Thank You
-
Dear Friend,
Thank you for participating in the Relay For Life of Smithtown! I am happy
to tell you that this year’s Relay raised over $30,000 and it wou...
16 years ago
Monday, May 11, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Souter to Retire
Supreme Court Justice David Souter was appointed to the nation's highest court in 1988 by the first President Bush. He's set to retire in June. More on the newly redesigned TheMatadorOnline.com:
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Developing Story: Arlen Specter Crosses the Aisle
Developing Story: CNN is reporting that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter will be changing from the Republican to Democratic party.
Monday, April 27, 2009
First 100 days reveal similarities between Obama, Reagan
From TheMatadorOnline.com newsroom:
By Dick Polman
The Philadelphia Inquirer
(MCT)
On the cusp of his first 100 days in office, the new president is fully embarked on his transformative mission, dominating the news cycle by sheer force of his telegenic cool, exuding confidence, and prompting downhearted Americans to feel better about their troubled country. The New York Times praises his "remarkable political strengths and gifts," particularly his "gift for political ...
Read more:
http://www.thematadoronline.com/viewpoints/2009/04/27/first-100-days-reveal-similarities-between-obama-reagan/
By Dick Polman
The Philadelphia Inquirer
(MCT)
On the cusp of his first 100 days in office, the new president is fully embarked on his transformative mission, dominating the news cycle by sheer force of his telegenic cool, exuding confidence, and prompting downhearted Americans to feel better about their troubled country. The New York Times praises his "remarkable political strengths and gifts," particularly his "gift for political ...
Read more:
http://www.thematadoronline.com/viewpoints/2009/04/27/first-100-days-reveal-similarities-between-obama-reagan/
Calls to evaluate interrogation techniques ignored
From TheMatadorOnline.com newsroom:
By Greg Miller
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on al-Qaida prisoners for nearly seven years without ever seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The failure to conduct a comprehensive examination occurred despite calls to do so as early as 2003. That year, the agency's inspector general circulated drafts of a report that raised deep concerns about waterboarding and other methods, and recommended a study by outside experts on whether they worked.
That inspector general report described in broad terms the volume of intelligence that the interrogation program was producing, a point echoed in smaller studies later commissioned by then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss.
But neither the inspector general's report nor the other audits examined the effectiveness of interrogation techniques in detail, or sought to scrutinize the assertions of CIA counterterrorism officials that so-called enhanced methods were essential to the program's results. One report by a former government official — not an interrogation expert — was about 10 pages long and amounted to a glowing review of interrogation efforts.
"Nobody with expertise or experience in interrogation ever took a rigorous, systematic review of the various techniques — enhanced or otherwise — to see what resulted in the best information," said a senior U.S. intelligence official involved in overseeing the interrogation program.
As a result, there was never a determination of "what you could do without the use of enhanced techniques," said the official, who like others, described internal discussions on condition of anonymity.
Former Bush administration officials said the failure to conduct such an examination was part of a broader reluctance to re-examine decisions made early after Sept. 11.
The Defense Department, Justice Department and CIA "all insisted on sticking with their original policies and were not open to revisiting them, even as the damage of these policies became apparent," said John B. Bellinger III, who was legal adviser to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, referring to burgeoning international outrage.
"We had gridlock," Bellinger said, calling the failure to consider other approaches "the greatest tragedy of the Bush administration's handling of detainee matters."
The limited resources spent examining whether the interrogation measures worked were in stark contrast to the energy the CIA devoted to collecting memos declaring the program legal.
Justice Department memos released this month show that the CIA repeatedly sought new opinions on the legality of depriving prisoners of sleep for as long as seven days, throwing them against walls, forcing them into tiny boxes and subjecting them to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
How well those methods worked is facing independent scrutiny for the first time only now, three months after President Barack Obama banned the CIA from using them.
As part of an executive order shutting down the CIA's secret prisons, the White House has set up a task force to examine the effectiveness of various interrogation approaches.
The Senate Intelligence Committee launched a similar review, and began combing through classified CIA cables that describe daily developments in the agency's interrogations of al-Qaida prisoners.
"To the best of our knowledge, such a review has not been done before," said a Senate aide involved in the probe.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on the reviews, saying their contents remain classified.
A U.S. intelligence official who defended CIA interrogation practices said, "Productivity was an obvious and important measure of the program's effectiveness. The techniques themselves were not designed to elicit specific pieces of information, but to condition hardened terrorists to answer questions about al-Qaida's plans and intentions.
