Breaking News: Rich Get Richer, Pay Fewer Taxes

This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the politics of taxation.

IRS: Rich Paying Less In Taxes

The Associated Press

The nation's richest people paid a lower proportion of their income in federal taxes in 2000 than in 1992, new government figures show.

New figures from the Internal Revenue Service, released Wednesday, show that the adjusted gross income of the country's top 400 taxpayers totaled almost $70 billion in 2000, for an average of $173.9 million. The richest 400 in 1992 accumulated just under $19 billion, for an average of only $46.8 million.

Over the nine-year period, the minimum adjusted gross income to get on the top 400 list more than tripled, from $24.4 million to $86.8 million.

In 2000, the 400 paid 22.3 percent of their income to federal income taxes, down from 26.4 percent in 1992.

The richest 400 made 1.09 percent of U.S. income in 2000, more than double the percentage in 1992, when they accounted for just 0.52 percent, the IRS said.

George W. Bush says he needs $200 million to get elected in 2004 - twice what he spent in 2000. (I would say "reelected," but that wouldn't be accurate now, would it?) How much money will America's richest 400 give to the Bush campaign? As much as they have to.

I'd like to meet the Newsday readers who answered yes to the question: "Is the US tax system fair to taxpayers at all income levels?"

What's on your ballot?

Why we must demand paper audit trails to have valid elections

Just as the attacks of 9/11 allowed the right-wing to implement a more extreme agenda than anyone would have otherwise let them get away with, the debacle of the 2000 elections has allowed them to hijack the election process itself, without a peep of protest.

When you have a guy in office who lost the election by half a million votes and who only "won" after gross election irregularities in the state where his brother was governor and the election supervisor was his campaign chairperson, you have to expect a certain amount of hindsight adjustment.

"Hanging chads" weren't the problem in 2000.  It was Florida's inability to conduct a legitimate election upon which the national results hinged.  The chads became the symbol of the evidence of this incompetence.  So, instead of addressing the problem, they have worked to remove the evidence. 

Florida "fixed" its election process by purchasing electronic voting machines.  Most of the machines used in Florida were purchased from the company that owns the monopoly on voting machines (as well as the vote counting machines) in Nebraska - ES&S (Election Systems & Software). ES&S was owned by Chuck Hagel until he decided to run for office himself.  He sold the company to Michael McCarthy's AIS (American Information Systems) and then ran for Senator (with McCarthy as his campaign treasurer). This is the "fix" he sold to Florida.

Even if you can get over the incredibly obvious conflict of interest, there are some technical irregularities you simply can't ignore.   Little things like control of the code that runs the machines, the presence of internal modems, accountability of the machines themselves, unsecured vote counting, and the lack of any sort of paper audit trail  - all these are real issues and valid security considerations that are not being addressed. 

Now add money to the mixture. Campaign funding, kickbacks, contract awarding, foreign involvement in and  ownership of companies.

"But what about the exit polls?" you ask.  What exit polls? Voter News Service announced the day before mid-term elections in 2002 that it wasn't going to do them anymore. 

So here you have Republican companies selling Republican officials the very machines that will get them elected.  You can't see the code, you can't watch the counting process, you have to trust the election officials not to have ghost machines out there, you don't even get a paper printout of your own vote, there are no independent sources to compare against, and you can't challenge the results after the fact because there is nothing left to investigate.

So what can you do?

1) Investigate NOW.  Find copies of your state's election laws.  Most states have amendments to existing laws to address the new presence of voting machines. 

2)  Find out the following:

  a)  Who makes purchasing decisions for election equipment in your _____ (district, county, precinct, parish, state)?

  b)  Who is manufacturing the machines used in your district?  Who owns the company?  Where else has that company sold machines?  What kind of results have they seen?

  c)  What does your state law say regarding the control of electronic voting machines?  Who reviews the programs running the machines?  Who approves the vendors or machines for quality and security? 

  d)  What does your state law say about physical control?  Where are the machines programmed?  Can they be reprogrammed once deployed?  Who can reprogram them?  Who services the machines in the field? 
What kind of training is required for them?  What reporting do they do when they work on machines in the field, and to whom?

3)  Find out who your (district/county) election supervisor is, who he or she is accountable to, and how he or she was selected.

4)  Volunteer.  Find out how you can become an election monitor, counting supervisor, or poll worker. Get a part-time or volunteer gig installing the machines for the company.  See if you can get certified to service the machines or provide security for the polls and counting.

5)  Contact Jimmy Carter and see if you can get his group to monitor your elections. 

6) Proactively verify your voting status.  Don't risk getting turned away on election day because of some bogus technicality that they'll tell you to clear up after the election.  Don't let that happen to others.

7)  Let them know that you are watching  and that you will hold them accountable.

Bush Tax Cuts Aim to Defund US Government

Thomas Frank remarked on Public Radio's Marketplace last week:

"The reason the administration wants to do away with dividend, estate and other taxes is to de-fund the government: to pull the rug out from under the New Deal social order once and for all," says Frank. The goal is not to jump-start consumer spending, he says, but to "throw a wrench into the works of this despised institution."

