Speak 'Bush' in One Easy Lesson

Watch more breaking news now on our video feed:

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Bush's War of Diminished Expectations

Watch more breaking news on our video feed now:

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Years Later, Court Upholds 'Vote-Swapping' Sites Famous From 2000

In a decision stemming from a dispute during the controversial presidential election of 2000, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that so-called "vote-swapping"
websites are protected by the First Amendment.

A number of these websites sprung up in the last weeks of the 2000 campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore that allowed third-party supporters of candidate Ralph Nader in swing states to strategize with major-party voters in "safe" states about "trading" their votes to avoid handing the election to their least-preferred candidate.

Ultimately, more than 90,000 voters in Florida voted for Nader. Bush prevailed in a Supreme Court decision which found he won Florida -- and the presidency -- by just 537 votes.

The sites were quickly shut down when then-California Secretary of State Bill Jones sent letters to operators of a website threatening to prosecute them for what he called "vote-buying," even though no money or other type of financial benefit changed hands.

The ACLU of Southern California and the National Voting Rights Institute represented website operators Alan Porter (voteswap2000.com) and William Cody (voterexchange2000.com) and two individual voters, Patrick Kerr and Steven Lewis.

The case, originally filed in November 2000, argued in part that the threats by Jones violated the First Amendment rights of the website operators and exceeded the scope of Jones' authority under California's election code. The National Voting Rights Institute is now affiliated with Demos, a national, non-partisan public policy, research and advocacy center.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling now establishes that the activities that Secretary Jones attempted to squelch "are at the heart of the liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment" and cannot be prosecuted under vote-buying statutes. The decision will be an important precedent protecting the right of website operators and voters to maintain and use such sites in future presidential elections.

"Technology changes the way politics work, but it doesn't alter the basic principles of democracy," says Peter Eliasberg, of the ACLU/SC. "Voters of any political persuasion should be able to meet like-minded voters wherever they are and organize for their candidates without threats to their freedom of speech."

"The court's decision today recognizes the importance of the Internet as a low-cost means of political communication and a vibrant forum for debate about the presidential election," says Lisa Danetz, senior counsel at Demos.

This is the second ruling by the 9th Circuit Court that protects the rights of vote-trading websites. In 2005, the appeals court overruled a federal district court that had dismissed the case shortly after the 2000 election. Today's decision confirms that vote swaps are constitutionally protected.

Watch more breaking news on our video feed:

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Newsweek Cover: Failing Our Wounded

Recent revelations about the decay and mismanagement at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., were especially shocking because it is one of the most prestigious U.S. military hospitals. But a Newsweek investigation--which focused not on one facility but on the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sprawling 235,000-person bureaucracy--found that the VA system is unprepared for the scope of the task at hand and ahead.

Around 50,000 service members so far have been banged up or burned, lost limbs or sacrificed something less tangible inside them in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And a new study projects that at least 700,000 moreveterans from the global war on terror will flood the system in the coming years. In the March 5 cover story, "Failing Our Wounded" (on newsstands Monday, February 26), national security correspondent Dan Ephron and Assistant Editor Sarah Childress paint a grim portrait of an overloaded bureaucracy cluttered with red tape; veterans having to wait weeks or months for mental-health care and other appointments; families sliding into debt as VA case managers study disability claims over many months, and the seriously wounded requiring help from outside experts just to understand the VA's arcane system of rights and benefits.

Tonia Sargent, whose husband, Kenneth--a Marine master sergeant who had been in the corps for nearly 18 years--nearly died in a sniper attack in Najaf in 2004, says no one ever sat her down and explained the benefits and how to access them. Her husband's brain injury made him often incapable of understanding his own care. Key decisions fell to her alone. It's a "don'task, don't tell system," she says. The Sargent's story, and the stories of many other veterans, is raising concerns that the United States is failing to meet its most basic obligations to those who fight its wars, Newsweek says.

"In no way do I diminish the fact that there are veterans out there who are coming in who require treatment and maybe are not getting the treatment they need," White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto tells Newsweek. "It's real and it exists."

Dr. Michael Kussman, the VA's acting under secretary for health tells Newsweek that the department is trying to reach veterans earlier, as they approach their date of discharge, and that he does not believe Iraq and Afghanistan are straining resources severely.

"The impact on the VA so far has been relatively small," Kussman says. "It has not kicked the system over in our budget and in our ability to absorb it."

But the number of veterans has to grow and critics worry the VA is in a state of denial. In a broad sense, Newsweek reports, the situation at the VA seems to mirror the overall lack of planning for the war. "We know the VA doesn't have the capacity to process a large number of disability claims at the same time," says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard public-finance professor who last month released a 34-page study on the long-term cost of caring for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Veterans' support groups and even some former and current VA insiders believe there's a reluctance in the Bush administration to deal openly with the long-term costs of the war, Newsweek says.

