Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Actually Host if you paid attention to my posting history you would know that I am not for reducing government for reducing's sake.
I am an advocate of a social saftey net, universal health care, etc. If I were to advocate for any reductions it would only be in an effort to maintain cost efficiencies. Many government bureaucracies can become bloated with fat and can afford to be trimmed from time to time.
As for the Reagan and Bush Admin having intent... of course they have intent. They both ran on platforms of reducing government. The philosophies that sit at the heart of the neo conservative (or whatever they are being called today) agenda is to lower taxes and reduce the size of the government.
People like Karl Rove devote time to making sure that their message is absorbed by the populace at large. It's what selling your position means. It's how you get your agenda carried out.
Why would you be shocked to see that they did what they said they would do?
|
Charlatan, I didn't assume that you are favoring the Norquist/Reagan/Bush/Bush/Paul attitude about role and potential of government or methods for reducing it's size. I think that you're reaction to the damage that has been done by the current administration is too mild, but I wouldn't bet on it....
My frustration and protest is because of the huge amounts of money the Bushes and Reagan borrowed while the size of government grew, while it's effectiveness decreased. They profess to have had no faith in improving the effectiveness and benefits of government, but signed bills that had the consequence of increasing it's size, even as they lowered morale of government workers, via policy, criticism and cronyism.
They didn't attempt to hire the best people...political appointees committed to improving government, they hired like minded folks who also do not believe in the role of government as an instrument to mitigate wealth inequity and abuses like those of O'Neal of Merrill Lynch and Prince of Citicorp.
They reduced taxes of their financial backers, and left all of us with huge new treasury debt obligations, and some of us with the impression that "government doesn't work". It's an impression strong enought to cloud the improvements that were achieved in between the two Bush administrations, reduction of federal non-military employees by 300,000, and annual federal debt increase (see my last post...) from $346 billion in year ending 9/30/93, to $18 billion in year ending 9/30/00.
Dramatic achievements...discounted, downplayed, ignored by the "government doesn't work", let us "reduce it in size", deregulate what remains, and let the "free market" "grow us" into a Randian utopia.
The approach of the newly installed, 1981 Reagan administration, towards the Carter energy independence plan, and towards the Dept. of Energy, heavy on a shift towards privatiization and reductions of federal incentives and research subsidies, combined with appointments of like minded cronies with profit motivated conflicts of interest, is an example of the approach taken toward the entire government these last seven years, especially evident in the "no bid" military and state dept. contracts related to Iraq and Afghanistan:
Quote:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...rustrate-bush/
Senate holds another quickie session to frustrate Bush
WASHINGTON (CNN) — With the nation’s attention focused on Thanksgiving leftovers and bargain shopping, the Senate held another brief but significant session on Friday as part of a continuing effort to prevent President Bush from making unconfirmed “recess” appointments.
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota took on the task of gaveling the Senate in and out of session; the formalities lasted approximately 28 seconds and no other senators were present. Dorgan followed Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who presided over a similarly brief meeting on Tuesday. By not going into recess, Democrats can prevent President Bush from filling federal government posts without going through the confirmation process. Dorgan’s holiday plans were not disrupted; he told CNN he was happy to preside, as he had already planned to be on Capitol Hill on Friday for an appropriations meeting.
– CNN Contributor Jamie Gray
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WOWII/
Baghdad Bonanza
The Top 100 Private Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan
By Bill Buzenberg
KBR, Inc., the global engineering and construction giant, won more than $16 billion in U.S. government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004 to 2006—far more than any other company, according to a new analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. In fact, the total dollar value of contracts that went to KBR—which used to be known as Kellogg, Brown, and Root and until April 2007 was a subsidiary of Halliburton—was nearly nine times greater than those awarded to DynCorp International, a private security firm that is No. 2 on the Center's list of the top 100 recipients of Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction funds.
Another private security company, Blackwater USA, whose employees recently killed as many as 17 Iraqi civilians in what the Iraqi government alleges was an unprovoked attack, is 12th on the list of companies and joint ventures, with $485 million in contracts. (On November 14, the New York Times reported that FBI investigators have concluded that 14 of the 17 shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, and that Justice Department prosecutors are weighing whether to seek indictments.) First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting, which immediately precedes Blackwater on the Top 100, came under fire in July after a pair of whistleblowers told a House committee that the company essentially "kidnapped" low-paid foreign laborers brought in to help build the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad. First Kuwaiti and the U.S. State Department denied the charges.