"By that yardstick — the generation of reporting that was true and useful, that led even to other captures — it worked."
Obama has described the agency's activities as "a dark and painful chapter in our history," and senior members of his administration, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have called the techniques torture.
Defenders of the program, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have accused Obama of dismantling a capability that was critical to keeping the country safe. Cheney also has called for the release of classified documents that he said will show how effective the program was.
Officials said that Cheney probably was referring to memos that were drafted by leaders of the CIA Counterterrorism Center to serve as talking points when the program was the subject of briefings to members of Congress and White House officials.
Many of those talking points have been cited publicly in recent years by senior government officials, starting with President George W. Bush when he disclosed the CIA's secret prison system in September 2006.
At the time, Bush said that "alternative" interrogation methods had been critical to getting al-Qaida operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to talk.
"I cannot describe the specific methods used," Bush said. "But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary."
By then, Bush administration officials were concerned with a shifting legal landscape. Congress had passed new laws on the treatment of detainees, and the Supreme Court issued a ruling that undercut the Bush administration's claim that al-Qaida prisoners were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
But officials said that the first high-level concern about the direction of the CIA's interrogation program had come in 2003, when then-CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson began distributing draft copies of his report on the program across the executive branch.
The document triggered alarms about waterboarding, documenting that it had been employed far more frequently — including 263 times against two al-Qaida prisoners — than widely understood.
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
The report also faulted how agency operatives applied the method, dumping large quantities of water on prisoners' faces, apparently violating the agency manual and its agreements with the Justice Department. Nervous about the report's implications, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet suspended the use of waterboarding in 2003.
The document also was critical of other approaches, including sleep deprivation. For all its criticism of the program, the 200-plus page document also included passages that have been cited by some as evidence that the interrogation operation was effective.
A May 2005 Justice Department memo noted that the inspector general's report described an "increase in intelligence reports attributable to the use of enhanced techniques."
A U.S. intelligence official familiar with its contents confirmed that the inspector general's report contains language that is consistent with the assertions by former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and others that the interrogation program accounted for more than half of the intelligence community's reports on al-Qaida.
But officials said the document did not assess the quality of those reports. It also did not attempt to determine which methods were yielding the best information, or explore whether the agency's understanding of al-Qaida would have suffered significantly without the use of coercive techniques.
"Certainly you got additional considerable volume of reporting when you started up with anything enhanced," the U.S. intelligence official said. "But nobody went back to say exactly what were the conditions under which we learned that which was the most useful."
In fact, Helgerson's team had steered away from that question by design, the official said, hoping that agency leaders would turn to interrogation experts for a thorough study on which methods were working and which should be discarded.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
White House National Security Council officials who saw the inspector general's report became concerned with its conclusions, current and former officials said. Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, was particularly persistent on pushing the CIA director to follow up on the inspector general's recommendation.
Porter J. Goss, who had taken the helm at the CIA four months after the inspector general's report was filed, eventually complied. But while Helgerson had envisioned a group of experts, perhaps including specialists from the FBI, Goss turned to two former government officials with little background in interrogation.
Gardner Peckham, who was a national security adviser to former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, produced the approximately 10-page document that praised the program. It concluded that the program was "very structured and very disciplined," said a former official familiar with its contents, but did not assess the effectiveness of various methods.
A separate report, submitted by John J. Hamre, a former deputy Defense secretary, was similar in scope and led to no significant alterations of the program. Hamre and Peckham both declined comment.
Despite the high-level attention, former Bush administration officials said they never saw the results of the audits that Goss had commissioned.
"They never came and presented anything to the White House that said in response to the I.G. report they have commissioned a review," said a former Bush administration official. "They essentially came back with the recommendations that this was the program and it couldn't be changed."
———
(Julian E. Barnes of the Tribune Washington Bureau and Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times contributed to this report.)
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
By Greg Miller
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — The CIA used an arsenal of severe interrogation techniques on al-Qaida prisoners for nearly seven years without ever seeking a rigorous assessment of whether the methods were effective or necessary, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The failure to conduct a comprehensive examination occurred despite calls to do so as early as 2003. That year, the agency's inspector general circulated drafts of a report that raised deep concerns about waterboarding and other methods, and recommended a study by outside experts on whether they worked.
That inspector general report described in broad terms the volume of intelligence that the interrogation program was producing, a point echoed in smaller studies later commissioned by then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss.