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Newsweek: Bush Looking For An Excuse To Attack Iran

Some Bush admninistration advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran, at least one former White House official tells Newsweek.

"They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs, in the February 19 cover story,"The Hidden War With Iran" (on newsstands Monday, February 12).

Even if her fears are overwrought, the fact remains that thelong standing war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and Newsweek has learned that a third carrier will likely follow.

Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. On the chaotic battleground of Iraq, a hidden war between the United States and Iran is already unfolding. Iran has blamed the kidnapping of one of its diplomats on Feb. 4 on Iraqis linked to U.S. forces. Is conflict inevitable? U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran. But former secretary of state Colin Powell tells Newsweek that he thinks President Bush never had any intention of negotiating with the mullahs.

"My position in the remaining year and half [of my term] was that we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran," Powell tells Newsweek. "But there was a reluctance on the part of the president to do that."

He angrily rejects the administration's characterization of efforts by him and his top aides to deal with Tehran and Damascus as failures. "I don't like the administration saying, 'Powell went, [deputy Richard] Armitage went...and [they] got nothing.' We got plenty," he says. "You can't negotiate when you tell the other side, 'Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start'."

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

O'Connor: Iraq Study Was 'So Out Of My Field'

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor admits to initially feeling a little out of her element when she was invited to join the Iraq Study Group to offer new alternatives to U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"I wasn't sure I should do it,"she tells Newsweek in an exclusive interview in the current issue. "It was so out of my field of judging. I don't know anything about the military."

President Bush has all but rejected the study group's recommendations but O'Connor is unwilling to criticize Bush.

"There are probably no perfect answers," she tells Assistant Managing Editor Debra Rosenberg in the February 12 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, February 5).

O'Connor also talks about her decision to retire. In the spring of 2005, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist publicly battling thyroid cancer, the two justices discussed timing. "We talked a little bit,"O'Connor recalls. "I was concerned about whether he had an intention to step down since his plans might have altered my own. It's hard for the nation to grapple with two [retirements] at once," she says. "He indicated he didn't want to step down." So she realized she had to go first.

O'Connor retired so she could spend more time with husband John, battling Alzheimer's disease. O'Connor has had to place her husband at a care facility near their Arizona home.

"It's such a miserable disease. It's so sad. It's so hard. I did the best I could," O'Connor says. "He wants me there all the time."

It's been a difficult transition, says former Sen. Alan Simpson, a family friend. "It's tough to go home at night and no longer have this warm,witty guy there," he says of O'Connor.

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Newsweek Poll: Bush Standing Hits All-Time Low

U.S. approval for President Bush has hit a record low level despite pitching policies in his recent televised State of the Union address, according to a new Newsweek poll.

President Bush's job approval rating hit an all-time low in theNewsweek Poll at 30 percent. Sixty-one percent of all those polled says they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time; just 30 percent are satisfied.

Sixty-seven percent of those polled believe Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by his personal beliefs regardless of the facts, while just 22 percent say his decisions are influenced more by the facts. And 71 percent say Bush will not have enough support over the next two years to make a difference in getting things done in Washington; just 21 percent say he will. The public is split on whether or not Congress is likely (42%) or not likely (48%) to give serious consideration to the proposals Bush made in the State of the Union address about energy, health and other domestic policy.

Fifty-three percent of all those polled say they think history will see Bush as a below average president; 30 percent say average and 14 percent say above average. And 58 percent of all those polled say at this point in time, they personally wish that Bush's presidency was over; 37 percent do not feel that way.

In deciding whether to vote Democratic or Republican in the 2008 presidential election, among registered voters, 31 percent say their view of Bush will be very important; 17 percent say it will be somewhat important and 15 percent say not too important.


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

U.S. To Step Up Iraq Reconstruction Alongside Troop Surge

The U.S. government will boost its Iraq reconstruction efforts in Baghdad and Anbar Province alongside President Bush's intended troop surge in Iraq, says a senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and coordinator for Iraq.

President Bush says he will deploy more than 20,000 troops to deal with the violence gripping Iraq.

The State Department, meanwhile, will also immediately begin "deploying greater resources alongside our military in Baghdad and Anbar" in Iraq, says Ambassador David Satterfield.

"The centerpiece of this effort will be our expansion of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams," Satterfield says. "We will double our PRTs from 10 to 20, adding more than 300 new personnel. We will expand our PRTs in three phases with the first phase occurring over the next three months to complement our enhanced military efforts. In that time, we plan to co-locate nine new PRTs – six in Baghdad and three in Anbar – with Brigade Combat Teams engaged in security operations."

