ideologically minded drivel. AEI is basically a right-wing sound-bite clearinghouse, and nothing more. [/quote]

And I see you have not addressed the merits of the calculations, you have dismissed the source. Wow.

[quote name='heleva']2.) If I'd declared a position, and later, found new information that made my earlier position incorrect, I'd change my mind. What would you do?

seppo[/quote]

And if I am running for President and change my mind every other time I formulate an opinion you would be justified in quesitoning if I have the best judgement to begin with.

CTL

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B']CTL, you really need to learn to paraphrase. Why would I waste 5 minutes of my life reading republican propaganda b.s.?[/quote]

For the same reason you would waste approximately 2 hours watching F9/11.

And I will take your response as accepting the facts I presented since you certainly failed to rebut them.[/quote]

And I take it that you accept the facts that I presented above, every one of them, too since you haven't rebutted them.

You logic is flawed.[/quote]

Not at all. I am not even going to waste time reading something you can't even provide a link for - so I have offered no opinion on your statement. However, FWIW, I don't give two shits about the average worker, because I am not the average worker.

CTL

CTL[/quote]

That's funny - when I said the same thing, you came to the conclusion that I just accepted the facts. But not the case with you. I guess that's just that old-fashioned Republican hypocrosy for you.

Oh, and here are your links. Some are obviously on democrat websites, some aren't. So go rebutt them.

Rewriting the Rules: An NRDC Report http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/rollbacksinx....

Black Fridays: Sneaking Bad Environmental News Under the Radar http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/fridays.asp

On the Airwaves: Robert Redford, Edward James Olmos http://www.nrdc.org/stateaction

NRDC Victories in the Courts http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/courtwins.asp

RFK Jr. on the Bush Record http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=5939345

View the Bush Record in chronological order.
2004 http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp
2003 http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2003.asp
2002 http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002.asp
2001 http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2001.asp
_________________________________________________

George W. Bush - 152 executions while governor of Texas.
http://www.bushkills.com /
__________________________________________________

Caught on Film: The Bush Credibility Gap. The Photographic History of the Bush Administration Putting Its Mouth Where Its Money Isn’t. The Photographic History of the Bush Administration Putting Its Mouth Where Its Money Isn’t
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonf...
_________________________________________________

The Wage Slave Journal: George W. Bush Scorecard of Evil
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html
_________________________________________________

DNC: Supreme Court Action Center
... The Bush Record. President Bush has already tried to pack the federal courts with extremist right-wing ideologues
http://www.democrats.org/scotus/bushrecord.html
____________________________________________________

Bush's Record on Corporate Ethics
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0710-01.htm
__________________________________________________

Fight for the Future - The Bush Record Index
http://www.fightforthefuture.org/bushrecord
 
[quote name='Derwood43']CTLesq has answered your question quite nicely.[/quote]

Actually, he didn't. Where is the information to support your contention that Kerry "platform" is to eliminate outsourcing?

The reallity, is that Kerry is not popular with many unions due to his stance in favor of NAFTA and various outsourcing proposals.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']However, FWIW, I don't give two shits about the average worker, because I am not the average worker.
CTL

CTL[/quote]

Wow, that sounds like something our Vice-President, or even President, would say! Like "Go f*** yourself", or "Major league ***hole". Some of those "family values", eh? BTW, if Ashcroft had his way, you wouldn't be allowed to display that south park avatar.

So I'll finish this post like O'Reilly: "Shut up, shut up, just shut up!"
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq']However, FWIW, I don't give two shits about the average worker, because I am not the average worker.
CTL

CTL[/quote]

Wow, that sounds like something our Vice-President, or even President, would say! Like "Go f*** yourself", or "Major league ***hole". Some of those "family values", eh? BTW, if Ashcroft had his way, you wouldn't be allowed to display that south park avatar.

So I'll finish this post like O'Reilly: "Shut up, shut up, just shut up!"[/quote]

Actually what it sounds like is I don't care about a minimum wage worker. They aren't my concern.

And as for not posting a link to the WSJ editorial I posted - its a pay site. So I can't post a link.

Edit: And what do ANY of your links have to do with the plight of poor workers? Just provide those.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Actually what it sounds like is I don't care about a minimum wage worker. They aren't my concern.
[/quote]

Thus continues the Republican stereotypes: rich, white, racists. Even your signature indicates that.


I guess Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" was just more crap from the RNC.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq']Actually what it sounds like is I don't care about a minimum wage worker. They aren't my concern.
[/quote]

Thus continues the Republican stereotypes: rich, white, racists. Even your signature indicates that.


I guess Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" was just more crap from the RNC.[/quote]

No, I am not going out of my way to piss on these people. I simply don't care.

Can you understand the distinction?

My signature is from another thread. But hey you want to go cuddle up with some homeless dude be my guest.

CTL
 
The ONLY thing that Kerry hasn't wavered on is that he will patch up our friendship with Germany and France. What the hell will that accomplish? It certainly won't help against terrorism because they won't lift a finger. It won't help out our economy. It won't help health care.

I can hear Al Franken in the background....

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it France and Germany like me!"
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']The ONLY thing that Kerry hasn't wavered on is that he will patch up our friendship with Germany and France. What the hell will that accomplish? It certainly won't help against terrorism because they won't lift a finger. It won't help out our economy. It won't help health care.

I can hear Al Franken in the background....

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it France and Germany like me!"[/quote]

Yeah, better relations with long-time allies and trading partners - that won't help us at all. [tons o' sarcasm]
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='GuilewasNK']The ONLY thing that Kerry hasn't wavered on is that he will patch up our friendship with Germany and France. What the hell will that accomplish? It certainly won't help against terrorism because they won't lift a finger. It won't help out our economy. It won't help health care.

I can hear Al Franken in the background....

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it France and Germany like me!"[/quote]

Yeah, better relations with long-time allies and trading partners - that won't help us at all. [tons o' sarcasm][/quote]

Ah yes those "allies" that voted for 17 UN Sec Res over 12 years and only balked at number 18 when it appeared Saddam wouldn't be able to pay them back the billions he owed them.....

All of a sudden they developed a concious.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='GuilewasNK']The ONLY thing that Kerry hasn't wavered on is that he will patch up our friendship with Germany and France. What the hell will that accomplish? It certainly won't help against terrorism because they won't lift a finger. It won't help out our economy. It won't help health care.

I can hear Al Franken in the background....

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it France and Germany like me!"[/quote]

Yeah, better relations with long-time allies and trading partners - that won't help us at all. [tons o' sarcasm][/quote]

From the CIA factbook...

US Exports partners...

Canada 23.2%, Mexico 14.1%, Japan 7.4%, UK 4.8%

US Imports Partners....

Canada 17.8%, Mexico 11.3%, China 11.1%, Japan 10.4%, Germany 5.3%

Yeah, that was really a big deal with Germany's 5.3% and all.