I've long suspected the same thing myself. You may recall that I posted excerpts from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's interview with Jim Lehrer suggesting the real motivation for Republican tax cuts.

Not much has been made of this in the press and what little attention there has been tends to focus on the fact that the cuts almost exclusively benefit the wealthy. That doesn't seem to bother the average American too much. As unbelievable as it sounds, that's not even the worst of it. A few bloggers picked up on the story and the long-term implications of Bush's third round of cuts.

You don't have to read too far between the lines to realize that what is happening here is a fundamental restructuring of the federal government so that it is incapable of providing for the middle and lower classes or effectively policing itself against the abuse of industry. As devastating, it will exacerbate the already alarming divide between the rich and poor which today leaves us a divided nation of haves and have-nots. We are the richest nation on Earth, if not the richest nation in history and yet we have a health care system that fails over 20 million of our citizens, an education system that is partially funded by state-sponsored gambling, over 1.35 million of our children living on the street, one out of every 147 residents housed in prisons, a minimum wage so low that working full-time still lands you below the poverty line, and the largest, most destructive military ever assembled.

Another blogger quotes Bill Clinton, who had these sage words about Bush's tax cuts:

"The real reason for the tax cuts and their particular design in 2001 and 2003 was ideological, almost theological, the notion that we're all just put upon by this onerous government of ours taking our hard earned money away and that there's no such thing as a bad tax cut and no such thing as a good spending program unless it lays concrete or builds a missile. These tax cuts are too small in the short run to do any good and way too big in the long run to avoid serious harm."

This blogger dishes a juicy quote from Frank's piece in Harper's:

One of the reasons the Bush people love tax cuts is that tax cuts defund government - but gradually and indirectly, allowing plenty of time for blame evasion later. Although it may not look like much now, this tax cut is a time bomb planted in the heart of activist government: as it grows, the whopping giveaway to the rich will compel massive cuts in government spending somewhere down the road. Imagine as all the deficit-reduction battles of the early nineties are fought all over again, only with much greater stakes. Imagine the look of dawning desperation on those politicians' faces as they begin to understand Bush's masterful fait accompli. Like the U.N. delegates Bush has similarly outmaneuvered, they will vote and speechify in vain. The public will laugh at their impotence. And then will come the moment of hard truth. On whom will death set his fateful hand? Who will be defunded?" (38).

It might sound mildly hysterical or overly dramatic to say this, but assuming that nothing is done to reverse the conservative anti-tax tide, the United States in 2023 will be unrecognizable from the country as it exists today. Ultimately, I suppose that we get the government that we deserve, and in this case, that may not be much.

MoveOn.Org Interviews Democratic Presidential Candidates

See their responses on a variety of topics. The site has links to each candidate's letter to MoveOn, as well as links to their campaign site.

Topics

*  Peace (war, preemptive stikes)  *  Freedom (Patriot Act I and II, Ashcroft, Poindexter)  *  How to overcome the population's Bush-soma induced stupor  *  Truth  *  The role of government in social support systems  *  Energy  *  Environment

Candidates

*  Braun  *  Dean  *  Edwards  *  Gephardt 
*  Graham  *  Kerry  *  Kucinich  *  Sharpton 

While I have my favorite, I know I have to be aware of the positions of the others.  One of these people is going to get the nomination and run against Bush.  Whichever one it is, we need to know where they stand and be able to support them.

[Editor's note: While Senator Joe Lieberman did not respond to the MoveOn interview, he did submit a letter to MoveOn's 1.4 million members. MoveOn will be conducting an Internet primary from Tuesday, June 24th 12:00 am to Wednesday, June 25th 11:59 pm (Eastern time.) To participate in this historic event, register at MoveOn.org.]

Enquiring Minds Want to Know

Which is worse: a Democratic presidential candidate's son driving the getaway car in a failed country club alcohol heist, or a Republican president's twin daughters getting caught drinking underage and smoking pot with a young movie heartthrob?

Given the choice, which matters more to Republicans: spending $1 billion to improve military family housing or reducing a tax cut for "200,000 Americans who make over $1 million a year?" What if it meant that "these taxpayers would receive a cut of $83,546 this year instead of the $88,326 they are currently scheduled to receive?"

Which is better: an EPA report on global warming that aspires to scientific validity or policy consistency? What if it had included a reference to a study on the effects of global warming which was partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute?

Social Security Numbers For Sale: Cheap

In a move that infuriated some California lawmakers, The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) published "the first four digits of the social security numbers of California politicians who voted" against proposed privacy legislation today in the California Assembly Banking and Finance Committee.

FTCR purchased those social security numbers on the Internet for $26 as a demonstration of how at risk individuals' personal financial information is without new privacy protections.

In addition, FTCR also published on the Internet the first three digits of Governor [Gray] Davis's social security number because, although the governor declared support for the bill, Davis could force passage of the bill by using his personal influence with reluctant committee members or with the Speaker of the Assembly to appoint new committee members for the day if he chose to.