The PRTs Iraq will also include US Agency for International Development advisers, as well as civil affairs officers and bilingual advisors from the Department of Defense, Satterfield says.

PRTs will support local moderate Iraqi leaders through targeted assistance (e.g. microloans, vocational education and grants) to foster new businesses, create jobs and develop provincial capacity to govern in an effective and sustainable way, Satterfield says. PRTs will continue to play a leading role in coordinating several U.S. programs funded by the Congress, including Iraqi Provincial Reconstruction Development Councils (PRDC) and USAID’s local governance, community stabilization, and community action programs, he says.

"We intend to complete all three phases of our PRT expansion by the end of the calendar year," Satterfield adds, noting however that completion will be dependent both on the timing of, and level of funding appropriated in, the fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriation measure to fund the Iraq war, as well as "circumstances on the ground in Iraq."

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Latest Harris Iraq Poll: 'We're Not Winning, We're Not Losing'

The latest Harris Poll of U.S. attitudes on the situation in Iraq war shows that many U.S. adults hold the attitude of "we're not winning and we're not losing." However, while this suggests the U.S. adult public thinks that perhaps things aren't quite as negative in the war in Iraq, other data within this same survey still paints a very negative picture. Most of the numbers are nearly as low as they have ever been in the course of more than three years.

A slight majority (52%) believe that we are not winning, but we are not losing either. However, almost three times as many feel we are losing (29%)as compared to just 10 percent who think we are winning. There are significant differences by political party. Many Republicans (57%) agreethat we are neither winning nor losing, though 23 percent of Republicans believe we are winning and 11 percent think we are losing. Conversely,about half of Democrats (49%) think we are losing and 43 percent think we are neither winning nor losing.

In this survey conducted just before the State of the Union address, seven in 10 (70%) U.S. adults give President Bush a negative rating on his handling of Iraq, while only a quarter (26%) give him positivemarks. These are virtually identical to a November 2006 assessment when President Bush also received a 71 to 26 percent negative rating.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll survey of 2,337 U.S. adults conducted online between January 11 and 18, by Harris Interactive.

In the past few weeks, President Bush has also embarked on a major campaign to see his new Iraq policy of sending in more troops. The "sell" may be working somewhat as more people (27%) now accept the premise of sending more troops to Iraq for a few months. In November, a lower 19 percent agreed with this. However, that being said, over four in 10 (44%) U.S. adults think a timetable should be set for the withdrawal of US troops from the Iraq war. This is down from November, when 51 percent felt this way.

Furthermore the main trends are:

* By 67 to 16 percent, a clear majority still believes that there is a civil war in Iraq now. This has not changed since November 2006 when 68 percent to 14 percent felt this way;

* A 55 percent majority now believes that the situation for U.S. troops is getting worse and only 13 percent think it is getting better. In November, a 58 percent to nine percent majority felt this way;

* A 46 percent to 37 percent plurality (compared to 46% to 36% in November) now believes that "taking military action against Iraq" was the wrong thing to do;

* A 61 percent to 19 percent majority is "not confident" that U.S. policy in Iraq will be successful, compared to a 63 percent to 17 percent majority in November.

The public is split between those who believe that "it was a mistake to take military action in Iraq in the first place" (40%; down from November's 42%) and those who think it "was the right thing to do but that things have gotten off course" (41%; virtually unchanged from 40% in November). Only a small minority (12%; similar to November's 13 percent) believes that it "was the right thing to do and things are going reasonably well."

This survey finds that attitudes toward events in the Iraq war are still highly polarized by party. Fully 67 percent of Democrats and 44 percent of independents think that taking military action in Iraq was "a mistake inthe first place," but only 12 percent of Republicans feel this way. On the other hand, 57 percent of Republicans (compared to 24 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of independents) believe invading Iraq "was the right thing to do, but things have gotten off course there." Further, 26 percent of Republicans, but only two percent of Democrats and nine percent of independents, believe it was the right decision "and things are going reasonably well."

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Expert Back From Afghanistan: U.S. 'Cannot Afford To Lose 2 Wars'

The U.S. government must do more to deal with its less-publicized war -- the ongoing conflict against the Taliban and other forces in Afghanistan, according to a Washington expert who recently returned from Afghanistan.



The United States, which ousted Afghanistan's Taliban regime in 2001 following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, must, for instance, put the survival needs of the Afghan people ahead of drug eradication, says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.



If Afghanistan does not get more support from the United States, it is almost certain that the Taliban and hostile elements in Afghanistan will have a much more successful 2007 offensive than they had in 2006, Cordesman says. "And we really, to put it bluntly, cannot afford to lose two wars. And I think that is the path that we are headed on without urgent action," he says.