Oh yeah, that war in Iraq was about oil too. That why the prices have gone down so much. *Sarcasm 5000*
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='GuilewasNK']The ONLY thing that Kerry hasn't wavered on is that he will patch up our friendship with Germany and France. What the hell will that accomplish? It certainly won't help against terrorism because they won't lift a finger. It won't help out our economy. It won't help health care.

I can hear Al Franken in the background....

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it France and Germany like me!"[/quote]

Yeah, better relations with long-time allies and trading partners - that won't help us at all. [tons o' sarcasm][/quote]

From the CIA factbook...

US Exports partners...

Canada 23.2%, Mexico 14.1%, Japan 7.4%, UK 4.8%

US Imports Partners....

Canada 17.8%, Mexico 11.3%, China 11.1%, Japan 10.4%, Germany 5.3%

Yeah, that was really a big deal with Germany's 5.3% and all.

Oh yeah, that war in Iraq was about oil too. That why the prices have gone down so much. *Sarcasm 5000*[/quote]

I hope the "Sarcasm 5000" that you typed was about the % numbers. 5.3% represents 1/20th of our imports. That number is huge when you take into account how many countries there are (300+?)

And a combination of problems effect oil prices. Saboteurs and Saudi influence are perhaps the biggest.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I can post long points too that aren't my own. How about this?:

From his first days in office, President George W. Bush has assailed the interests of workers and their families. The result is a long and sobering record of Bush administration attacks on workers’ jobs, health, safety, civil rights and more.

National Labor Relations Board says federal law doesn’t apply to graduate employees

The Republican majority on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on July 13 ruled graduate assistants are students, not employees, and therefore not entitled to the protections of federal labor law. The Bush NLRB—the federal agency that oversees union elections and determines how labor laws are applied—sided with administrators at Brown University in Providence, R.I., who fought efforts by graduate employees to form a union with the UAW. The ruling overturns a 2000 decision giving graduate employees at New York University the right to a union voice on the job. The NLRB has asked the agency’s regional directors to examine six pending cases involving graduate employees in light of the decision.

Threatened to fire Medicare official for telling the truth

A new investigation confirmed a former top Bush administration official threatened to fire Medicare’s chief actuary if he revealed to Congress that the administration’s cost estimates for the Medicare prescription drug law were more than $100 billion higher than the figure provided to lawmakers. In a report released July 6, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) said Thomas Scully, President George W. Bush’s former top Medicare administrator who now lobbies for drug companies, threatened to fire actuary Richard Foster. The report confirms news accounts from March detailing the Bush administration’s successful efforts to hide the true costs of Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill from members of Congress as they prepared to vote on it. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers said they would not vote for the bill if it cost more than $400 billion over 10 years. The Bush administration touted a cost estimate of $395 billion from the Congressional Budget Office—though Foster pegged the cost at more than $500 billion. Scully refused to disclose that figure to members of Congress though repeatedly pressed by congressional staff, according to the new report. Congress narrowly passed the Medicare bill in November 2003. It was not until January 2004 that the Bush administration acknowledged the bill would cost at least $534 billion.

Though the new report did not accuse Scully of breaking any laws, the OIG said Scully might be subject to disciplinary action if he still worked for the government. He does not. After the Medicare drug law passed, Scully got a new job as a lobbyist for several pharmaceutical companies and other health care interests.

Supports bill that would increase student loan debt

The Bush administration supports legislation that could force college graduates to pay nearly $5,500 more in interest on their student loans. Currently, the federal government helps students pay for college by allowing them to consolidate their loans with a low fixed interest rate, enabling them to save thousands of dollars over the life of the loan. A bill by Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) would eliminate graduates’ ability to consolidate their loans with a low fixed interest rate and instead allow the interest rate to be variable. The move would benefit banks and lenders. The Congressional Research Service found the change could cost $5,484 in interest over the life of a 15-year, $17,000 loan. “Instead of yet another raid on the pocketbooks of students and their families, Congress should be investing federal resources to make college affordable,” says Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

Bush’s National Labor Relations Board seeks to restrict workers’ rights

The Bush administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on June 7, 2004, announced it will review the legality of rules regarding majority verification and neutrality procedures to form unions. Often called “card-check recognition,” the process enables workers to more fairly and rapidly indicate whether they want a union and is an alternative to the lengthy NLRB election process, which allows employers to block workers’ free choice. The three-member board majority, Republicans appointed by President George W. Bush, agreed to hear arguments by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a national anti-union group, saying it was time to take a new look at recognition agreements. The board’s two dissenting members, both Democrats, wrote that reviewing card-check procedures serves no purpose except to undermine well-settled policy in favor of voluntary recognition agreements.

Proposes eliminating training program for Latino farm workers

The Bush administration has proposed eliminating the National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP), which Congress passed last year with strong bipartisan support. The NFJP, which the U.S. Department of Labor recognized earlier this year as one of its top training program, assists farm workers who are American citizens or are immigrants in this country on an agricultural work visa. NFJP provides job training and other assistance to improve the working and living conditions of the predominately Latino farm laborers, nearly all of whom live well below the federal poverty line. Cutting the program would result in lost job opportunities and an uncertain future for nearly 25,000 families and create a less healthy and less reliable workforce for farmers and agribusinesses, according to the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs (AFOP), an advocacy group for agricultural workers.

Plans to cut domestic programs in 2006 if re-elected

President George W. Bush’s budget office has put federal agencies on notice that $2.3 billion is likely to be cut from Bush’s domestic budget if he is re-elected, according to a May 27 report in The Washington Post. The Office of Management and Budget directive would entail spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including many Bush has promoted while campaigning, such as education; homeland security; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; veterans programs; job-training; medical research; and science programs. “The Bush administration, unfortunately, is more committed to unwise, unaffordable tax cuts than providing adequate funding for education, healthcare, job training and other critically important programs that make our nation and its citizens stronger,” AFT Secretary-Treasurer Edward J. McElroy said.

Refuses to meet with the G-8 union leaders

President George W. Bush refused to meet with top union leaders of the world’s major industrial nations, known as the G-8, when they meet in Washington, D.C., June 2–3. Bush is the first U.S. president and first head of state of any nation to refuse such a meeting since the summits began in 1977. The labor leaders are meeting to finalize the trade union statement for G-8 leaders meeting in Sea Island, Ga., June 8–10. Previous U.S. presidents who hosted the summit—Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and Bill Clinton—met with the labor leaders. The G-8 includes the elected leaders of Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and representatives from the European Union.

