Covering the political, economic and social issues of the day and answering the call to "begin again the work of remaking America". Don't be afraid of the news, do something about it. Stay Informed, Feel Empowered and Get involved.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Tuesday vetoed legislation that would have cut Medicare reimbursements to insurers and blocked a scheduled pay cut for doctors who treat patients under the government's health program for the elderly."
Bush argued the $13 billion in reimbursement cuts to insurers, such as United HealthCare Group Inc. and Aetna Inc., would reduce plan choices for seniors.
"I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong. This bill is objectionable, and I am vetoing it," Bush said in a statement to the House of Representatives.
The House and Senate are expected to act quickly on an override and Democratic leaders believe they have the votes to overrule Bush.
What is truly objectionable is the idea that insurance companies should continue to rake in billions from Medicare while physicians are turning away patients whose only coverage is via Medicare because their reimbursement for services will be reduced.
"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market"
If the Bush Administration has faltered in its efforts to bring "democracy" to the Middle East, it has certainly succeeded in exporting its brand of capitalism to Saudi Arabia. When it comes to oil, Saudi Arabia gets an A+ in understanding "supply and demand", "market forces", and "business friendships."
For decades, Saudi Arabia worked with its dominant customer, the United States, to keep world oil markets stable and advance common political goals.
But the surging price of oil, which soared more than $10 a barrel Friday to a record-high $138.54, has made it plain that those days are over. New forces, including a weak dollar and an oil-thirsty Asia, have blunted the United States' leverage and helped sour the two countries' relationship.
As gasoline prices have risen, the White House has unsuccessfully exhorted the Saudis to step up production, and Congress has threatened retaliation. But the situation now is a far cry from the days when the U.S. economy dominated the direction of the petroleum market.
"That gave us leverage," said Greg Priddy, an oil analyst at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk assessment firm. "There's certainly a perception that the power equation has changed."
The weakening of the economic relationship comes when the vital U.S.-Saudi security relationship also has been fraying.
In the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi bond that kept oil prices low was credited with helping weaken the Soviet Union during the waning days of the Cold War. And it helped keep markets stable after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
But the Saudi government has been dismayed by the consequences of the war in Iraq and by what it sees as a weak Bush administration commitment to the Palestinians.
The relationship is shaping up as a political issue for the fall campaign, certainly among congressional candidates and perhaps among presidential candidates.
With a 20-million-barrel-per-day habit, the U.S. remains the world's largest oil customer, even though its daily consumption over the years has dropped from one-third of total daily production to one-fourth.
But the U.S. can no longer guarantee on its own that producers will have the markets they need for their oil. Nor can the Saudis, alone, ramp up production in sufficient amounts to stabilize prices.
China and other Asian nations now use about 17 million barrels a day. That's up more than 20% since 2003, and booming growth is expected to continue.
With the shift in buying power, the Saudis are cultivating important Chinese customers, analysts say. Saudi Arabia recently contributed $50 million for Chinese earthquake relief, and King Abdullah has visited China.
The US national debt now stands in excess of 9.4 trillion dollars.
It has been projected that the final costs of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars will exceed $3 trillion. The Christian Science Monitor recently reported:
"The cost is going up every month," says Linda Bilmes, an expert at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. She estimates the short-term, "running cost" has reached $12.5 billion a month. That's up from $4.4 billion a month in 2003. Add in long-term factors, such as the care of veterans and interest on federal debt incurred as a result of the war, and the cost piles up to $25 billion a month nowadays."
Yet, two days ago, The Federal Reserve announced a rescue package for banks and investment houses that would provide approximately $200 billion using at risk home-loan packages as collateral.
Earlier today Reuters reported that "JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Friday agreed to provide emergency financing to Bear Stearns (BSC.N) after the investment bank said its cash position had deteriorated sharply, sending its shares into freefall."
In addition, the US Treasury department estimates that beginning in May they will send out approximately $167 billion to approx 130 million US taxpayers as part of an "economic stimulus" package.