U.S. and NATO forces are winning tactically in Afghanistan, Cordesman says.



"The problem with that is we won tactically in Vietnam," he says. "We are winning tactically in Iraq. The problems are not tactical victory; the problems are, are you actually gaining control of the countryside? Are you actually winning political support? Are you reducing Taliban influence or are you watching it expand? Are you developing effective NATO forces or are you keeping what people in Afghanistan call stand-aside forces? Do you have enough U.S. forces? Can you take an aid mission, which now is limited by finance and manpower to what, in some ways, are projects, which, while important, are more showpiece than projects that reach into the field, and substitute for the lack of Afghan governance in the field until you can develop that Afghan governance?"

Afghanistan needs about $6 billion in aid, or roughly three times higher than what the U.S. government is spending, Cordesman says. "And depending on how you define this, this is either half of a month in Iraq, or it is a month in Iraq, depending on how you are doing the counting," he says.



Afghans living in the countryside of Afghanistan are without water, without power, who do not have roads to get to an area where they can function, where it will take time to get them basic clinics and schools, Cordesman says.



"You are talking about a society in which people have drug loans to start the year – essentially a sharecropping type system," he says. "To put eradication before survival is a disastrous aid to the Taliban. And we have to have a program which links this to an overall development program and to a counterinsurgency campaign."

Afghanistan is a producer and exporter of poppies from which heroin is made.

Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Instant Panel Rates Bush's Speech

When surveyed immediately after Tuesday night's State of the Union address, 82% of those who watched the speech approved of President Bush's proposals, but 68% say they
doubt the President will be able to accomplish all of his goals; both percentages are on a par with results from the same survey last year.

These are among the findings of a CBS News/Knowledge Networks poll based on a scientific sample of television viewers of the event. CBS News has featured the survey results -- which were obtained using Knowledge Networks' KnowledgePanel --in its Web coverage of President Bush's address.

The scientific poll uniquely supports an analysis of the impact of President Bush's address on the opinions of viewers, who indicated that:

-- 59% believe that President Bush and the Democratic Congress will not be able to work together on a bipartisan agenda
-- 16% say President Bush's Iraq strategy is "very likely" to be effective, while 42% say it is "somewhat likely to succeed"
-- 67% feel President Bush will make the right decisions about energy conservation, and 56% are in agreement with his handling of immigration

Perceptions of Republicans and Democrats were quite different on many key points; while 52% of Republicans said President Bush would be able to achieve all of the goals in his speech, just 17% of Democrats concurred.

Similarly, 30% of Republicans said Bush's Iraq strategy was "very likely to succeed," compared to just 6% of Democrats. Further, Democrats and independents were less likely than Republicans to think that President Bush will make the right decisions about U.S. energy conservation and consumption; proportions were 50% (Democrats), 63% (independents), and 88% (Republicans).

To obtain a valid assessment of reactions to the address, a random sample of the nationwide online research panel, KnowledgePanel, was asked in the few days before the speech about their intentions to view and their opinions on national policy. Those intending to view the President's
speech were invited to provide their opinions immediately after the address, with survey results delivered to CBS News in less than 15 minutes.


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Bush Climate Plan Called 'Very Small Step'

President Bush laid out a plan in his State of the Union address that the White House says will confront climate change by stopping the projected growth of carbon dioxide emissions from cars, light trucks, and SUVs within 10 years.

President Bush used his State of the Union address last night to call for a 20 percent reduction in gasoline consumption by 2020.

"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment -- and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change," Bush says.

However, more must be done, says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Claussen was one of 14 corporate and environmental CEOs who called on Congress to enact mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions this week in order to address the climate change problem.

"Across the United States, scientists, CEOs, environment groups, stategovernments, and members of Congress, are seeking a comprehensive approach to global climate change and what the president is proposing is really onlya very small step in that direction; his plan only affects the transportation sector, which accounts for roughly one-third of US greenhouse gas emissions; and it is unclear how real this commitment is," Claussen says. "If we hope to deal with climate change in a reasonable manner, we needan approach that is both economy-wide and mandatory, and that will put us on a path toward significant greenhouse gas reductions."


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Chevron's Costly, Double-Page Ad is Deceptive, Says Group

Ordinary citizens who spotted Chevron Corp's two-page color ad in the New York Times Monday could only wonder what it meant, since it's obviously not aimed at consumers. The ad mimics the desktop of a busy corporate executive, littered with notes about oil demand and oil flow around the world, plus a checklist of Chevron's good deeds.

One answer is right on Chevron's website in a press release saying the company's ad campaign, which ran last year and is being renewed as the new Congress gets down to work, is "targeted at influentials who are involved with leading the energy debate."