Fails to fund port security

Although Congress in 2002 enacted a major port security law in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has failed to adequately fund the program. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates the nation needs $1.1 billion a year to safeguard U.S. ports, but President George W. Bush’s fiscal year 2005 budget proposes only $46 million. In 2002, Bush vetoed $39 million for ship container security. Some 30 percent of port security grants have gone to big oil and chemical companies while ports and their workers are left without the security protections they need, according to Rep. Martin Sabo (D-Minn.). An April 28 explosion inside a shipping container at the Port of Los Angeles should serve as a “wake-up call” for the administration and the port industry to address port security threats, said Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department. The explosion occurred inside a container that was brought into the port without any support documents and was never inspected, Wytkind said.

Reverses position on HMO accountability and fights to block patients’ rights

During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush touted his support for his state’s Patients’ Bill of Rights law—which includes patients’ rights under some circumstances to sue managed-care companies for wrongfully refusing to cover needed medical treatment. “If I’m the president…people will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court,” Bush said during a presidential debate. “That’s what I’ve done in Texas and that’s the kind of leadership style I’ll bring to Washington.” (In fact, according to The Washington Post, Bush initially vetoed the Texas law then allowed it to become law without his signature.) As president, Bush is fighting the Texas law and similar laws in nine other states. On March 23, Bush’s Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block patients’ legal challenges under the Texas law. In two related cases, the insurance industry argued that states have no power to adopt laws giving patients who are denied needed care the right to sue insurance companies and HMOs. On June 21, 2004, industry attorneys and Bush’s solicitor general succeeded in their arguments that the Supreme Court strike down the state laws.

Makes misleading claims about health of Social Security, Medicare

The Social Security and Medicare trustees—dominated by Bush administration officials—released their annual reports March 23. By calculating Social Security and Medicare costs into infinity, the trustees’ reports provided results that are “highly misleading,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The reports predict that over an “infinite horizon,” Social Security and Medicare face a multitrillion dollar shortfall. Yet, experts say predictions into infinity are especially uncertain. With such projections, the trustees are able to show large shortfalls that likely will mislead the public into believing the vital retirement programs are on the brink of disaster and need to be radically restructured. In fact, the Social Security trustees’ report shows the program is fully funded through 2042 and will have enough money to cover 73 percent of benefits after that time, even without changes to strengthen the system.

Threatened to fire Medicare official for telling the truth

According to The Washington Post and several other news reports, the Bush administration threatened to fire Medicare’s chief actuary if he revealed to Congress that the administration’s own cost estimates for the Medicare prescription drug legislation were more than $100 billion higher than the figure provided Congress. Congress narrowly passed the Medicare drug bill in November based on the lower cost estimate, which swayed several wavering lawmakers concerned about the bill’s cost. According to news reports, several Bush administration estimates pegged the cost of the bill at more than $500 billion, but lawmakers were told the cost was $395 billion, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. In June 2003, five months before Congress approved the bill, then-Medicare Director Thomas A. Scully told Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, that Foster would be fired if he revealed the administration’s estimates to Congress. (Before his appointment to head Medicare, Scully was a health-industry lobbyist, and after the Medicare drug bill passed Congress, he joined a law firm that represents health insurers and hospitals.) Before the bill passed the House by just five votes in November, more than a dozen Republican members threatened to vote against it if the cost were greater than $400 billion. In January 2004, the Bush administration admitted the drug bill would cost at least $534 billion.

The final bill creates a huge gap in coverage for beneficiaries, will cost many seniors more in premiums and other fees, forbids the government from negotiating lower prices from the pharmaceutical industry, threatens employer-provided coverage for millions of retirees and moves Medicare toward privatization.

Seeks to exempt industrial laundries from EPA requirements

Every year, businesses in the United States produce about 3.8 billion contaminated shop towels filled with toxic or hazardous chemicals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Manufacturers and printers use these towels to clean machinery and pick up chemical spills. The towels often are soaked in toxic solvents and most are washed in industrial laundries where the hazardous chemicals and wastewater are discharged to public sewers. Now the Bush administration’s EPA has proposed exempting these industrial laundries from federal hazardous and solid waste requirements for “industrial wipes.” If approved, the exemption would allow such companies as Cintas, the largest industrial launderer in North America, to profit from policies that endanger workers and the environment. Production workers and drivers have reported illnesses from exposure to towels soaked in solvents linked to cancer and reproductive disorders, according to UNITE, which, along with the Teamsters, testified against the proposed regulations at a March 9 congressional hearing.

Asks whether fast food jobs are manufacturing jobs

Faced with the relentless decline in good manufacturing jobs, the Bush administration’s Economic Report of the President opens the door to classifying fast food workers as manufacturing workers instead of service workers. In a special section titled “What is manufacturing?” the report asks, “When a fast food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a ‘service’ or is it combining inputs to ‘manufacture’ a product?” The report, presented Feb. 9 and signed by President George W. Bush, notes the current system of defining manufacturing jobs “is not straightforward.” According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Occupational Handbook,” some 2.2 million food preparation and serving workers, plus another 421,000 counter attendants were at work in 2000—just a few million short of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost since the Bush administration took office.

Calls teachers’ union ‘a terrorist organization’

President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Education Rod Paige on Feb. 23 called the National Education Association (NEA) a “terrorist organization.” Paige made his comment during a private meeting with the nation’s governors at the White House. “At a time when our nation faces the very real threat of terrorism, it is both unconscionable and irresponsible for any public figure, let alone a U.S. cabinet member, to undertake this kind of name-calling,” says AFT Secretary-Treasurer Edward McElroy. Members of the NEA—along with other educators and state legislators from the Republican and Democratic parties—have disagreed with the Bush administration’s failure to adequately fund the No Child Left Behind education reform act. The NEA and others laud the new law’s goals of raising standards for all students, testing to see if those standards are being met and providing extra help for students falling behind. But they note Bush is not giving school districts the resources they need to implement the law. In Utah, the majority of the state House recently considered dropping out of the No Child Left Behind effort and forfeiting federal education funding that comes with it. The lawmakers in the Republican-majority chamber voted to stick with the portions of the program that are federally funded, but bar school districts from using state and local funding to implement the act. Lawmakers in several other states are considering similar measures.

Circumvents Congress to appoint extremist judge

For the second time in recent months, President George W. Bush has bypassed the Senate to appoint an extremist judge to a federal court. On Feb. 20, the president made a recess appointment to avoid a Senate confirmation vote and placed ultraconservative William H. Pryor Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Pryor was unable twice to win Senate confirmation because of his extremist views on civil rights and the rights of workers, women and people with disabilities. As Alabama attorney general, he urged Congress to roll back provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for African Americans and other minorities. Pryor also challenged a key provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit Congress’ right to establish uniform protections covering states in areas such as employment discrimination and environmental protections. Presidents are allowed to make recess appointments when Congress is not session, but legal observers say it is unusual for a president to use a recess appointment to seat an appellate court judge.