The eight legislators whose partial social security numbers were published were not amused by the strategy, which the San Francisco Chronicle called "extreme lobbying." Assemblyman Ed Chavez, D-La Puente (565-4X-XXXX) said:

"We should be free to vote our conscience and not be threatened or harassed if we choose to vote contrary to people who are lobbying for special legislation."

Chavez makes a good point. He was just voting his conscience by voting not to protect privacy. So what if the FTCR wants to raise his consciousness. He shouldn't be harassed for his stupidity, right? Oh, were it only stupidity that motivated these politicians ...

Oddly enough, Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, the chair of the Assembly Banking Committee, voted in favor of SB 1, but said the FTCR tactic "borders on extortion." Now there's a helluva idea! Maybe the FTCR could add a new digit each day that the bill is still not passed. That gives them until next Tuesday to come to their senses, stop acting like lackeys for the financial industry and start representing their constituents. For the record, the other legislators who opposed the bill were:

BOGH, RUSSELL VINCENT
CHERRY VALLEY, CA
550-6X-XXXX

CALDERON, RONALD S
MONTEBELLO, CA
546-2X-XXXX

HOUSTON, GUY S
SAN RAMON, CA
562-2X-XXX

LESLIE, TIM
PLEASANTON, CA
559-5X-XXXX

MONTANEZ, CINDY
SAN FERNANDO, CA
553-9X-XXXX

STRICKLAND, ANTHONY A
THOUSAND OAKS, CA
573-0X-XXXX

VARGAS, JUAN C
SAN DIEGO, CA
550-1X-XXXX

The committee could reconsider the bill as early as Monday.

Basic Talking Points:
A Political Terms Primer

liberal  adj. 1. Free by birth; hence, befitting a freeman or gentleman; refined; noble; independent; free; not servile or mean;  2. Bestowing in a large and noble way, as a freeman; generous; bounteous; open-handed; 3. Bestowed in a large way; hence, more than sufficient; abundant; bountiful; ample; profuse;   4. Not strict or rigorous; not confined or restricted to the literal sense; free; 5. Not narrow or contracted in mind; not selfish; enlarged in spirit; 6. Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the constitution or administration of government; having tendency toward democratic or republican, as distinguished from monarchical or aristocratic, forms.

conservative adj 1: resistant to change;  2: opposed to liberal reforms;  3: unimaginatively conventional.

[Editor's note: Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz to find out where you fall on the political map. Or if you have a few minutes, try the Political Compass.]

de·moc·ra·cy  n. 1.  Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.  2.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.  3. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

republic n.  1. Common weal. [Obs.]   2. A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth.

Note: In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves.

plu·toc·ra·cy    n.   1.  Government by the wealthy.  2.  A wealthy class that controls a government.  3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

ol·i·gar·chy  n.   1.  Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.  2. A state governed by a few persons.

monarchy  n.;  1. A state or government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a monarch.  2. A system of government in which the chief ruler is a monarch.

aristocracy  n 1: a privileged class holding hereditary titles;  2: the most powerful members of a society.

fas·cism   n. 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.  2.  A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

War Profiteers Card Deck

First there was the Pentagon's Iraqi Most Wanted "Deck of Death" playing cards, to help soldiers on the ground locate Iraqi leaders. Then there was the "Deck of Weasels", which replaced Iraqi officials with celebrities and others who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq. I've been looking for a liberal take on the playing cards idea, and now I've found it: the War Profiteers Card Deck.

For just $10, you too can make a donation to The Ruckus Society, "to support on-going campaigns against many of the evil-doers," which are: Amerada-Hess, American Petroleum Institute, John Ashcroft, Thorne G. Auchter, James A. Baker III, Glen A. Barton, The Bechtel Corporation, Boeing, BP, The Lord John Browne of Madingley, Daniel P. Burnham, George W. Bush, Jr., George H.W. Bush, Sr, Philip J. Carroll, Caterpillar, Inc., Red Caveney, Nicholas D. Chabraja, Richard Cheney, ChevronTexaco, Citigroup, Clear Channel, Vance D. Coffman, Philip M. Condit, George David, Ken Derr, Colonel Richard D. Downie, DynCorp, Export Credit Agencies, ExxonMobil, Jay Garner, General Dynamics, General Electric, Grace News Network, Halliburton, Jon Hemingway, The International Monetary Fund, Ray Irani, Zalmay Khalilzad, Thomas Kean, Kellogg, Brown & Root, Henry Kissinger, William Kristol, Lockheed Martin, Paul V. Lombardi, Joe Lopez, Lowry Mays, Military Professionals Resources Incorporated, Monsanto, K. Rupert Murdoch, Frank Murkowski, John Negroponte, News Corporation Ltd., Northrop Grumman, David Novak, Sam Nunn, Occidental Petroleum, David J. O'Reilly, Richard Perle, John Poindexter, Colin Powell, Project for a New American Century, Qualcomm, Thomas W. Rabaut, Lee Raymond, Raytheon, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Ridge, Donald Rumsfeld, George Schultz, General Brent Scowcroft, Shell Oil, USA, Stevedoring Services of America, Robert J. Stevens, Ronald Sugar, SY Coleman, United Defense Industries, United Technologies, Unocal, General Carl E. Vuono, Sanford Weill, Charles R. Williamson, Paul Wolfowitz, The World Bank Group, The World Trade Organization, Yum! Brands.