That means Congress and the Bush administration, says the Foundation For Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR), which criticized the ads as deceptive by omission. As Chevron and other oil companies face the loss of tax breaks in the new Congress and investigations of price gouging in last summer's record gasoline prices, the ad tries to shift the discussion, the organization says. The global market in oil, says the ad, is "a world of rising demand, supply disruption, natural disasters and unstable regimes."


Such language absolves Chevron and other major oil companies of their own responsibility for "supply disruptions" in the gasoline market, which are due in large part to the industry's restriction of refining capacity even when, as in last year's price spike, there was no lack of availablecrude oil, says FTCR. The price spike equaled -- and in California exceeded-- the prices following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, despite the utter lack of such weather disasters nationwide last year, the group says.


The ad also aims to forestall congressional criticism of questionable foreign oil investments by California-based Chevron, arguing that oil investment should be allowed to "flow freely across borders," FTCR says. Chevron praises itself for "developing energy through partnerships with 26 countries."


"Those 26 countries would include Nigeria, where Chevron's ties with brutal security forces and broken economic promises to people near its oil fields have been strongly rebuked by human rights organizations," says Judy Dugan, research director of FTCR. "And Ecuador, where Chevron's toxic drilling wastes polluted regional water sources and triggered a lawsuit by indigenous tribes whose children are said to suffer four times the leukemia rate of unaffected areas.


"Chevron, aside from trying to shift the discussion away from its own behavior in the gasoline market, appears to be intent on quelling any trade regulation that might restrict its dealings with abusive regimes," says Dugan.




Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Bush Should Include Federal Research As Priority

President Bush should not neglect U.S. federal spending on research and development in either his televised State of the Union speech tonight nor his upcoming proposed federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year, according to a group that promotes research.

"The president in his State of the Union speech and 2008 budget proposal has a chance to show real leadership by calling for renewed emphasis on science and research as the future of our economy," says former U.S. Rep. John Edward Porter (R-Ill.), chair of Research!America.

"America's economic destiny is, without question, tied to our investment in scientific research. Research offers the promise of better health and of better-paying jobs for a better future. I hope the president will outline a vision to speed the pace of science and better prepare our children for careers in a knowledge-based economy.

"In an August 2006 Research!America poll, a majority of Americans said more funding for medical and health research now is essential to our future health and economic prosperity," Porter adds. "This is a time of unprecedented opportunity for science when the U.S., with our talent pool and research capabilities, could be leading the world in medical and scientific advances. We must boost spending for all science and research, not just certain areas. At stake is our standing in the world and our children's standard of living."

In particular, President Bush must focus both on federal support for research and development in the physical sciences and health sciences, says Research!America President Mary Woolley.
"We applaud the president's anticipated call for more physical science funding in 2008, such as the research funded by the National Science Foundation," Woolley says. "However, advances in physical and life sciences go hand in hand: how would we have outpatient laser treatment for glaucoma without research that developed safe lasers and research that helped us understand the workings of the eye?

"Research!America would be extremely concerned if the president's 2008 budget for research for health fails even to match inflation, as was thecase last year for the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality -- or worse, falls below prior years' budgets, as occurred last year with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's critical core programs," she adds. The investments of the past are now bearing fruit, for instance, in the decrease in cancer mortality, and theAmerican people expect that success to continue -- not slow down. When federally funded health research stalls, we lose family members prematurely, our economy loses productivity when workers become sick, and America begins to lose its position as a global leader in science."


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Consumers Union: Bush Needs To Show Real Leadership On Health, Energy

President Bush's expected call Tuesday for more tax breaks for buying health insurance, and more incentives for increasing the use of alternative fuels, falls short of laying out a real, comprehensive plan to address the nation's growing health care and energy problems, the organization Consumers Union says.

President Bush will give his annual State of the Union speech Tuesday evening before a joint session of Congress. The Bush speech will be televised.

President Bush is now looking for areas where he can work with the newly Democrat-controlled Congress. For the first time, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be sitting behind President Bush as he makes his speech.

"Last year the president made health care and energy reform key parts of his agenda, and we're still looking at record numbers of uninsured Americans and a growing reliance on oil," says Bill Vaughan, senior policy analyst for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumers Reports magazine.

"If the president really wants to take the lead on skyrocketing health care costs and securing our nation's energy future, he must put forth comprehensive strategies that truly help consumers," Vaughan says.

President Bush is expected to propose tax breaks for those purchasing their own health insurance as a solution to helping the 46 million of Americans without health coverage. But most low and middle-income families don't have enough income to purchase health insurance even with tax breaks, Vaughan says.