Altered report on racial and ethnic disparities in health care

The Bush administration’s Department of Health and Human Services altered a report to downplay findings about the differences in health care services the nation’s minorities receive. The original report said disparities in the U.S. health care system are pervasive and contribute to poorer health and higher rates of disease and disabilities among people of color, according to The New York Times. African Americans and Native Americans die younger than those in other racial or ethnic groups and, along with Hispanic Americans, are twice as likely to suffer from diabetes and serious complications. Instead, the final report begins, “The overall health of Americans has improved dramatically over the last century.” The altered report dropped several statements noting health care disparities, including “black children have much higher hospitalization rates for asthma than white children.” After congressional leaders and health care professionals criticized the report, and after the changes became public, the Bush administration said it would release the full, undoctored report. The revelation of the report’s change came just days after 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, charged the Bush administration with misusing science to bolster its policies on the environment, health care and arms control.

Backs away from presidential report claiming 2.6 million new jobs in 2004

President Bush and administration officials acknowledged previous job growth claims are unrealistic as they backed off claims in the annual Economic Report of the President—signed by the president and delivered to Congress—that the U.S. economy will create 2.6 million new jobs in 2004. After the Feb. 9 report was criticized heavily, Bush, Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and other White House officials backpedaled from the prediction that would mean some 217,000 new jobs will be created each month. In 2003, Bush said his economic policies would create some 1.8 million jobs. That prediction fell 1.6 million short. Since Bush took office, 2.9 million private-sector jobs have disappeared, including 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. Bush administration officials claimed the report was prepared by a group of White House economists and said Bush is not “a statistician” capable of checking the figures for accuracy. Bush has long noted he is the first president to hold an M.B.A. from Harvard University and has experience running businesses. Bush’s abandonment of his promise of 2.6 million new jobs came just days after White House economist N. Gregory Mankiw said, “Outsourcing American jobs overseas is good for the U.S. economy in the long run.” The Economic Report of the President makes the same argument.

Encourages outsourcing of U.S. jobs

The Bush administration is backing moves to outsource more U.S. jobs, according to its Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) annual report to Congress. “Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade,” said N. Gregory Mankiw, Bush’s CEA chairman. “More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that’s a good thing.” The report also predicts the economy will generate 3.9 million new jobs this year­­—a claim that would mean an average 325,000 new jobs each month. In spring 2003, the council said the president’s “Jobs and Growth” millionaire tax cut plan would create 306,000 jobs monthly starting in July. Yet by February 2004, the Bush administration was 1.8 million jobs short of that prediction. So far, the economy has lost 2.9 million private-sector jobs and 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office. Meanwhile, the number of long-term jobless workers has been roughly 2 million for months, and for much of that time, long-term unemployment has been at its highest rate since 1983.

Fails to alert Postal Workers and public about ricin poison in U.S. mail

The Bush administration, in November 2003, failed to alert postal employees they may have handled a package of the deadly poison ricin. News reports revealed in February a letter was mailed to the White House from a Chattanooga, Tenn., post office. The letter was intercepted at an offsite White House mail sorting facility in the Washington, D.C., area and contained a powdery substance that tests indicated was ricin. The November incident came to light in February after it was discovered ricin had been sent to the office of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Several Senate office buildings were then closed as a precaution while tests were conducted. According to The Washington Post, the Secret Service did not notify the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service or other federal agencies about the November ricin discovery until six days after the letter was intercepted. In 2001, after a series of anthrax mailings led to the deaths of five people, including two Postal Workers members, unions and other groups said the Bush administration was not forthcoming or timely with information about the attacks, the health risks and the cleanup of postal facilities.

Bush FY 2005 budget shortchanges America’s working families

The White House’s fiscal year (FY) 2005 budget proposal shortchanges America’s workers while showcasing the Bush administration’s top priority—cutting taxes for the nation’s super rich. Ignoring the plight of the nation’s millions of jobless workers, the Bush budget would create 5.6 million fewer jobs than the leading congressional proposal. The Bush budget proposes to cut worker safety training programs by $7 million compared with actual levels approved by Congress for FY 2004. It rejects the best vehicle for quick and significant job creation—investment in infrastructure—and requests only two-thirds of the transportation funding needed to upgrade roads, bridges and mass transit. The budget continues to underfund the No Child Left Behind Act so significantly that hundreds of thousands of children remain left behind—in classes that are too large, with teachers who can’t acquire training needed to upgrade their skills and with too few opportunities to participate in pre-kindergarten programs.

Spends $12.6 million in taxpayer dollars on misleading Medicare ads

The Bush administration’s $12.6 million nationwide television, radio, print and Internet advertising campaign—paid for with taxpayer dollars—promotes the new Medicare prescription drug law by making misleading claims, according to the nonprofit Center for American Progress. In addition, a media firm that creates political ads for President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign was awarded part of the taxpayer-funded contract. The ads do not mention the law prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for lower drug prices, does nothing to control prescription drug price inflation, gives insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare and drops coverage for seniors’ out-of-pocket expenses between $2,250 and $5,100.

Refuses to strengthen workplace reactive chemical explosion rules

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has refused to strengthen the rules to prevent chemical explosions. Specifically, OSHA has failed to expand the Process Safety Management Standard to cover reactive chemicals. On Feb. 2, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB)—with three of its four members Bush administration appointees—voted to declare OSHA’s response “Unacceptable” and urged OSHA to reconsider. During the past 20 years, reactive chemicals have caused explosions and other serious workplace accidents, claiming 167 lives and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage, according to the CSB. The CSB, an independent federal agency that investigates chemical accidents, says reactive hazards exist when a single chemical or a mixture of chemicals has the potential to undergo a violent, uncontrolled reaction when improperly processed or combined. Such chemical reactions can release large quantities of heat, energy and gases, causing fires, explosions or toxic emissions. In 2002, CSB found reactive chemicals posed a “significant safety problem” and recommended OSHA broaden the rules governing chemical safety. Several unions joined in the call for a tougher standard. Instead, OSHA halted work on a new safety standard and announced in 2003 it would rely on voluntary cooperation from the chemical industry to address the problem.

Bush's budgets shortchanged working families and starved state budgets

Bush's fiscal year (FY) budgets won massive tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations but rejected the best vehicle for quick and significant job creation—investment in infrastructure—and requests only two-thirds of the transportation funding needed to upgrade roads, bridges and mass transit. Bush also has failed to provide meaningful assistance to states, which are struggling with the worst fiscal crises since World War II. The states' fiscal crises are compounded by enormous unfunded federal mandates, which in FY 2004 cost the states $29 billion. As a result of the states' crises, 21 states were forced to lay off public employees between FY 2003 and FY 2004 to close or cut their state budget gaps.