But neither the inspector general's report nor the other audits examined the effectiveness of interrogation techniques in detail, or sought to scrutinize the assertions of CIA counterterrorism officials that so-called enhanced methods were essential to the program's results. One report by a former government official — not an interrogation expert — was about 10 pages long and amounted to a glowing review of interrogation efforts.
"Nobody with expertise or experience in interrogation ever took a rigorous, systematic review of the various techniques — enhanced or otherwise — to see what resulted in the best information," said a senior U.S. intelligence official involved in overseeing the interrogation program.
As a result, there was never a determination of "what you could do without the use of enhanced techniques," said the official, who like others, described internal discussions on condition of anonymity.
Former Bush administration officials said the failure to conduct such an examination was part of a broader reluctance to re-examine decisions made early after Sept. 11.
The Defense Department, Justice Department and CIA "all insisted on sticking with their original policies and were not open to revisiting them, even as the damage of these policies became apparent," said John B. Bellinger III, who was legal adviser to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, referring to burgeoning international outrage.
"We had gridlock," Bellinger said, calling the failure to consider other approaches "the greatest tragedy of the Bush administration's handling of detainee matters."
The limited resources spent examining whether the interrogation measures worked were in stark contrast to the energy the CIA devoted to collecting memos declaring the program legal.
Justice Department memos released this month show that the CIA repeatedly sought new opinions on the legality of depriving prisoners of sleep for as long as seven days, throwing them against walls, forcing them into tiny boxes and subjecting them to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.
How well those methods worked is facing independent scrutiny for the first time only now, three months after President Barack Obama banned the CIA from using them.
As part of an executive order shutting down the CIA's secret prisons, the White House has set up a task force to examine the effectiveness of various interrogation approaches.
The Senate Intelligence Committee launched a similar review, and began combing through classified CIA cables that describe daily developments in the agency's interrogations of al-Qaida prisoners.
"To the best of our knowledge, such a review has not been done before," said a Senate aide involved in the probe.
CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to comment on the reviews, saying their contents remain classified.
A U.S. intelligence official who defended CIA interrogation practices said, "Productivity was an obvious and important measure of the program's effectiveness. The techniques themselves were not designed to elicit specific pieces of information, but to condition hardened terrorists to answer questions about al-Qaida's plans and intentions.
"By that yardstick — the generation of reporting that was true and useful, that led even to other captures — it worked."
Obama has described the agency's activities as "a dark and painful chapter in our history," and senior members of his administration, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., have called the techniques torture.
Defenders of the program, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, have accused Obama of dismantling a capability that was critical to keeping the country safe. Cheney also has called for the release of classified documents that he said will show how effective the program was.
Officials said that Cheney probably was referring to memos that were drafted by leaders of the CIA Counterterrorism Center to serve as talking points when the program was the subject of briefings to members of Congress and White House officials.
Many of those talking points have been cited publicly in recent years by senior government officials, starting with President George W. Bush when he disclosed the CIA's secret prison system in September 2006.
At the time, Bush said that "alternative" interrogation methods had been critical to getting al-Qaida operatives, including Abu Zubaydah and alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to talk.
"I cannot describe the specific methods used," Bush said. "But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary."
By then, Bush administration officials were concerned with a shifting legal landscape. Congress had passed new laws on the treatment of detainees, and the Supreme Court issued a ruling that undercut the Bush administration's claim that al-Qaida prisoners were not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
But officials said that the first high-level concern about the direction of the CIA's interrogation program had come in 2003, when then-CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson began distributing draft copies of his report on the program across the executive branch.
The document triggered alarms about waterboarding, documenting that it had been employed far more frequently — including 263 times against two al-Qaida prisoners — than widely understood.
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
The report also faulted how agency operatives applied the method, dumping large quantities of water on prisoners' faces, apparently violating the agency manual and its agreements with the Justice Department. Nervous about the report's implications, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet suspended the use of waterboarding in 2003.
The document also was critical of other approaches, including sleep deprivation. For all its criticism of the program, the 200-plus page document also included passages that have been cited by some as evidence that the interrogation operation was effective.
A May 2005 Justice Department memo noted that the inspector general's report described an "increase in intelligence reports attributable to the use of enhanced techniques."
A U.S. intelligence official familiar with its contents confirmed that the inspector general's report contains language that is consistent with the assertions by former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and others that the interrogation program accounted for more than half of the intelligence community's reports on al-Qaida.