Can anyone tell me where all of this money is coming from?
Where does The Federal Reserve get it's money?
Are those taxpayer dollars?
And why if The Fed has $367 billion plus at their disposal the United States has delayed investing in: healthcare, infrastructure, education, medical care and body armor for us troops, etc, etc.?
Earlier today, during a speech to the Economic Club President Bush praised the efforts of the Federal Reserve in trying to stave off a recession. He also did his best to weave in the topics of the Iraq war and telecom immunity.
But I have to ask again, if the US has $367 billion plus at its disposal then why are US service men and women in Iraq & Afghanistan becoming ill from unsafe drinking water supplied by war contractors like Haliburton and KBR.
The following video was posted to YouTube May 25th, 2007
Of course during his speech, President Bush made a point of saying that "The Fed" functions independently of the White House.
Well let's look at that statement.
According to Wikipedia:
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system composed of :
(3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors;
(4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils..
So, in essence, "The Fed" is comrprised of presidential appointees in bed with the banks in order to serve the interests of the banks, not the United States and its people.
Most of the Shortfall Will Hit Peacekeeping Missions in Africa By JUSTIN ROOD
Feb. 12, 2008—
On the eve of President Bush's trip to Africa, his administration has decided to drastically cut money for United Nations peacekeeping missions in war-torn countries there.
According to White House figures quietly released this week, more than $193 million for U.N. troops would be cut for missions in Liberia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire and elsewhere. A State Department official who would not be named confirmed to ABC News Monday that the cuts could be even worse.
For the record, State Department officials disputed cuts would be as deep as what the administration's documents showed.
"We don't yet know what the overall [funding] figure is for 2009," said State Department spokeswoman Jessica Simon. Though its official budget says funding will be cut, the administration may ask Congress for more money through a supplemental bill later this year, she explained.
"America's reputation and standing are not helped when we call and vote for -- but don't pay our fair share of -- new and bigger U.N. peacekeeping operations in places like Darfur and Chad," Deborah Derrick, executive director of the Better World Campaign, told ABC News. "Great nations pay their bills."
Derrick's group and others say the administration's figures understate the cuts. Because the United States has already been underfunding U.N. peacekeeping operations, next year's belt-tightening will actually mean the U.S. government will fail to pay more than $600 million it will owe.
More than $500 million of that shortfall will hit peacekeeping projects on the African continent, according to BWC and Refugees International, which conducted the study.
But privately, a State Department official said that no one could say whether there would be peacekeeping money included in any supplemental, and added that if spending this year increases, the shortfall in next year's spending could appear even more dramatic.
The U.N. did not respond to a request for comment.
Year after year, the United States has failed to pay its assessed share of dues for U.N. peacekeeping efforts -- so-called "blue-helmet" missions to pacify hotspots that might otherwise require U.S. military intervention, as politicians from both parties have noted. Total arrears are now nearly $1.2 billion, the advocacy groups said.
News of the proposed cuts come at an inconvenient time for the White House, which is preparing for a rare seven-day trip to Africa beginning Friday. In preparation for the visit, White House officials have presented the image that, as one unnamed official recently told a reporter, "The president really cares about Africa."
The hedge fund that has profited most from the bursting of the US housing bubble has hired the man widely blamed for inflating it in the first place: former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan.
Paulson & Co, the New York-based hedge-fund manager whose bets against the US mortgage market earned it $15bn (£7.6bn) last year, said yesterday that Mr Greenspan will become an adviser on economic issues and monetary policy.
It is the third major advisory role taken by Mr Greenspan since his retirement two years ago. He already works for Deutsche Bank and the bond investment house Pimco, but this latest position is his most eye-catching, considering Mr Greenspan has been blamed for sowing the seeds of the current credit crisis by keeping interest rates too low for too long in the early years of the decade. Inflated house prices in many parts of the US are now coming down sharply and mortgage defaults are rising, sending shockwaves through the financial markets where mortgage derivatives are traded.