If you're looking for a laugh, spend some time at the Dubya Chronicles.

The Jessica Lynch Story:
Coming Soon to a Media Outlet Near You

In the scope of things, the choreographed "rescue" of Pfc. Jessica Lynch is a trivial matter. So what if the Pentagon wanted to make the most out of a bad situation, and create some good press back home during a time when the Iraqi invasion was stumbling? Why should we care that the corporate media took the bait that the Pentagon threw it, without critically reviewing the story, or questioning the circumstances under which the footage was shot and edited? It was a relatively small lie told for good reasons, more a fib really, just a made-up story for the benefit of the trusting masses. All in all, it shouldn't bother us much - especially since there are much bigger deceits lurking in the Bush administration.

Why should the case of Jessica Lynch be an issue at all? This is just the sort of propaganda we should expect from an administration that will say anything to manufacture consent and get what they want. I say it's just the tip of a very large iceberg, and there is hope that this story could focus the public's attention on the larger lies coming out of the Bush White House.

Many questions still linger: Where was the so-called liberal media when this happened? Why did it take the BBC to bring this story to our attention?

We may yet get the protagonist's side of the story, as there is currently a feeding frenzy among the networks to get the Jessica Lynch interview. To help land this huge post-war interview, Katie Couric sent Lynch " a bundle of patriotic books," while Diane Sawyer gave her "a locket with a photograph of Lynch's family home in Palestine, W.Va." CBS outdid them both.

"Attached you will find the outlines of a proposal that includes ideas from CBS News, CBS Entertainment, MTV networks and Simon & Schuster publishers," Betsy West, a CBS News senior vice president, wrote to Lynch's military representatives.

So much for the division between journalism and entertainment. If making a spectacle out of a spectacle means getting to the truth of the Jessica Lynch story, I'm all for it.

We Don't Need To Lie ...

... about our advantages.

You can tell the truth. We don't need to lie. Democrats ARE better for their health and well being, their kids education and their family budget, AND, Republican propaganda notwithstanding, our national security, stopping terrorism, and peace on earth.

... about their agenda.

No one should question the radical scope of the threat posed by this administration. It has given over large parts of its policy to the most extreme elements of the right.

Its judicial appointments are vetted by ideologues who seek right-wing activist judges who will strip the government of the authority to regulate corporations and protect workers, consumers and the environment. Its Justice Department is waging a continuous war on the right of women to control their own bodies, on affirmative action and civil rights.

Its foreign policy is driven by neoconservative zealots who openly proclaim the desire for an American Empire, in violation of our entire history, and who are willing to lie to the American people, even to the president, to pursue their ends.

And large parts of the rest are pure crony corruption: an energy policy for and by big oil, a prescription-drug plan cooked up with the drug companies.

... about their crony corruption.

GOP Whip Quietly Tried to Aid Big Donor
Provision Was Meant To Help Philip Morris

He said the provision was relevant to the homeland security bill because news reports last year showed that terrorist groups, such as the Lebanon-based Hezbollah, were profiting from the sale of contraband cigarettes.

... about the public interest.

The [FCC Order] Order actually makes a special effort to proclaim the Commission has no interest in the facts of particular cases since the new rules are the be-all and end-all of what's in the public interest. This implies the Order divined some sort of higher truth as to what works best in every case for the American people. It says we don't want to be bothered with facts that might point in another direction.

... about Homeland Security.

"I work on the Hill. The butane lighters were on the original list prepared by the FAA and sent to the White House for approval. The tobacco industry lobbied the Bush administration to have the lighters and matches removed from the banned list. Their customers (addicts) naturally are desperate to light up as soon as they land, and why should they be punished just so the skies can be safe?

And let's face it - it's just one small piece of the puzzle. It is, after all, just a 99-cent Bic lighter. But, friends, I have to tell you, over the years I have found that it is PRECISELY the "little stories" and the "minor details" that contain within them the LARGER truths. Perhaps my quest to find out why the freedom to be able to start a fire on board a plane-full of citizens is more important than yours or my life will be in vain. Or maybe, just maybe, it will be the beginning of the end of this corrupt, banal administration of con artists who shamelessly use the dead of that day in September as the cover to get away with anything.

I think it's time we all stood up and started asking some questions of these individuals. The bottom line: Anyone who would brazenly steal an election and insert themselves into OUR White House with zero mandate from The People is, frankly - sadly - capable of anything...

It's about time we start telling the truth, and demanding the truth from our leaders.