But officials said the document did not assess the quality of those reports. It also did not attempt to determine which methods were yielding the best information, or explore whether the agency's understanding of al-Qaida would have suffered significantly without the use of coercive techniques.
"Certainly you got additional considerable volume of reporting when you started up with anything enhanced," the U.S. intelligence official said. "But nobody went back to say exactly what were the conditions under which we learned that which was the most useful."
In fact, Helgerson's team had steered away from that question by design, the official said, hoping that agency leaders would turn to interrogation experts for a thorough study on which methods were working and which should be discarded.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
White House National Security Council officials who saw the inspector general's report became concerned with its conclusions, current and former officials said. Stephen Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, was particularly persistent on pushing the CIA director to follow up on the inspector general's recommendation.
Porter J. Goss, who had taken the helm at the CIA four months after the inspector general's report was filed, eventually complied. But while Helgerson had envisioned a group of experts, perhaps including specialists from the FBI, Goss turned to two former government officials with little background in interrogation.
Gardner Peckham, who was a national security adviser to former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, produced the approximately 10-page document that praised the program. It concluded that the program was "very structured and very disciplined," said a former official familiar with its contents, but did not assess the effectiveness of various methods.
A separate report, submitted by John J. Hamre, a former deputy Defense secretary, was similar in scope and led to no significant alterations of the program. Hamre and Peckham both declined comment.
Despite the high-level attention, former Bush administration officials said they never saw the results of the audits that Goss had commissioned.
"They never came and presented anything to the White House that said in response to the I.G. report they have commissioned a review," said a former Bush administration official. "They essentially came back with the recommendations that this was the program and it couldn't be changed."
———
(Julian E. Barnes of the Tribune Washington Bureau and Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times contributed to this report.)
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Breaking: Freddie Mac Exec. Allegedly Commits Suicide
CNN: Acting chief financial officer of mortgage financier Freddie Mac has been found dead in suspected suicide, police say.
Check back for updates on this developing story...
Check back for updates on this developing story...
Geithner says bailout funds remain for economic initiatives
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By Jim Puzzanghera
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has enough money left for its economic initiatives with $110 billion remaining in the federal financial rescue fund and $25 billion more coming this year as some banks return bailout money, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Tuesday.
Geithner disclosed the new numbers as he defended the administration's bailout efforts in the face of tough questioning from a special panel overseeing the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In his first appearance before the panel, Geithner said federal funding has helped stimulate consumer and business lending, but more work was needed to revive an economy mired in recession.
"The lessons of financial crises (are) that early action, forceful action, sustained action to repair financial systems, promote the flow of credit, is essential to limit the damage recessions cause and to make it possible to bring recovery about at least cost to the taxpayer over time," he said.
In his written testimony, Geithner said the vast majority of banks "have more capital than they need to be considered well-capitalized by their regulators," a comment that helped boost the stock market a day after it had been shaken by huge loan losses reported Monday by Bank of America Corp.
The Dow Jones industrials jumped 1.6 percent, and the Standard & Poor's 500 index surged 2.3 percent, as each gauge erased almost half the decline it recorded Monday.
The TARP money has been used primarily to bolster the financial industry — both giants such as Bank of America and Citigroup Inc. and smaller banks — but also to try to steady the teetering U.S. auto industry, specifically Chrysler and General Motors Corp.
Geithner tried to blunt criticism of the bailouts by saying the government was doing its best to balance the protection of taxpayer money with prevention of a collapse of the financial system.
"My basic obligation and our responsibility is to make sure that the system as a whole has the ability to provide the credit that recovery requires. And so we need to make a careful judgment about what policies are going to best promote that objective," Geithner told the congressional oversight panel, which was created last fall to monitor use of the $700 billion fund.
In a separate letter to panel Chairwoman Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard University law professor, Geithner said the fund had at least $109.6 billion remaining after a series of unprecedented investments in U.S. banks and other financial institutions through TARP.
With repayments, the administration expects to have $134.6 billion to use for additional rescue efforts the rest of the year.
Noting that the administration plans to provide additional money to banks, as well as to GM and Chrysler, "we believe that even under the conservative estimate of available funds described here, we have the resources to move forward implementing all aspects of our financial stability plan," Geithner wrote.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
The administration has not said how much more money it would provide to GM as it aims to restructure by June 1 and to Chrysler as it seeks a government-brokered merger with Italian automaker Fiat by May 1. But a report Tuesday from the office of the TARP special inspector general said GM would receive up to $5 billion and Chrysler up to $500 million in working capital.