It was bets against mortgage derivatives that pushed Paulson & Co funds up last year and netted its founder, John Paulson, a personal pay-day of between $3bn and $4bn. His funds are continuing to place bearish bets on other areas of the financial markets, most notably corporate debt, in the expectation of a US recession this year. Mr Greenspan, too, now believes a recession is likely.
"Anticipating the direction of the economy, and assessing the potential for and severity of a US recession, are fundamental in formulating investment strategy," Mr Paulson said. "Mr Greenspan's [experience]... gives him a unique perspective from which to help our team."
As Bush visits the kingdom, his administration formally unveils the planned sale, which Congress has the authority to block.
By James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 15, 2008
RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA -- President Bush began two days of talks with Saudi leaders Monday as his administration sent formal notice to Congress of a controversial U.S. sale of "smart bomb" technology to this desert kingdom.
The visit here with Saudi King Abdullah is one of the most diplomatically challenging stops of the president's six-nation passage across the Middle East. Bush is pressing the Saudis to support both peacemaking efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians and U.S. moves to limit Iran's influence in the region.
Bush said early today that he would bring up the subject of high oil prices in his meeting with Abdullah.
"Oil prices are very high, which is tough on our economy," he told a group of Saudi entrepreneurs during a meeting at the U.S. Embassy.
The arms technology is part of a broad program announced in July that eventually could transfer an estimated $20 billion worth of military hardware to six Persian Gulf nations. The effort, along with arms sales to Israel and Egypt, is intended in part to help U.S. allies offset Iran's military power and political clout in the region.
The most controversial element of the sales is the offer to the Saudis of Joint Direct Attack Munitions, technology that allows standard weapons to be converted into precision-guided bombs. The deal envisions the transfer to Saudi forces of 900 upgrade kits worth about $120 million.
Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain -- Zeitgeist The Movie, Part III
post title corrected 1/16/08 12:25pm ESt At 3am it's important to proofread :-)
With little over a year to go in his presidency, it seems clear to many administration watchers that George W. Bush is desperately trying to redefine his legacy. Sadly, it's just too late to redefine a presidency that has not only tarnished the Bush legacy but torn at the very heart and soul of America.
In his blog "We The People", Charles Amico listed the many things for which the Bush Administration will likely be remembered. It's not a pleasant read. There is a reoccurring theme throughout. The Bush administration will probably be best known for it's repeated disregard for the Constitution and the will of the American people.
History will be the ultimate decider.
plk
excerpt from: Bush Isn't The Only Decider By Bruce Ackerman Despite the show at Annapolis, this week's main diplomatic initiative has concerned Iraq, not Israel.
Without any fanfare, the Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki announced that the United States and Iraq will begin negotiating a long-term agreement that will set the terms of Washington's Iraq policy for "coming generations."
President Bush is again in legacy mode.
Douglas Lute, explained that the administration intends to reach a final agreement between the two countries by July 31, 2008.
In describing the negotiations, he made a remarkable suggestion: Only the Iraqi parliament, not the U.S. Congress, needs to formally approve the agreement.
American presidents do have unilateral authority to make foreign agreements on minor matters.
But the Constitution requires congressional approval before the nation can commit itself to the sweeping political, economic and military relationship contemplated by the "declaration of principles" signed by Bush and Maliki to kick off the negotiations.
But there is no constitutional provision or precedent authorizing this new form of Bush unilateralism.
To the contrary, presidential practice has been regulated by State Department guidelines set down in 1955.
These principles emphasize the need for congressional approval when an agreement "involves commitment or risks affecting the nation" and when it requires "the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress."
If such guarantees don't require congressional consent, the constitutional separation of powers is at an end.
The Constitution insists that Congress must get into the act before we make sweeping commitments in the name of the nation.
Posts