Other key findings from the Center's analysis:
<h3>• Over the three years studied, more than $20 billion in contracts went to foreign companies whose identities—at least so far—are impossible to determine.</h3>
• Nearly a third of the companies and joint ventures on the Top 100 are based outside the United States. These foreign contractors, along with the $20 billion in contracts awarded to the unidentified companies, account for about 45 percent of all funds obligated to the Top 100....
|
They've conducted a slow motion coup that has looted our treasury and marginalized our bill or rights as effectively as if they had openly carried it out, the way Musharraf has in Pakistan, and the response from too many is "more privatization", less regulation, let "the free market" proceed!
Charlatan, I perceive that you are "on the fence", as far as what is playing out in the tug of war between the executive branch and a senate controlled, with the slimmest possible majority, by democrats (Lieberman I-CT) is the 51st vote, and he sides with the administration too often, so there is no clear democratic majority...)
<h3>You asked why there is no regulation or enforcement.</h3> It is because it has been thwarted at the highest levels. If Steven G. Bradbury can continue to serve illegally at DOJ, what does it say about the executive branch's commitment to "the rule of law"?
What would it take to "fire you up"? What could the administration of GW Bush do to truly offend your sensibilities? The 28 seconds long "session" in the Seante today will have no effect on a president unconcerned about whether his recess appointees even serve legally:
Quote:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200707/071807a.html
July 17, 2007
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
...8.This Committee recently became aware of a memorandum dated July 10, 2007, and signed by Steven G. Bradbury as “Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General” for the Office of Legal Counsel. It contends that Harriet Miers, who is a former White House Counsel, is “immune from compelled congressional testimony.” Pursuant to what legal authority did Mr. Bradbury issue this memorandum, and how is Mr. Bradbury’s issuance of this memorandum consistent with the Vacancies Act? At the end of the last Congress, Mr. Bradbury’s nomination to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel was returned to the President....
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003728.php
Senators: Justice Department's Chief Counsel Breaking the Law
By Paul Kiel - July 19, 2007, 4:24PM
Nothing surprises me any more.
Four Democratic senators <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/miers-gonzales/">wrote</a> Alberto Gonzales today to inquire whether Stephen Bradbury, the apparent acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was illegally carrying out his duties.
Bradbury was nominated for the top spot at OLC last year, but the Senate Judiciary Committee returned his nomination to the president, refusing to hear it until Bradbury's role in approving the National Security Agency's surveillance program became clear. The President shut down an internal Justice Department investigation of the matter last year by taking the unprecedented and unexplained step of <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002861.php">denying security clearances to investigators</a> from the Office of Professional Responsibility.
In <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/miers-gonzales/">the letter</a>, written by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), along with Sens. Durbin (D-IL), Kennedy (D-MA), and Feingold (D-WI), the senators say that since it's been more than 210 days since the Senate returned the nomination to the President, Bradbury should not be carrying out the duties for the spot under the Vacancies Act. But that certainly appears to be what is happening.
It's enough to make your head spin. Bradbury <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/doj-exec-priv/?resultpage=1&">signed a letter last week</a> that advised that "the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee." Both the White House and Harriet Miers <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003667.php">relied</a> on that advice when she refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.
Think about it: Bradbury's advice meant that Miers did not need to testify to Congress about whether she plotted to circumvent the Senate confirmation process in order to replace independent-minded U.S. attorneys with political cronies. As a committee staffer put it, <h3>"This appears to be yet another attempt by this Administration to circumvent the confirmation process in order to install a controversial nominee in a key Justice Department post, and now, ironically, that nominee is involved in protecting the Administration’s efforts to circumvent the confirmation process."</h3>
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/doc...?resultpage=1&
Request to Withdraw OLC Nomination of Steven Bradbury
10-16-2007
<img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1192562919Bradbury%20withdrawal%20letter_Page_2.jpg">
|