In February, the White House said it might need an additional $750 billion in bailout money should economic conditions worsen. But administration officials have since stressed that they have no plans to ask Congress for more money.
Such a request would be a hard sell because many lawmakers from both parties have been upset about the way the program has been run, particularly with the large amounts of money injected into banks with no requirements that they lend it.
Critics received more ammunition Tuesday from the inspector general's 250-page report, which said it had opened 20 criminal investigations into fraud and other misuse of the money.
So-called stress tests to assess the financial condition of the nation's 19 largest banks might require the government to provide more money to some large banks if they can't raise additional capital themselves.
Those funds could be offset by repayments by some financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, that want to get out of restrictions on executive compensation and other government conditions that come with the federal money.
During his congressional appearance, Geithner was questioned sharply about recent comments indicating that even if some of the largest recipients of bailout money wanted to return the money and had the funds to do so, government officials might not allow them.
"If there are firms that wish to repay taxpayers their money ... why wouldn't you take the money back?" asked Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, one of two lawmakers on the panel.
Geithner said that "nothing would make me happier," but that administration officials and banking regulators would need to weigh the potential effect on the economy.
"One is, do the institutions themselves have enough capital to be able to lend?" he said. And is the overall financial system working well enough to start pulling back the extra cushion that the bailout money provides, he said.
Warren said the panel was trying to address criticism of the bailouts from the public.
"People are angry because they're paying for programs that haven't been fully explained and have no apparent benefit for their families or for the economy as a whole but that seem to leave enough cash in the system for lavish bonuses or golf outings," she told Geithner. "None of this seems fair." Another panel member, Damon Silvers, associate counsel for the AFL-CIO, questioned the taxpayer risk in the proposed public/private partnership to purchase bad mortgage loans and other toxic assets from financial institutions.
There seemed to be a "profound and inexplicable imbalance" between the risk that taxpayers were making in funding the purchases and the upside they could get from sale of the assets at a later date compared with the lower risk and greater upside for private investors, he said.
"Now, I just don't get it, Mr. Secretary, how this represents protecting the taxpayer, and I would like you to explain why it does," Silvers said.
Geithner said the alternative would be for the government to take on all of the risk and to determine, in the absence of private investors, the fair market value for the assets.
"Now, they would get in return all the potential upside in this case," Geithner said of taxpayers, "but that trade-off is a bad trade-off for the government, because the government is highly unlikely to be in a position to be able to get the valuation right."
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
—————
ARCHIVE PHOTO on MCT Direct (from MCT Photo Service, 202-383-6099): "timothy geithner"
By Jim Puzzanghera
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has enough money left for its economic initiatives with $110 billion remaining in the federal financial rescue fund and $25 billion more coming this year as some banks return bailout money, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Tuesday.
Geithner disclosed the new numbers as he defended the administration's bailout efforts in the face of tough questioning from a special panel overseeing the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In his first appearance before the panel, Geithner said federal funding has helped stimulate consumer and business lending, but more work was needed to revive an economy mired in recession.
"The lessons of financial crises (are) that early action, forceful action, sustained action to repair financial systems, promote the flow of credit, is essential to limit the damage recessions cause and to make it possible to bring recovery about at least cost to the taxpayer over time," he said.
In his written testimony, Geithner said the vast majority of banks "have more capital than they need to be considered well-capitalized by their regulators," a comment that helped boost the stock market a day after it had been shaken by huge loan losses reported Monday by Bank of America Corp.
The Dow Jones industrials jumped 1.6 percent, and the Standard & Poor's 500 index surged 2.3 percent, as each gauge erased almost half the decline it recorded Monday.
The TARP money has been used primarily to bolster the financial industry — both giants such as Bank of America and Citigroup Inc. and smaller banks — but also to try to steady the teetering U.S. auto industry, specifically Chrysler and General Motors Corp.
Geithner tried to blunt criticism of the bailouts by saying the government was doing its best to balance the protection of taxpayer money with prevention of a collapse of the financial system.
"My basic obligation and our responsibility is to make sure that the system as a whole has the ability to provide the credit that recovery requires. And so we need to make a careful judgment about what policies are going to best promote that objective," Geithner told the congressional oversight panel, which was created last fall to monitor use of the $700 billion fund.