Proposed temporary work, not citizenship, for immigrants

President Bush in January 2004 proposed a new temporary worker program that would match immigrant workers with a U.S. employer if no U.S. worker was available or willing to take a job. The program also would grant temporary worker status to currently working undocumented aliens but would require temporary workers to return to their home country after their work was finished. Rep. Ciro D. Rodriguez (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, described Bush’s plan as a "21st Century bracero program," a modern day equivalent of the 1940s bracero program that tore families apart and took away the earnings of laborers. "The president’s program would create a generation of second-class citizens who are baited to work for America with the false promise of ever being able to enjoy the benefits of citizenship."

Did nothing to address health care crisis

Explosive health care costs are pummeling working families. Millions are forced to forego necessary care because they cannot afford the cost. Between 2000 and 2003, the average cost of workers' premium contributions for family coverage rose nearly 50 percent. And American companies that are trying to do the right thing by their workers carry an enormous competitive burden. Since Bush took office, at least 4.9 million more people, including 126,000 more children, have become uninsured. The increase between 2001 and 2002 was the largest in 10 years. Nearly 75 million non-elderly Americans were uninsured for all or part of the two year period 2001-2002. Yet President Bush has put forward no plan and taken no effective steps to remedy this crisis. His prescription drug plan helped pharmaceutical companies more than patients and the Bush budget included a $46 billion taxpayer giveaway to the HMOs. Yet according to Families USA, his budget would reduce net funding for Medicaid by nearly $1 billion in fiscal year 2005 and by almost $16 billion between 2005 and 2014.

Allows private contractors to write nuclear weapons plants’ safety rules

The Bush administration recently proposed shielding private contractors that operate federal nuclear weapons plants and nuclear research facilities from government safety standards by allowing those private contractors to write their own safety rules. There are some two dozen U.S. Department of Energy contractor facilities exempt from workplace health and safety standards established and enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and instead subject to Energy Department oversight. During the Clinton administration, the Energy Department issued guidelines calling for contractors to establish health and safety programs that followed OSHA standards. In 2002, Congress passed bipartisan legislation requiring the Energy Department to develop enforceable nuclear facilities health and safety regulations offering the same safety standards as under OSHA. But the Bush administration’s Energy Department proposed rule calls for the contractors to develop their own safety and health standards and allows those contractors to decide on a case-by-case basis which rules should be followed. “The decision making will largely be in the hands of contractors to decide what protections are appropriate. It’s the fox guarding the hen house,” says Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio). Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), who helped write the 2002 legislation, says the Bush administration plan “will likely decrease worker protection.”

Publishes so-called 'Labor Advocate'

The Bush administration’s Department of Labor launched a new publication, The Labor Advocate, intended to portray the department as an advocate and defender of workers and unions. Rather than act as labor advocate, the Bush administration in the past three years has gutted the collective bargaining rights of tens of thousands of federal workers, overturned and weakened workplace safety rules, sought to eliminate Fair Labor Standards Act overtime pay protections for up to 8 million workers, attacked prevailing wage laws by banning project labor agreements, opposed raising the federal minimum wage and supported efforts to silence workers’ political voice. The current issue of The Labor Advocate helps fill its five pages with six photographs of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao.

Downplays increase in coal mining fatalities, withdraws safety rules

The Bush administration’s 2003 report on mining fatalities reports that deaths in the nation’s mines fell by 18 percent, but the report downplays the fact coal mining deaths actually increased by 7 percent. The drop in mine fatalities occurred in metal and nonmetal mines, not in coal mines where the death rate increased, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Coal miners were more likely to die on the job in 2003 than in 2002, MSHA’s figures reveal. In 2003, 29 coal miners were killed on the job, 27 died in 2002.

Strong-Arms Congress to Pass Voucher Program for District of Columbia Schools

In January 2004, President Bush maneuvered Congress to pass a voucher program for the District of Columbia schools. The legislation provides $14 million in public funds for 1,700 students to attend private schools—and $13 million for the 65,000 students in the city’s public schools. AFT leaders say the plan is intended to be a first step toward a national voucher program, which would siphon off funds for the public schools children of working families attend.

President Bush used a Jan. 16 recess appointment to place Charles Pickering on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The use of a recess appointment allowed Bush to evade a Senate confirmation vote on the controversial Pickering, who previously had failed to win Senate confirmation. He was opposed by a broad coalition that included unions and civil rights and women’s organizations because of his controversial and negative record on civil rights and other issues. Pickering has been severely criticized when, as a Mississippi judge, he intervened with the prosecution to get a reduced sentence for a convicted cross-burner. Pickering has criticized the “one-person, one-vote” principle and important provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Pickering has ruled against the vast majority of people bringing job bias suits in his court. The recess appointment allows him to serve until the current Congress adjourns later this year. Pickering’s nomination to the court was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002. He also was unable to overcome a Senate filibuster after Bush renominated him in 2003.

Funds groups promoting policies that harm public education—with education department money

The Bush administration’s Department of Education is helping to fund private groups that push for private school vouchers—all with federal taxpayer dollars. In its recent report Funding a Movement, People For the American Way (PFAW) found the Education Department gave grants totaling $75 million over the past three years to groups promoting such policies as voucher programs that weaken public schools—even though education leaders say Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” school reform law is chronically underfunded. “The mission of the Department of Education is to advance and promote public education,” says Ralph Neas President of PFAW, a civil liberties advocacy group. “Why is the department handing out $75 million to groups whose work undermines public education?”

Withdraws proposed rules on tuberculosis exposure

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) decided not to go forward with protections against workplace exposure to tuberculosis Dec. 31. The move to establish a TB rule began in 1993, and OSHA proposed a TB rule in 1997 under the Clinton administration. The proposed exposure standard would have protected workers from tuberculosis by requiring airborne disease control measures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization recommend many of the same precautions to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) that were included in the proposed tuberculosis rule.

Signs a Medicare prescription drug bill that threatens seniors’ health care

The Medicare prescription drug bill President George W. Bush signed Dec. 8, now revealed to cost $139 billion more than estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in December, is a serious setback for many of the nation’s seniors. The new legislation could cost nearly 3 million retirees their employer-sponsored prescription drug benefits, according to estimates by the CBO. It prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for lower drug prices, as do other governmental agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, and does nothing to control prescription drug price inflation. The bill gives insurers the authority to ration access to drugs funded by Medicare and drops coverage for seniors’ out-of-pocket expenses between $2,250 and $5,100. Ultimately, the Medicare prescription drug bill Bush signed forces 32.5 million current Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher Medicare premiums and other Medicare costs.

Senate approves the “first step toward dismantling Medicare.”