"Tax deductions do little or nothing for those people who are uninsured and devastated by high health care costs," Vaughan says. "When an individual family policy for decent health coverage costs about $11,000 a year, tax credits of $1,000 to $3,000 to buy insurance are almost meaningless."

Bush also is expected to continue pushing tax-free savings accounts for high-deductible insurance policies. "Giving tax breaks only encourages healthier and wealthier people to opt-out of traditional employer-based insurance, leaving behind a fractured insurance pool that hurts the older and sicker," Vaughan says.

Consumers Union also is urging President Bush to support legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, and to adequately fund drug safety efforts.

President Bush also is expected to offer more incentives for increasing alternative fuels, and press reports indicate he may call for increasing fuel economy standards on passenger cars.

Consumers Union says President Bush and Congress should work together on legislation that sets high but achievable standards for improving the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks.

"Setting strong fuel efficiency standards would save billions of gallons of gas a year," says Anne Wright, senior policy analyst. "This move, coupled with mandates for use of energy efficient, renewable technologies, would be a positive step forward.

"We need leadership on an energy policy that includes real improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, alternatives to gasoline, and energy conservation," Wright adds. "Rhetoric that translates into more do-nothing policies doesn't help Americans frustrated with high gas prices or the lack of innovation to ease our dependence on oil."


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Poll: Bush Continues To Face Steep Public Disapproval on Iraq

Less than two weeks after President Bush unveiled his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, a 68-percent majority of Americans strongly (45 percent) or moderately (23 percent) oppose Bush's "surge" strategy, according to the January 17-18 Newsweek Poll.

Fourteen percent moderately favor the plan and only 12 percent strongly favor it. Half (50 percent) of those polled advocate a reduction of troop levels in Iraq, versus 23 percent who want to increase the number of U.S. troops and 18 percent who want to keep troop levels the same.

Generally, only 24 percent of Americans approve of how Bush is handling the war-an all-time low in the Newsweek Poll; 70 percent disapprove. And two-thirds (67 percent) say they think the United States is losing ground in its efforts to provide security and democracy in Iraq; only 24 percent say the U.S. is making progress.

President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because he said Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass destruction were found. More than 3,000 American troops have died in Iraq. Tens of thousands more have been wounded in Iraq and 34,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in Iraq.

Iraq has been plunged into increasing violence since the invasion ousted Iraq strongman Saddam Hussein. Saddam has since been hanged.

President Bush wants to add more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq; Democrats who now control Congress are resisting that so-called surge strategy. President Bush does not want to withdraw forces from Iraq.

Taking a closer look at Americans' thoughts on the situation in Iraq, a majority now say they are not too confident (29 percent) or not at all confident (36 percent) that the Iraqi government will be able to control the violence and provide security to its citizens if U.S. troops are withdrawn. Twenty-two percent say they are somewhat confident and 5 percent say they are very confident, the poll shows. When it comes to U.S. political leadership, 55 percent of those polled say they have more faith in the Democratic congressional leaders to make decisions regarding Iraq policy, versus 32 percent who trust Bush to make better decisions. When asked whether Congress should try to block the additional funding Bush would need for additional troops, poll respondents were split evenly: 46 percent say lawmakers should, 46 percent say they should not.

Americans differ on what might result from increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, the poll shows. Sixty-seven percent say it is very or somewhat likely that it will lead to increased U.S. casualties without helping achieve our goals there; 62 percent say it is very or somewhat likely that it will make the Iraqis more dependent on U.S. military protection and only delay the time when they are ready to take responsibility for their own security; 33 percent say it is somewhat or very likely that it will give the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds time to settle their differences; and 42 percent say it is somewhat or very likely that it will help reduce violence in Baghdad. The poll shows Americans are also split on the United States' priorities in Iraq. Forty-six percent favor withdrawing troops as soon as possible to minimize the number of American casualties while 45 percent say we should maintain troop levels for at least another year or two to give Iraqis more time to settle their differences and reach a political settlement.


Bush Job Approval Low


President Bush's job approval rating remains at its all-time low in the Newsweek Poll: 31 percent. Sixty-two percent of those polled disapprove of how he is handling his job as president. Only 30 percent say they are satisfied with how things are going in the United States; 62 percent are dissatisfied. On the subject of Bush's leadership, 57 percent say he does not possess strong leadership qualities, 41 percent say he does. This represents a near reversal from Newsweek's September 29-30, 2005 Poll, in which 50 percent of those polled said he had strong leadership qualities while 47 percent said he did not.

In another turnaround from the September 29-30, 2005 poll, 54 percent of respondents in the latest poll say they do not think Bush is honest and ethical, versus 41 percent who say he is. Inthe earlier poll, 50 percent found him to be honest and ethical, while 45 percent did not. Only 35 percent of respondents in the most recent poll feel Bush cares about "people like them," versus 60 percent who do not.