In a separate letter to panel Chairwoman Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard University law professor, Geithner said the fund had at least $109.6 billion remaining after a series of unprecedented investments in U.S. banks and other financial institutions through TARP.
With repayments, the administration expects to have $134.6 billion to use for additional rescue efforts the rest of the year.
Noting that the administration plans to provide additional money to banks, as well as to GM and Chrysler, "we believe that even under the conservative estimate of available funds described here, we have the resources to move forward implementing all aspects of our financial stability plan," Geithner wrote.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
The administration has not said how much more money it would provide to GM as it aims to restructure by June 1 and to Chrysler as it seeks a government-brokered merger with Italian automaker Fiat by May 1. But a report Tuesday from the office of the TARP special inspector general said GM would receive up to $5 billion and Chrysler up to $500 million in working capital.
In February, the White House said it might need an additional $750 billion in bailout money should economic conditions worsen. But administration officials have since stressed that they have no plans to ask Congress for more money.
Such a request would be a hard sell because many lawmakers from both parties have been upset about the way the program has been run, particularly with the large amounts of money injected into banks with no requirements that they lend it.
Critics received more ammunition Tuesday from the inspector general's 250-page report, which said it had opened 20 criminal investigations into fraud and other misuse of the money.
So-called stress tests to assess the financial condition of the nation's 19 largest banks might require the government to provide more money to some large banks if they can't raise additional capital themselves.
Those funds could be offset by repayments by some financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, that want to get out of restrictions on executive compensation and other government conditions that come with the federal money.
During his congressional appearance, Geithner was questioned sharply about recent comments indicating that even if some of the largest recipients of bailout money wanted to return the money and had the funds to do so, government officials might not allow them.
"If there are firms that wish to repay taxpayers their money ... why wouldn't you take the money back?" asked Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, one of two lawmakers on the panel.
Geithner said that "nothing would make me happier," but that administration officials and banking regulators would need to weigh the potential effect on the economy.
"One is, do the institutions themselves have enough capital to be able to lend?" he said. And is the overall financial system working well enough to start pulling back the extra cushion that the bailout money provides, he said.
Warren said the panel was trying to address criticism of the bailouts from the public.
"People are angry because they're paying for programs that haven't been fully explained and have no apparent benefit for their families or for the economy as a whole but that seem to leave enough cash in the system for lavish bonuses or golf outings," she told Geithner. "None of this seems fair." Another panel member, Damon Silvers, associate counsel for the AFL-CIO, questioned the taxpayer risk in the proposed public/private partnership to purchase bad mortgage loans and other toxic assets from financial institutions.
There seemed to be a "profound and inexplicable imbalance" between the risk that taxpayers were making in funding the purchases and the upside they could get from sale of the assets at a later date compared with the lower risk and greater upside for private investors, he said.
"Now, I just don't get it, Mr. Secretary, how this represents protecting the taxpayer, and I would like you to explain why it does," Silvers said.
Geithner said the alternative would be for the government to take on all of the risk and to determine, in the absence of private investors, the fair market value for the assets.
"Now, they would get in return all the potential upside in this case," Geithner said of taxpayers, "but that trade-off is a bad trade-off for the government, because the government is highly unlikely to be in a position to be able to get the valuation right."
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
—————
ARCHIVE PHOTO on MCT Direct (from MCT Photo Service, 202-383-6099): "timothy geithner"
Obama hails Kennedy, signs volunteerism bill
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By Rebecca Cole
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — At a time when community service is already growing, openings for federally sponsored volunteers will more than triple under a bill that President Barack Obama signed into law Tuesday.
The legislation, which won broad bipartisan support, authorizes an expansion of AmeriCorps and other national service programs. It is named for its lead sponsor, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who attended the signing along with former President Bill Clinton, who started AmeriCorps in 1993.
With his signature, Obama called on Americans to "stand up" and take part in community service. "I'm asking you to help change history's course, put your shoulder up against the wheel," he said.
Kennedy called it "a wonderful day for all of our country and all Americans, who will now have a chance and the opportunity to give back to their communities and the nation, the nation that we love so much."
Obama, for his part, said he wouldn't be where he is today without the service of others: "When I moved to Chicago more than two decades ago, to become a community organizer, I wasn't sure what was waiting for me there. But I had always been inspired by the stories of the civil rights movement and President (John) Kennedy's call to service."