Deception and Distortion Flourish in the Bush Administration

Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Jobs and Growth Act. The Healthy Forest and Clear Skies Initiatives. The Jessica Lynch Rescue. It's hard to keep track of all of the deception and distortion coming out of the Bush White House.

In last week's Newsweek, Jane Bryant Quinn used the oft-quoted (at least lately) phrase, "Big Lies, repeated, often work." Quinn was writing about the lies that Bush's anti-Medicare, pro-privatization cronies are telling to advance their agenda: "Medicare is hopelessly bureaucratic.... Medicare costs more than private plans.... Private plans are always more efficient." She just as easily could have been talking about the Bush administration's statements on foreign policy, taxation and the environment.

And the Bush lies just keep piling up. Bush's War on Iraq has been over for two months now, but there is still no evidence of the weapons of mass destruction which supposedly justified the preemptive invasion. The Bush administration tries to spin this differently every day - it doesn't really matter ... Hussein removed them before they could be found ... Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made light of the failure to find WMDs by saying:

"We haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but no one's doubting that he was there," Rumsfeld said.

Anyone who was paying attention to Bush's "Jobs and Growth Act" tax cut package, which passed thanks to a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Dick Cheney, must realize that its the equivalent of Robin Hood in reverse - stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, i.e. kickbacks to Bush voters. And Bush had no problem lying about his tax cuts aims or intended benefits.

For example, the president has said that 91 million taxpayers will get an average tax cut of $1,126 this year. But averages are deceiving when a small share of the people receives most of the benefits. In this case, the 83 percent of American households will get less than that average - including 50 million households that receive no tax relief at all and another 24 million that can expect $100 or less - could judge it a failure, or at least a disappointment. The administration has also promised that the changes will create jobs, because 2 million small-business owners receive an "average tax cut" of $2,209 this year. Again, 83 percent of those with small-business income will receive much less - including more than one-third who get less than $100 - providing scant incentive or means to create jobs.

The names of Bush's policies against the environment might be funny, if they weren't so clearly deceitful. In a speech to the National Press Club last Thursday, former Republican and current Independent Senator Jim Jeffords issued:

a stinging indictment of the Bush administration on everything from the inflated claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to tax cuts for the rich and an environmental policy labeled "Clear Skies" that accelerates global warming. "What makes the actions of the Bush administration so troublesome is the lack of honesty," he concluded. "It amounts, in the end, to a pattern of deception and distortion."

And then there is the so-called "rescue" of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, which the US Government choreographed on April 1 (April Fools). This would be big news if a Democrat were President, or if Americans weren't so jaded. Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich called on the Defense Department to release the unedited footage of the "rescue," but no one is holding their breath for that to happen.

"Nothing the administration has said about Private Lynch has been verified by private news reports," the Ohio congressman said Tuesday. "It's time to find out the truth."

Is it just me, or does anyone else miss the petty equivocation of President Bill Clinton when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." The deception and lies put forth by President Bush on a weekly basis make Clinton's dalliances seem downright pedestrian by comparison. And as long as voters aren't really interested in the truth, the lies will only continue.

YOU BE THE JUDGE
"Thank you, your Honor. The prosecution would also like to insist that the defense defend their client NOT by attempting to dismiss the evidence, but rather by attempting to refute it.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in any criminal investigation, we look for two things - motive and opportunity. Did the suspect stand to gain from and was the suspect in the position to carry out the crime? The prosecution will show THROUGH A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, that George Bush and several accomplices possessed both the motive and the opportunity to commit these crimes."

The facts in this case are as follows:

FACT: In 1972, George Bush deserted the Texas Air National Guard. His accomplice in this desertion was a man named James Bath.
FACT: James Bath represented the interests of the bin Laden family, helping them invest in George Bush's oil company, Harken.
FACT: George Bush illegally sold his stock in Harken (while on the Board of Directors and the Audit Committee) and failed to report the sale for 10 months, prompting an investigation by the SEC.
FACT: A lawyer named Robert Jordan represented Bush in this investigation by the SEC, which, despite the fact that Bush Sr. was then Vice President, did not exonerate him.
FACT: Robert Jordan was appointed by Bush to be US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time of the attacks of September 11.
FACT: Robert Jordan, Bush's personal lawyer, is now representing the Saudi Royal family AGAINST the families of the victims of 9/11.
FACT: James Baker was Secretary of the Treasury during the Iran/Contra scandal as well as former Secretary of State. He is currently a senior advisor to the Carlyle Group.
FACT: James Baker represented Bush in the Supreme Court case after the election scandal of 2000, which ultimately allowed Bush to become President.
FACT: James Baker spent September 11 with members of the bin Laden family, and then helped facilitate their exodus from the U.S. after the attacks, allowing them to avoid questioning by the FBI.
FACT: James Baker is now representing the Saudi Royal family against the families of the the victims of 9/11 along with Robert Jordan.
FACT: Members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) expressed their desire to have a pre-emptive military role in the affairs of the Middle East. Critical to this initiative was "a Pearl Harbor-like catastrophe". These members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush.
FACT: Donald Rumsfeld delivered weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Husein and was instrumental in the sale of a nuclear reactor to North Korea.
FACT: Members of the PNAC were in the Bush administration at the time of the attacks and used the catastrophe as justification for pre-emptive military action in Iraq.
FACT: George Bush and his administration knew what attacks were being planned and when they were going to occur.
FACT: Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother, was responsible for the security of the World Trade Center, Dulles Airport, and United Airlines, all key players in the terrorist attacks.
FACT: After the attacks, Dick Cheney warned Congress NOT to investigate the attacks, promising future attacks if they did.
FACT: The administration has grossly underfunded the investigation of these attacks, effectively hampering any discovery of truth. In fact, the Republicans spent 20 times as much money investigating Bill Clinton as they have spent investigating the worst intelligence failure and the worst attack in US history ($60 million Vs. $3 million).
FACT: The administration has used the fear engendered by the attacks to consolidate executive power, coerce Congress to enact their extreme right-wing agenda, and to suppress any hint of criticism of Bush or his agenda.