Drops steel tariffs after only 20 months

After promising to impose tariffs for three years to protect the nation's steel industry from cheap, subsidized imports, President Bush on Dec. 4 rescinded the tariffs after only 20 months. The Bush White House claimed the tariffs had achieved their purpose, even though five major steel companies have declared bankruptcy since the tariffs began. The European Union and Japan had threatened to retaliate if the tariffs were not lifted. The Steelworkers condemned the decision as "clear evidence of capitulating to European blackmail and a sorry betrayal of American Steelworkers and steel communities." All together, 42 steel companies have gone bankrupt since 1998, putting more than 50,000 steelworkers out of jobs. In the same period, 17 of the companies have liquidated, wiping out the health care benefits of more than 208,000 retirees.

Cancels holidays for airport screeners

After eliminating 6,000 airport security screener jobs earlier this year, the Bush administration’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) canceled all holiday leave for the remaining 48,000 screeners and will force many employees to work overtime during the Thanksgiving holidays. AFGE President John Gage says TSA’s mismanagement and “contractor waste and abuse” caused cost overruns and job cuts. As a result, says Gage, passengers must deal with “staffing shortages on a daily basis at many airports across the country, not just at peek holiday travel days.” Earlier this year, the Bush administration took away the collective bargaining rights of airport screeners.

Refuses to test OSHA workers for exposure to toxic metal beryllium

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has refused to order blood tests for hundreds of its active and retired inspectors who may have been exposed to the toxic metal beryllium, one of the agency’s own regional administrators says in a complaint filed Oct. 9 with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Metal beryllium is believed to cause a fatal lung disease. The administrator, Dr. Adam Finkel, said as many as 500 OSHA workers may have been exposed to the metal during inspections of plants where it is used. Metal beryllium is used in many industrial and consumer products, including nuclear weapons and electronics. The nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed the complaint on behalf of Finkel.

Adam Finkel’s statement

Nominates pro-privatization and party fund-raiser candidates to Amtrak board

Among the three members the Bush administration is nominating to serve on the Amtrak board of directors are an advocate of railroad privatization and a longtime fund-raiser for the Republican party, The Washington Post reported Sept. 12. Current Bush-backed efforts to privatize the nation’s railway system threaten the jobs of some 20,000 Amtrak workers. Louis S. Thompson, who retired this year from the World Bank, led the World Bank’s effort to privatize railroads in several countries. Floyd Hall is a longtime Republican party fund-raiser and former chairman of Kmart. The other nominee is former American Airlines CEO Robert Crandall.

Pressures EPA to omit mention of toxic substances in reports to public about safety of air quality at World Trade Center disaster site

In the days immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center, the Bush White House pressured the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tone down reports about potential health hazards resulting from the buildings’ collapse, according to a report by the EPA’s inspector general. Thousands of emergency workers and construction workers toiled months at the site and residents and workers returned to their homes and jobs believing it was safe to do so. The report, issued Aug. 18, notes all EPA statements about the disaster and clean-up were required to be approved by the National Security Council via the White Houser Council on Environmental Quality. The report says EPA was pressured by the White House to omit cautions about hazards from air pollutants such as lead, cadmium, asbestos and smoke from fires, some of which burned for four months. A Sept. 18, 2001, EPA announcement reported the air around the World Trade Center was safe to breath, but the inspector general’s report says EPA “did not have sufficient data and analysis to make such a blanket statement.”

Slashes congressionally approved pay raise for federal workers

President George W. Bush on Aug. 27 announced his intention to limit next year's pay raises for federal workers to 2 percent, citing executive authority that allows the president to limit increases in times of “national emergency or serious economic conditions.” Since Bush took office, 3.2 million private-sector jobs have disappeared, unemployment hit its highest level in 10 years in June and the Bush administration has run up the highest federal deficit in history. Bush cut an automatic 2.7 percent raise for federal workers to a maximum of 2 percent—or as little as 1.5 percent—depending on locality. Two years ago, Bush restored cash bonus payments for 2,100 political appointees, eight years after the bonuses were eliminated because of abuse.

Charged Department of Health and Human Services for event expenses coinciding with campaign and fund-raising stops

The Bush administration has charged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) more than $252,000 for HHS events attended by President George W. Bush that coincided with Bush’s attendance at same-day rallies and campaign fund-raisers and for Republican candidates across the country, according to a report from the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Some $235,000 was charged to the Office of Administration for Children and Families, which runs the federal welfare program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). The other HHS offices charged were the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of Public Health and Science. The GAO report shows Bush attended 15 HHS events, with each covered by a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the White House and HHS regarding the amount Bush could charge to the department. As of May 2003, the Bush administration had collected $252,372 from HHS for eight of the events. According to the report, there is often a lag time between an event and the White House billing and the remaining seven events could cost HHS another $217,000. The events occurred between February 2002 and January 2003. In comparison, the GAO report found that former President Bill Clinton attended 37 HHS events between April 21, 1997, and Sept. 29, 2000, and HHS was charged just $101,000.

General Accounting Office

Backs cutting $270 million and 84,000 students from college grant program

The Bush administration’s Department of Education approved changes in the formula families use to determine if their college-bound students are eligible for financial assistance under the Federal Pell Grant Program. The changes, announced May 30, will rob 84,000 of aid and reduce financial help to hundreds of thousands of other students beginning in the 2004–2005 academic year, according to a memo from the Congressional Research Service. Education experts predict the impact of the changes will ripple into many state and university administered aid programs that base their eligibility formulas on the federal model, denying educational opportunity to even more students.

Doles out big bonuses to political appointees

Administration political appointees received $1.44 million in bonuses last year—even as the Bush administration sought to limit pay raises for federal workers, pushed for privatization of federal jobs and took away the bargaining rights of tens of thousands of federal employees. An Office of Personnel Management report lists 470 political appointees who got the bonuses—reviving a practice the Clinton administration halted eight years ago. At the same time, Bush originally proposed a 2.6 percent raise for federal employees for 2003—which Congress rejected and increased to 4.1 percent.

Threatens to veto labor appropriations bill if it includes ban on eliminating overtime

President George W. Bush on July 9 threatened to veto the fiscal year 2004 Labor and Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660) if it includes an amendment that would halt Bush’s plan to change federal overtime rules. The Bush administration is pushing for changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act that could eliminate overtime pay for as many as 8 million workers, according to an Economic Policy Institute study. The proposed House amendment would prohibit the U.S. Department of Labor from using funds to implement regulations cutting overtime pay. It also would enable the Labor Department to implement a regulation allowing additional workers to qualify for overtime. The amendment to the appropriations bill, offered by Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.) and David Obey (D-Wis.), is similar to a stand-alone bill introduced July 9 by Miller and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).

No longer requires employers to keep track of such injuries as carpal tunnel syndrome

The Bush administration’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) June 30 revoked a 2001 requirement that employers track workplace ergonomic injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome. The record-keeping rule, issued in 2001, required employers to check a box on standard workplace injury and illness logs if an injury was a musculoskeletal injury. The rule was designed to help employers, workers and OSHA identify and keep track of ergonomic injuries. Studies show nearly 2 million workers a year suffer from crippling musculoskeletal injuries. In 2001, Bush signed the repeal of the first nationwide ergonomics standard that would have required employers to control ergonomic hazards and given OSHA the power to enforce the standard. Bush claimed voluntary guidelines would better reduce ergonomic injuries.