For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,003 adults aged 18 and older on January 17-18, 2007. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

General: Iraq Esclation 'Too Little, Too Late'

President Bush's so-called "surge strategy" to increase U.S. troop strength in Iraq is unlikely to succeed, retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar told lawmakers.

"The addition of 20,000 troops is too little too late. This is still not enough to quell the violence and without major changes in the command and control of forces within Baghdad, the current set-up of shared control is unsatisfactory," Hoar told lawmakers at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

President Bush earlier this month unveiled a so-called surge option to increase U.S. involvement in the conflict in Iraq. More than 3,000 U.S. service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, a conflict that has now lasted longer than World War II. More than 34,000 Iraqis lost their lives in the sectarian violence that increasingly has consumed Iraq since the ouster of since-hanged Iraq strongman Saddam Hussein.

Retired Army Lt. General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, believes the assumptions behind President Bush's new strategy in Iraq is flawed.

"It is strategic error of monumental proportions to view the war as confined to Iraq. Yet this is the implicit assumption on which the president's new strategy is based," Odom says. "We have turned it into two wars that vastly exceed the borders of Iraq. First, there is the war against the U.S. occupation that draws both sympathy and material support from other Arab countries. Second, there is the Shiite-Sunni war, a sectarian conflict heretofore sublimated within the Arab world but that now has opened the door to Iranian influence in Iraq. In turn, it fore ordains an expanding Iranian- Arab regional conflict. Any military proposals today that do not
account for both larger wars, as well as the Iranian threat to the Arab states on the Persian Gulf, must be judged as wholly inadequate if not counterproductive."


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

Democrat Reid Challenges Bush On Various Security Threats

While he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenge President Bush on Bush's course for U.S. involvement in Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also calls Bush's moves inadequate on several other security matters facing the United States.

"As much as we're convinced the president has chosen the wrong direction in Iraq, we're increasingly concerned he's headed in the wrong direction in Iran and Afghanistan," Reid, Democrat of Nevada, says. "Five years after we defeated the Taliban, the extremists are returning. Drug production is soaring. And attacks on U.S. and NATO forces are on the rise. By all measures, the country is at risk of slipping away; yet, some reports suggest the president will be moving some U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. This is a terrible mistake."

Bush must put more attention on the mission in Afghanistan, Reid says.

"Although time is short, there is still an opportunity to defeat our enemies in Afghanistan once and for all," he says. "The president must acknowledge what's at stake, and immediately take action to prevent the country from returning to what it was -- a haven for international terrorism."

President Bush will need explicit new authorization from Congress if Bush wants to pursue military action against Iran.

"Much has been made about President Bush's recent saber rattling toward Iran. This morning, I'd like to be clear: The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization -- the current use of force resolution for Iraq does not give him such authorization," Reid says.

Reid also criticizes Bush's approach to the threat posed by the apparent nuclear ambitions of Iran, saying ultimately the best way to defang the regime in Iran to cut U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.

"Let there be no doubt, the Iranian regime poses one of the great threats of the new century, but the Iranian people -- two-thirds of which are under the age of 30 -- present a great opportunity for progress. Regrettably, this administration has no strategy for connecting with this generation of potential reformers.

"Iran sends millions of barrels of crude oil to theWestern world, and gets billions of dollars in return," Reid says. "Fortunately, we have the power to turn the tables on Iran. That power is energy independence. If the United States led the world in developing new alternative fuel technologies, we could create new jobs, export new products, slow global warming and reduce Iran's leverage on the international stage."

Democrats in Congress are advancing an energy bill that would shift priorities away from oil production to alternative sources.


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

In Own State of the Union, Top Dems Call For Iraq War End

The top Democrats who lead the U.S. Congress continued to push their opposition to President Bush's escalation of U.S. involvement in Iraq -- and the top Democrat in the Senate is going further by advocating a withdrawl of U.S. forces from the conflict in coming months.

Speaking in Washington in their own joint State of the Union speech, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid say Iraqis must shoulder more of the burden of security in their nation.

More than 3,000 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq while tens-of-thousands more have been wounded in combat in Iraq. Last year, violence claimed the lives of at least 34,000 Iraqis -- a rate of almost 100 a day, Reid notes. The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than World War II, Reid, a senator from Nevada, adds.

"Yet despite these tremendous costs, despite this great sacrifice, the Iraq war has made America less safe, not more safe," Reid says. "Our troops in Iraq --including hundreds of fine Nevadans -- have done everything asked of them. It's their political leaders at home who've failed. We must change course."