The evidence shows that George Bush had incentive, motive, opportunity, and resources to perpetrate the terrorist attacks of September 11. Ladies and gentlemen, these are the facts, and the facts are indisputable.

Bush Failed to Prevent 9/11, Then Exploited It

Why hasn't there been a massive investigation into what the US intelligence community knew before 9/11, and why they failed to prevent it? By now we're all used to waiting in line at the airport, getting searched and taking our shoes off. But does anyone really feel safer? Why should we expect terrorists to attack the US in the same exact way as they did 21 months ago, using commercial aircraft as bombs? And how exactly does invading first Afghanistan, and then Iraq, address the root causes of terrorism which is directed against us?

The Project for a New American Century advocates using American force to exert authority on the world stage, and had long held designs on ousting Hussein, business which they felt had been left unfinished after the first Gulf war. This does not mean, however, that they had anything to do with orchestrating 9/11, and consequently launching the Bush administration's war on terrorism.

Last Sunday, in an interview on C-SPAN2's Book TV, Professor Noam Chomsy, MIT Linguistics Professor and Political Observer, responded to the popular theory that the White House let 9/11 happen as follows:

41:00

Host: Jacksonville, Florida, Good afternoon.

Caller: Hi. Professor Chomsky, it's an honor to speak to you, sir. I'd like to have you address the idea of 9/11 as like as a false flag, or a let it happen on purpose kind of situation. I mean it's not exactly unprecedented in American history, or world history for that matter. Especially given the Project for the American Century, where Paul Wolfowitz said that it would take like a Pearl Harbor-like attack on America to be able to implement their plans. Could you address that for me, please?

41:30

Chomsky: Well, I know that's a widely held belief. Frankly, I'm personally extremely skeptical about it. I don't think there's any likelihood that an action like that could have been planned. And I don't really think there are any historical precedents for it.

If the White House had been in anyway involved in planning this, it would have been an act of absolute madness on their part. For one thing, you could never tell what, where it was going to go. For another, it would certainly have leaked, and it's inconceivable that a plan of that nature wouldn't have leaked. And it just doesn't make any sense in my opinion. And I don't think the evidence is at all compelling, that there is.

You're quite right about the exploitation of it. When it happened, it was exploited. Not just in the United States, but all over the world. So for example the Russians were, exploited September 11th, as they saw it as a window of opportunity, to step up their really brutal repression and violence in Chechnya, claiming, presenting it as a struggle against terrorism, and expecting to get authorization from the United States, the world ruler, which indeed happened.

Israel used it as a window of opportunity to step up repression in the occupied territories, claiming it as a war against terror. China did the same in western China, with their carrying out, again, harsh, repressive activities against dissidents, sometimes rebel groups, again expecting US authorization, which they got.

All over the world, governments, including more democratic governments, used it as an opportunity to impose more discipline on their own populations. So yes, it was recognized throughout the world by state power as an opportunity to increase repressive actions that were underway, and to impose discipline, and so on, but that doesn't mean that all those countries planned it.

They just recognized it as a window of opportunity, and I think the same is true here.

43:50

Senators Bob Graham, Diane Feinstein, Joseph Leiberman and others have been calling for an investigation into the events leading up to 9/11, and why our intelligence failed to warn us, but the White House continues to play the secrecy game.

Why Didn't Jayson Blair Ever Push THIS As One Of His Stories?
NEW REPORT FINDS BUSH COMPLICIT IN 9/11 ATTACKS
A new report leaked today finds Bush "uniquely qualified and positioned to coordinate, facilitate, benefit from, and cover up" the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Senate debating impeachment proceedings.

To utter the unthinkable puts people's minds immediately on the defensive. Let us begin by considering that the unthinkable is not impossible.

The attacks of 9/11 were the best thing to happen to Bush. Before the attacks: he was a joke, with low approval ratings, and comments about his record number of vacation days. His involvement in Enron, Harken, and other corporate scandals was making headlines. After the attacks: consistent ratings, unchallenged and unprecedented consolidation of power, and comfortable insulation from criticism. Such a catastrophe had been requested by Bush's advisors within the Project for a New American Century. Bush was uniquely connected to commission the attacks, Bush selectively heeded or ignored the warnings, and he has since completely stifled any investigation of the attacks.

Members of the PNAC requested a catastrophe
"In other words, 9/11 turned out to be precisely the Pearl Harbor-like event that had been eerily predicted in the PNAC report of September 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.

In open letters to Clinton, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam. The group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.

The next morning - before it was even clear who was behind the attacks - Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism".

Bush uniquely connected to commission the attacks
Bush has a long family history of doing business with the bin Laden family.Robert Jordan, Bush's lawyer in the SEC investigation and current US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, along with James Baker (the man who was Bush's lawyer during the election of 2000) is currently representing the Saudi royal family AGAINST the families of the 9/11 victims.

Marvin Bush
George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

CIA and Bush Sr.
Adham has been "the CIA's principal liaison for the entire Middle East from the mid-1960's through 1979." He was also the head of intelligence for Saudi Arabia during the time George Bush Sr. was Director of the CIA.

bin Laden
Money connections between Bush Republicans and Osama bin Laden go way back and the political and economic connections have remained unbroken for 20 years.

Warnings Before The Attacks
For more than seven months FTW has been documenting specific warnings received by the U.S. government from both foreign intelligence services and, in one case, from Russian President Vladimir Putin, indicating commercial airliners were going to be used by terrorists to attack -- among other things -- the World Trade Center in the week of Sept. 9.

* Ashcroft
Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

Florida
How could Bush claim to have seen the first plane hit the first tower long before any such TV footage was broadcast? Why did Dubya continue sitting with elementary school students after the second tower was hit and he'd been told, 'America is under attack' , when standard procedure for such a situation is to whisk the president away to safety? Unless -- and here is the nub -- unless he knew something more than we did that morning. As the Independent asked, 'What television station was HE watching?'.

Reactions
James Baker was spending the day IN WASHINGTON WITH THE BIN LADEN FAMILY

Secretary of Treasury during Iran-Contra and the Chief of Staff during the Gulf War, James A. Baker now works as a lawyer and as Senior Counsel to The Carlyle Group, a Washington D.C. investment firm with extensive Saudi ties. James A. Baker watched the 9-11 attacks with the Bin Laden family and a former CIA director in Washington, D.C's Ritz-Carlton.

So Baker Botts, a law firm whose senior partner advises the nation on all matters of national security as well as a host of other spooky activities, is defending an individual and a kingdom that have been accused of being complicit in the funding of the attacks of the September 11th against the United States. But perhaps what is just as shocking to me is the allegation that the son of this SAME Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz was reportedly flown out of the United States when all other planes were grounded following the special orders of Bush's own father!-

His law firm, Baker & Botts, assists companies to get contracts for Caspian Sea oil. These require a pipeline through Afghanistan.

The Administration Continues to Stifle investigation
Vice President Richard Cheney called Senator Tom Daschle to insist there not be a Congressional investigation into apparent intelligence failures that lead to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The panel has until the end of May 2004 to complete its work, but it will spend the $3 million it was originally allotted by around August 2003 - if it doesn't get the supplement.

Unthinkable? Bush is the man who set a new record for killing people
Roughly one-third of all executions since 1976 have happened in Texas, and well more than half of those have taken place in the five years of Bush's term.

"On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your inferences. How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" - Sherlock Holmes

Tax Cuts on the Backs of the Poor means
More Tax Cuts for the Affluent

When Congress last week passed the final version of President Bush's second round of tax cuts for the rich, Republicans made a last minute decision to drop the $400-per-child tax credit for 6.5 million low-income families making between $10,500 and $26,625.

Senate Republicans were so anxious to get the $400 out right away that they called in Vice President Dick Cheney to help break the tie before Memorial Day, so the Treasury could start sending checks to 25 million households that qualified.

Apparently Republicans didn't want any checks sent to the poorest American families, perhaps because they can't be counted on to vote Republican, or because the last thing they want to do is somehow reward the poor for having children. Why else would they do such a callous thing? Aren't poor Americans just as likely, if not more likely, to spend their $400 right away, thereby stimulate the sagging economy?

If Republicans made a mistake, why not admit it? Well, because they didn't, as their actions this week prove.

While Democrats, led by Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, along with a handful of moderate Republicans are supporting a bill to give the $400 credit to the 6.5 million families who were left behind, Republicans have the gall to ask for more tax cuts, specifically by extending the child tax credit to married couples making between $110, 000 and $150,000.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said that he favored giving the credit to low-income families, but that many families at the higher end deserved it, too.

"They're middle-income families."

One has to wonder if Grassley honestly believes that. Why else would he say something so patently ridiculous?

Derrick Z. Jackson points out in yesterday's Boston Globe that:

All it would have taken to cover those families would have been $3.5 billion, a mere 1 percent of the tax cut. The poor were axed by politicians who did not want to take one drop out of the waterfall of welfare for the wealthy. Taxpayers who earn over $1 million will receive an average benefit of $93,500.