Backs employer efforts to use taxpayer money for anti-union campaigns

The Bush administration’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is helping Big Business fight a California law that mandates accountability for the way state dollars are spent and requires state neutrality in worker organizing campaigns by banning the expenditure of state monies—pro-union or anti-union—in such campaigns. In 2000, the California legislature passed and Gov. Gray Davis (D) signed AB 1889, which prohibits employers from using taxpayer dollars to pay for employer-run campaigns to influence workers in their efforts to form or join a union. The law ensures the billions of dollars that flow to private employers each year through California grants and subsidies are used only for the purposes intended: public services and programs. In a 3-2 vote, the five-member NLRB voted May 29 to intervene in a federal court case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, taking a position that protects employers who want to use taxpayer money to subsidize their anti-union campaigns and which denies states the right to control their own spending authority. The NLRB’s purported justification for its action is that federal labor law pre-empts the California statute. This position by the NLRB is directly contrary to that taken by the U.S. Department of Justice in two recent cases, which argued that federal labor law does not pre-empt Bush administration restrictions on the use of federal funds. The AFL-CIO and the California Labor Federation filed briefs in support of the California statute last April.

Buried Treasury report that predicts huge deficits and need for tax hike

The Bush administration, when it sent its proposed budget to Congress in February, omitted a U.S. Treasury Department report that predicted huge deficits far beyond the administration’s projections. The study also said tax increases were needed to close the astonishing $44 trillion deficit the study predicted. Yet, Bush’s budget instead called for a $726 billion tax cut and projected a deficit of just above $200 billion. A May 29 report in the Financial Times revealed the study was commissioned by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who resigned under pressure in December.

Establishes system to privatize 850,000 federal jobs

The Bush administration on May 29 unveiled the details of its plan to ultimately eliminate federal jobs and contract out the work to private companies. The changes are in the rules that govern contracting out—OMB Circular A-76—and give private companies the advantage over federal workers in the private-public competition process, federal workers’ unions say. In November, the Bush administration announced its goal of putting 850,000 federal jobs up for bid, including at least 15 percent, or 127,500 jobs, by October 2003. Administration officials reaffirmed that goal in their latest announcement. Last year, Bush demanded and won legislation allowing it eventually to unilaterally cancel the collective bargaining rights of 170,000 workers as part of the bill creating the Homeland Security Department. In January, the Bush administration took away the right of 60,000 airport screeners in the Transportation Security Administration to join a union.

The Bush administration halted efforts to establish workplace health rules protecting workers and patients from exposure to tuberculosis. On May 27, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) withdrew a proposed TB rule from its regulatory agenda. In 1997, OSHA published a proposed tuberculosis rule and in 1998 and 1999, held hearings and took comments. After the Bush administration came into office, OSHA reopened the comment period on the rule in 2002, but its newest move halts further action on the rule. The proposed rule would have established procedures to prevent and limit the spread of the infectious airborne disease. Health experts say the TB rule also would help guard against airborne diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In 1997, OSHA estimated the new rule would help protect an estimated 5.3 million workers in more than 100,000 hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional facilities, homeless shelters and other work settings with a significant risk of TB infections. It did not offer an estimate of how many millions of patients, residents, prisoners and others in those settings also would be protected.

Proposes to end federal low-income housing program for 2 million families

The Bush administration proposed legislation April 29 to end a federal, low-income housing assistance program that helps some 2 million families afford modest housing. The Section 8 housing voucher program provides low-income working families, the disabled, retirees and families on assistance with vouchers. Those vouchers, given to private landlords, effectively limit a family’s housing cost to 30 percent of its income. The Bush administration proposal would rename the voucher program Housing Assistance for Needy Families and convert it into a block grant for states to administer with few federal guidelines and no guarantee the annual funding would cover the costs to provide needed housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 53 percent of voucher holders are families with children, 40 percent are seniors or people with disabilities and only one in five receives welfare benefits.

Proposes to eliminate civil service protections for Department of Defense workers

The Bush administration has developed legislation that would enable the Defense Department to gut the current personnel system that governs the department workers’ pay, salary increases, hiring, firing, job classifications, performance evaluations, due process and appeal rights, reduction in force rules and many other federal workplace rules. In all, the proposal would allow the department to waive a dozen chapters of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which covers government organization and federal employment. It would allow the department to create an entirely new personnel system that could eliminate congressional oversight of many personnel policies, strip workers and their unions of current workplace rights and place much more personnel decision making power in the unchecked hands of supervisors.

Proposes new rules to deny Earned Income Tax Credit to working poor

The Bush administration wants to require working poor families to submit extensive new documentation to prove their eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Supported by President Reagan, the EITC provides a crucial safety net for low-income working families. To be eligible for EITC, a family cannot have an income above $34,692 and the actual amount of the credit varies depending on family size and income. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims the new rules are designed to prevent between $6.5 billion and $10 billion in improper EITC payments, but tax experts say that the documentation requirements are likely to discourage many eligible families from applying for EITC. In addition, studies show improper payments to non-EITC individual filers amount to $132 billion plus another $70 billion to offshore corporate accounts and $46 billion for corporations. But while Bush requested some $100 million and 650 new IRS employees to track EITC filers, other tax investigations have fallen by 37 percent and prosecutions by 50 percent.

Proposes rule to end overtime pay for millions of workers

The Bush administration proposed new rules March 27 that would deny overtime pay protections for millions of workers. The changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations would affect a wide range of the more than 80 million workers protected by the FLSA. The proposed rules would enable employers to reclassify many workers currently eligible for overtime as managers, administrative or professional employees who are exempt from time-and-a-half overtime. They eliminate overtime protection for large numbers of aerospace, health care, defense, high tech and other workers and also for workers above a certain income level. While the rules raise the income ceiling for some low-income workers to automatically qualify for overtime, many low-income workers would remain uncovered by that automatic protection, and the new rules propose confusing standards on whether low-income supervisors qualify for overtime protection.

Backs bankruptcy bill that will hurt working families

The Bush administration backs an anti-family bankruptcy proposal that te U.S. House of Representatives passed 315–113 March 19. The measure includes a loophole that allows wealthy debtors in five states to shelter income in luxury homes and strips working families of the few financial protections they currently have under bankruptcy law and makes it harder for them to make a financial fresh start. It also forces those owed child support from someone who has declared bankruptcy to compete with other creditors for whatever money is available. Ninety percent of individuals who resort to bankruptcy have come to the financial crisis because of job loss, medical emergency, divorce or other catastrophic event, according to the nonpartisan American Bankruptcy Institute.