President Bush this month called for an increase of more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because he said Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. No WMDs have been found. Since the ouster of since-hanged Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, Iraq has been plagued by sectarian violence.

"Unfortunately, the president's new plan can be summed up in four words: 'more of the same,'" Reid says. "Like our military generals, the American people and a growingbipartisan chorus in Congress, I believe escalation is a serious mistake."

Democrats want to transform the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Reid says.

"The mission of our troops should be transitioned away from combat to training, force protection, logistics and counter-terror. U.S. forces have been given an impossible mission -- policing a civil war," he says. "It's Iraqis -- not our troops -- who should be walking the streets of Baghdad, trying to sort friend from foe."

The toll the Iraq war is putting on U.S. forces threatens U.S. security overall, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"The strain the war is placing on our Army and Marine Corps diminishes our ability to respond toother challenges and thereby threatens our security," she says. "Escalating our military involvement in Iraq will not reverse these negative effects, it will only add to them.

Reid says the U.S. should begin the phased redeployment of its forces within the next four to six months, putting more responsibility on Iraqis

"Only Iraqis can ultimately secure Iraq," Reid says. "A phased redeployment will allow our country to rebuild the military force here at home, and increase the number of troops available to hunt for Osama bin Laden and stabilize Afghanistan."

The issues facing Iraq are beyond solving by U.S. military force, Pelosi says.

"The solutions to the issues which divide Iraqis are political and diplomatic, not military. As such, they are beyond the ability of our troops, who have performed their difficult and dangerous missions with great courage, to resolve," she says. "The Iraqis and their neighbors have the most at stake in an unsafe Iraq. The sooner we give them the responsibility fortheir future, the sooner our troops can come home."


Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

U.S Embraces Clean Energy, But Beware Ethanol

Americans and their political leaders are increasingly embracing clean, renewable energy. But a foremost expert on energy and technology is warning against relying on ethanol as a solution.





Only one in fourAmerican voters today believe the United States is doing enough to promote and utilize alternative or "green" technologies and renewable energy sources to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign energy sources, according to a new poll by Zogby International and TechNet's Green Tech Task Force.





TechNet is a bipartisan political network of high tech CEOs promotes the growth of the innovation economy.





The Zogby/TechNet nationwide poll of 1,043 Americans found that 77% ofU.S. voters believe that our nation must do more to promote green technologies like renewable energy sources.



Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydrogen and alternative fuels are all cleaner energy sources.



"The magnitude of global energy and environmental challenges demandsthat we act now to implement a sound energy strategy based on U.S. innovation," says John Doerr, TechNet founder and partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a leading technology venture capitral firm. "TechNet is committed to working with the president and Congress to reshape our energy future."

Renewable energy has been an area of research in the United States for decades, and maintains a dedicated lab at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado.

Leaders in both parties of U.S. government are also increasingly turning to support clean energy as an alternative to U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Burning fossil fuels is also thought to be a major contributor to the carbon emissions blamed for global climate change.

Democrats who now control the the U.S. House of Representatives have passed a bill that would cut subsidies for oil production and impose a "conservation fee" on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Funds collected would be steered toward renewable, clean energy sources. President Bush is also said ready in his upcoming State of the Union address to further complain of the U.S. dependence on oil and embrace renewable clean energy.

The Danger of Ethanol






However, ethanol will not be an attractive clean- or renewable-energy solution, says veteran Washington correspondent and energy and technology expert Llewellyn King.



Produced from vegetable matter high in sugar or starch and fermented and distilled to produce fuel, the United States already is producing 5 billion gallons of ethanol a year, King notes in his recent syndicated column. For more than 30 years, King published such publications as The Energy Daily and New Technology Week, and observed keenly developments in ethanol and other clean energies. Full disclosure: I used to work for Llewellyn King as editor of New Technology Week.



King, who remains host of the national public affairs TV show "White House Chronicle," says "President Bush is so taken with ethanol that he wants to expand production to 60 billion gallons a year by 2030."



The growing interest in ethanol is affecting the price of corn, driving up the price of meat, King says.



"Last year, there was a shortage of grain for livestock, and beef prices rocketed. Other dislocations are likely when corn becomes the must-grow cash crop," he writes.



Like others, King believes the United States must wean itself from oil and embrace new technologies -- but not ethanol. He suggests hybrid and all-electric vehicles as a better alternative.



"Not only is there something repugnant about using food for gasoline, but in all probability, it will cause damage to the whole agricultural cycle and to the agricultural economy," King writes. "This way lies madness. And it is shameful that so many environmental organizations, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, have embraced ethanol—which may save no energy whatsoever."








Bookmark http://universeeverything.blogspot.com/ and drop back in sometime.

Enter your Email





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz