New American Dark Ages
The ‘Stuff Happens’ Presidency By Harold Meyerson
[A] can’t-do spirit, a shouldn’t-do spirit, guides the men who run the nation. Consider the congressional testimony of Joe Allbaugh, George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign manager, who assumed the top position at FEMA in 2001. He characterized the organization as “an oversized entitlement program,” and counseled states and cities to rely instead on “faith-based organizations . . . like the Salvation Army and the Mennonite Disaster Service.”
Meanwhile, the high gas prices are adding to the profits of the big companies. Says the watchdog group Public Citizen:
“Since George Bush became president in 2001, the top five oil companies [selling gas] in the United States have recorded profits of $254 billion: ExxonMobil: $89 billion, Shell: $60.7 billion, BP: $53 billion, ChevronTexaco: $31 billion, ConocoPhillips: $20 billion.”
The group adds:
“As Americans shell out more dollars at the pump, the profit margin by U.S. oil refiners has shot up 79% from 1999 (the year Exxon and Mobil merged) to 2004.”
Bush refuses to increase the energy efficiency standards for motor vehicles, which use 70 percent of total oil production, and he recently signed the energy bill that hands out billions in new subsidies to the industry. Even he seems to recognize what a shuck this is: In April, with prices moving ever higher and the Congress debating the energy bill, Bush said, “With $55 oil, we don’t need incentives to oil and gas companies.”
But this summer, Congress, with the president’s enthusiastic support, adopted a series of new subsidies for the oil and gas industry. “Officially, the energy bill’s giveaways are supposed to cost $14.6 billion over the next 10 years, offset in part by $3.1 billion in higher gasoline taxes on consumers,” says Robert S. McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. “But that doesn’t include the bill’s $70 billion in authorized but unfunded subsidies, for which cash will have to be appropriated later.”
ABQjournal: Disaster Areas Stun Bush
“If we can’t respond faster than this to an event we saw coming across the Gulf for days, then why do we think we’re prepared to respond to a nuclear or biological attack?” asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican.
President Bush looks out the window of Air Force One inspecting damage from Hurricane Katrina while flying over New Orleans en route back to the White House, Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 2, 2005; Page A16
President Bush repeatedly requested less money for programs to guard against catastrophic storms in New Orleans than many federal and state officials requested, decisions that are triggering a partisan debate over administration priorities at a time when the budget is strained by the Iraq war.
Even with full funding in recent years, none of the flood-control projects would have been completed in time to prevent the swamping of the city, as Democrats yesterday acknowledged. But they said Bush’s decision to hold down spending on fortifying levees around New Orleans reflected a broader shuffling of resources — to pay for tax cuts and the Iraq invasion — that has left the United States more vulnerable.
Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding – FactCheck.org
Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local officials had been complaining about that for years.
It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects would have made any difference, however, and we’re not in a position to judge that. The Army Corps of Engineers — which is under the President’s command and has its own reputation to defend — insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane.
The News-Press: Opinion – Stop funding false religion By CAL THOMAS
Much of what is proclaimed as God’s will on TV and in fundraising appeals is false religion. People who respond with checks are either ignorant or willfully disobedient to what their spiritual commander-in-chief and the early apostles taught and practiced.
One of the great pronouncements on a Christian’s relationship to the world is contained in 1 John 2:15-17: “Do not love the world or anything in the world. … For everything in the world — the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does — comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away.”
Too many Christians think if they shout loud enough and gain political strength the world will be improved. That is a false doctrine. I have never seen anyone “converted” to a Christian’s point of view (and those views are not uniform) through political power. …
If people who bear the label “Christian” want to reduce these embarrassments, which interfere with the proclamation and the hearing of “true religion,” they should refrain from sending money to TV preachers and contribute more to their local church.
The Value of ‘Activism’ By George F. Will
Convinced that popular sentiment is with them, some conservatives fan the flames of resentment of judicial review, calling for judicial “restraint.” They do so in the name of dogmatic majoritarianism — the right of majorities to have their way. There are, however, impeccably conservative reasons for regarding judicial review as a valuable restraint on majorities, and hence for having high regard for some judicial activism.
A Half-true Attack on McCain – FactCheck.org
Summary
The conservative anti-tax group Club for Growth targeted 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain with a TV ad in New Hampshire. It contains a half-true claim that McCain would “keep the death tax.” In fact, McCain has long advocated reducing the number subject to the tax, so that it falls only on the estates of multi-millionaires.
The ad also misleads viewers by saying, “when you die, the IRS can tax you again. Taking as much as 55 percent of everything you’ve saved for your children.” In fact, only estates exceeding $1.5 million currently pay any tax on that wealth. It fell on fewer than 1 percent of all Americans who died in 2004.