Denies airline workers due process in security assessments

The Bush administration issued new rules Jan. 24 that allow the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Aviation Administration to revoke an aviation worker’s certification without basic due process protections. The new rule was issued and took effect without any public comment period. It allows the government to revoke or deny needed federal certification for pilots, mechanics, flight instructors and other aviation workers if the government—under secretive and arbitrary procedures—concludes a worker is a “security threat.” The rule denies an employee the right to an impartial review of the facts and does not require workers be shown the evidence or be told the specific reasons behind a security-risk finding.

Delays new and stronger aircraft maintenance and repair rules

The Bush administration delayed new rules governing repair and maintenance work performed on U.S. airlines’ aircraft at overseas repair stations certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The March 14 action, just days before the start of a war with Iraq and amid growing concern about terrorism and security, came at the request of the airline industry and is opposed by aviation unions and aviation safety groups. In 1988, many U.S. airlines began contracting out their routine maintenance and repair work on aircraft that fly domestic and international routes when the Reagan administration watered down repair station safety regulations. Previously, most work was performed by U.S. mechanics at U.S. repair stations. The new rules, which were to be implemented April 6, would have strengthened the repair and maintenance regulations and requirements for overseas repairs stations to receive and maintain their FAA certification.

Seeking legislation to thwart Medicare appeals when benefits are denied

Bush administration officials are drafting legislation to make it harder for Medicare recipients to appeal the denial of benefits such as home health care and nursing home care. Under current law, beneficiaries who say they were unfairly denied coverage for theses services can take their cases to administrative law judges. In the past five years, about 53 percent of those appealing won their cases, according to The New York Times. But Bush administration officials at the Department of Health and Human Services want other means to resolve the appeals—avenues that may unfairly tilt the scales against the people with disabilities and the elderly who qualify for Medicare. “The president’s proposals would compromise the independence of administrative law judges, who have protected beneficiaries in case after case, year after year,” Judith Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, told The New York Times March 16.

Negotiated 'Fast Track' trade agreements weaker than existing treaties on workers' rights

Armed with Fast Track trade promotion authority, the Bush administration is moving rapidly to rack up as many so-called free trade agreements as possible. The administration negotiated the first two agreements under Fast Track—deals with Chile and Singapore—in secret and said in February it is not releasing the details to the public until later this year. The deals will go to Congress later this year, and under Fast Track the lawmakers cannot amend the deals and can only approve or reject them as a whole.

Proposed school vouchers

In his fiscal year 2004 budget request, President Bush is asking for $75 million for school voucher programs in several cities, including the District of Columbia. District Mayor Anthony Williams met in early February with top Bush administration education officials to express his opposition to vouchers, which siphon public funds away from public schools and toward private schools that are not accountable to parents, students or taxpayers. The proposed vouchers program would further drain funding from public education at the same time that Bush wants to virtually freeze federal funding to school programs suffering because of state and local governments’ budget crises. Bush’s proposed education “funding levels are unacceptably low,” says the Committee for Education Funding (CEF), a coalition of groups supporting public schools.

Proposed cutting school funds for military

At the same time he is relying on American troops to fight a war in Iraq, President Bush is proposing to cut education funding for children in military families, according to news reports in late February. In his fiscal year 2004 budget request, Bush cuts federal impact aid funding—a federal program established in 1950 to compensate school districts for the property tax income they lose when tax-exempt property (such as military bases) are within their boundaries. Ending the $125 million program would affect 900,000 children, and officials of several school districts have said they would have to cut staff and defer needed building repairs. “I just can’t understand how, at a time when our military men and women are being deployed for a possible war with Iraq, this administration can turn its back on the children of our military personnel.[/quote]

I had to quote this just to amuse myself by quoting one of the longest posts I have ever seen.

I still believe both candidates and both parties suck. If u think either of them is doing this for truly altruistic reasons, you are, as Bugs Bunny says "a real maroon." Its all about power, and both parties could care less about you, the individual, the person, the tax payer.

Bill Clinton bombed Osama and Bush did to. Only 1 of them actually effected change, and only one of them seems to have given a shit that people were getting their ears and hands cut off as criminal punishment (Afghanistan), and that maybe rape as punishment for crime (Iraq) is wrong, or that just maybe using chemical weapons to wipeout tens of thousands of people might just be a little wrong. We turned a blind eye to Hitler for a real long time and got hit by Pearl Harbor. We turned a blind eye to the Mid-East and got 9-11. And Bush's eyes were far more blind to the Mid-East than Clinton. Even if Clinton was an embarrassment, he had a hint of the danger we faced, a danger that "W" ignored.

If u think the US exiting the Middle East will make things better, u are deluding yourself. They want you, your mom, your girlfriend, and your unborn son dead.

One last thing I would like to point out, is that the International Community as a whole "did" in fact support the US's incursion into Iraq, that is why there are so many multi-nationals in Iraq right now -- of our allies, only Germany and France opposed us. Russia and China are not our allies, despite the pretense of friendship that exists between Bush and Putin.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='GuilewasNK']The ONLY thing that Kerry hasn't wavered on is that he will patch up our friendship with Germany and France. What the hell will that accomplish? It certainly won't help against terrorism because they won't lift a finger. It won't help out our economy. It won't help health care.

I can hear Al Franken in the background....

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it France and Germany like me!"[/quote]

Yeah, better relations with long-time allies and trading partners - that won't help us at all. [tons o' sarcasm][/quote]

From the CIA factbook...

US Exports partners...

Canada 23.2%, Mexico 14.1%, Japan 7.4%, UK 4.8%

US Imports Partners....

Canada 17.8%, Mexico 11.3%, China 11.1%, Japan 10.4%, Germany 5.3%

Yeah, that was really a big deal with Germany's 5.3% and all.

Oh yeah, that war in Iraq was about oil too. That why the prices have gone down so much. *Sarcasm 5000*[/quote]

Yeah the way the economy is right now, I would consider 5.3% a big deal.

BTW, I just noticed that you're from Collinsville. I'm in Ridgeway. So close geographically, so far apart politically...
 
Yeah the way the economy is right now, I would consider 5.3% a big deal.

BTW, I just noticed that you're from Collinsville. I'm in Ridgeway. So close geographically, so far apart politically...
Click to expand...

Hey man! Although I disagree with you it is good to see another CAG close by!

Like I said, even though Germany and France opposed us, business was still being done between our countries. The only things that need repair are some bruised egos (admittedly on both sides). Bush probably thought he could get them to support us and felt slighted when they didn't.

Although I agree with Bush I was very disappointed with how some of the people in this country acted. Calling French fries "Freedom Fries "was the stupidest thing I ever saw. Some French boycotted American businesses and that was wrong too. The whole thing is that the problems were with each others governments and not the civilian populations. That disappointed me more than anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top