Has the Republican leadership always been this crass and selfish, serving the interests of the rich first, and the poor and middle class only as an afterthought, if at all? Maybe, but Jackson points out that Bush said some things about taxation early in his presidency that contradict his recent actions, to say the least.

"I don't think they [Republicans] ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor.... I'm concerned that someone who moves from near-poverty to middle class pays a higher rate on their income. I think we ought to make the tax code such that it's easier for people to move from near poverty to the middle class.''

''Too often my party has confused the need for limited government with a disdain for government itself.... There are human problems that persist in the shadow of affluence.''

Thanks to the latest round of tax cuts, and the continued cuts which are planned for as long as the Republicans control the White House and Congress, the human problems will only grow worse in the widening shadow of affluence.

FCC Votes for Media, Not Public Interest

Newsweek dismissed the relevance of rule changes approved at the FCC this week, calling it "Groundhog Day," i.e. "the more things change, the more they stay the same." Their argument is that media was once consolidated (remember the days of three TV networks?), so what if media becomes consolidated again? Newsweek argues that "big media companies will likely get some help from the FCC." Some help? If their bias wasn't blatant enough, Newsweek goes on to contend that consolidation opponents were unable to get support for their cause, totally ignorning comments made by Trent Lott, the NRA and others.

Protestors haven't been able to find enough evidence of abuses to marshal political opposition. If the big media companies are so threatening, why is AOL Time Warner doing such a bad job of making all its media properties work together? If concentrated ownership is so powerful, how did [Rupert] Murdoch come out of nowhere to challenge ABC, NBC and CBS? Media analyst Tom Wolzien is skeptical that the FCC ruling will lead to mass consolidation. 'I don't see any transformative deals happening from this.' These are just the new, old days of big media.

The question still remains: How did big media serve the public interest in the past and how will big media serve the public interest if they are allowed to get even bigger? The answer is that the Bush administration and the FCC couldn't care less about the public interest. Their concerns lie elsewhere, as the San Francisco Examiner pointed out:

FCC ignores public
Despite overwhelming opposition in public testimony
and letters,calls,e-mails and faxes,the Federal
Communications Commission on Monday voted 3-2
to allow greater media consolidation.
The move comes as local news and opinion have been
under economic assault that forces to put a chill of commu-
nity politics,among other ill effects.Groups as diverse as
the NRA and the ACLU had opposed the new rules,as did
media mogul Ted Turner,who said that growing consolida-
tion jeopardizes the future of independent businessmen.
The Senate should push ahead with a bi-partisan effort
to roll back the FCC 's action,comprehensible only in a
society that favors corporate interests over people.
That 's not America.

Unfortunately it is Bush's America. We just live in it.

FCC Vote More of the Same From Bush Team

Yesterday's FCC vote, which went 3-2 strictly along party lines, aims to further weaken media restrictions and may have been a crushing defeat for our democracy. Or it simply may underscore the widening ideological divide between Bush's wing of the Republican Party and the rest of America. While the president is still riding high on post-war popularity, there is a growing realization that his administration represents the interests of corporations and the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else, as evidenced by the FCC vote, Bush's tax cuts and environmental policy.

The president's second round of tax cuts are increasingly coming under fire for being geared towards the wealthiest Americans while ballooning his administration's already record deficits. Watching the debates leading up to the votes in the Senate and Congress, who would have thought that Goldwater's GOP would become the "borrow and spend" party, while the Democrats would carry the torch for fiscal responsibility?

Fiscally conservative Republicans like George Voinovich, Lincoln Chaffee and Olympia Stowe weren't able to keep the cuts from passing in the Senate, thanks to a few right-leaning Democrats voting the wrong way. It's now come to light that the child tax cut provision was rewritten at the last minute to exclude the poorest American families, earning between $10,500 and $26,625 per year. So much for compassionate conservatism.

The FCC decision was yet another example of the Bush administration choosing to act on behalf of corporations while ignoring strong public opposition to its stated goals. This is not an isolated incident. Most Americans opposed the invasion of Iraq without UN support, but Bush sent troops in anyway and we went along with it while he handed out contracts to his buddies at Halliburton and Bechtel. Most Americans want greater, not less environmental protection, but Bush continues to decimate 30 years of environmental protection (dating back to Nixon's signing into law the EPA), to the benefit of his friends in the timber, oil and mining industries.

While Michael Powell's FCC team advocated media deregulation in favor of "competition," the Democrats, as well as the National Rifle Association and Trent Lott among others in the Republican camp, spoke about maintaining current restrictions in support of democracy and the "public interest." Isn't the public interest what the FCC is supposed to serve? Apparently not in Bush's presidency.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps spoke for most Democrats when he said that the decision:

"empowers America's new media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the media on which our society and our democracy so heavily depend."

The Bush administration continues to weaken our democracy by giving more and more influence to the corporations which support his efforts - the FCC vote is just more of the same.