Propelled by Edward Kennedy and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah — the "odd couple of the Senate," Obama called them — the act will deliver $1.1 billion to AmeriCorps this year, in addition to $200 million that the president's economic stimulus act has funneled to the organization.
The funding will allow the organization to expand openings for AmeriCorps volunteers from 75,000 to 250,000 positions over the next nine years and to establish four new areas of volunteer corps in health care, education, clean energy and conservation.
The legislation ties service to education, increasing the stipend paid to volunteers to $5,350, the same as that of a Pell Grant for college students. It also creates a $50 million Social Innovation Fund to provide matching grants to nonprofit organizations. And it establishes Sept. 11 as a national day of service.
Alan Solomont, chairman of the agency that oversees AmeriCorps, notes that interest in the program already is growing — with 17,000 applications collected online in March, triple the number recorded in March 2008.
"We know that people want to serve, as witnessed by 'the Obama effect' of people answering the president's call to service," Solomont said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday.
Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, calls the new Social Innovation Fund consistent with Obama's commitment to look outside of Washington for programs that have an impact on their communities.
"One of the things we are very focused on here is not just the number of people who participate, the number of hours that are committed, but impact and transformation," Barnes said.
The White House also announced the nomination of Maria Eitel for chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that operates AmeriCorps. As president and founder of the Nike Foundation, the former Nike vice president for corporate responsibility has worked at increasing opportunities for girls around the world.
Eitel, Obama said, "will bring new, creative thinking to the growth and mission" of the organization.
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
By Rebecca Cole
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — At a time when community service is already growing, openings for federally sponsored volunteers will more than triple under a bill that President Barack Obama signed into law Tuesday.
The legislation, which won broad bipartisan support, authorizes an expansion of AmeriCorps and other national service programs. It is named for its lead sponsor, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who attended the signing along with former President Bill Clinton, who started AmeriCorps in 1993.
With his signature, Obama called on Americans to "stand up" and take part in community service. "I'm asking you to help change history's course, put your shoulder up against the wheel," he said.
Kennedy called it "a wonderful day for all of our country and all Americans, who will now have a chance and the opportunity to give back to their communities and the nation, the nation that we love so much."
Obama, for his part, said he wouldn't be where he is today without the service of others: "When I moved to Chicago more than two decades ago, to become a community organizer, I wasn't sure what was waiting for me there. But I had always been inspired by the stories of the civil rights movement and President (John) Kennedy's call to service."
Propelled by Edward Kennedy and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah — the "odd couple of the Senate," Obama called them — the act will deliver $1.1 billion to AmeriCorps this year, in addition to $200 million that the president's economic stimulus act has funneled to the organization.
The funding will allow the organization to expand openings for AmeriCorps volunteers from 75,000 to 250,000 positions over the next nine years and to establish four new areas of volunteer corps in health care, education, clean energy and conservation.
The legislation ties service to education, increasing the stipend paid to volunteers to $5,350, the same as that of a Pell Grant for college students. It also creates a $50 million Social Innovation Fund to provide matching grants to nonprofit organizations. And it establishes Sept. 11 as a national day of service.
Alan Solomont, chairman of the agency that oversees AmeriCorps, notes that interest in the program already is growing — with 17,000 applications collected online in March, triple the number recorded in March 2008.
"We know that people want to serve, as witnessed by 'the Obama effect' of people answering the president's call to service," Solomont said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday.
Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, calls the new Social Innovation Fund consistent with Obama's commitment to look outside of Washington for programs that have an impact on their communities.
"One of the things we are very focused on here is not just the number of people who participate, the number of hours that are committed, but impact and transformation," Barnes said.
The White House also announced the nomination of Maria Eitel for chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that operates AmeriCorps. As president and founder of the Nike Foundation, the former Nike vice president for corporate responsibility has worked at increasing opportunities for girls around the world.
Eitel, Obama said, "will bring new, creative thinking to the growth and mission" of the organization.
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Judge refuses Blagojevich request to leave U.S. for reality TV show
From TheMatadorOnline.com:
By Jeff Coen and John Chase
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
CHICAGO — A federal judge on Tuesday denied former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's bid to join a reality TV show in Costa Rica and told him it's time he focus on the actual reality of his criminal trial.
U.S. District Judge James Zagel told Blagojevich it was a "bad idea" for the ex-governor to spend a few weeks running through the jungle trying not to get voted off a show by viewers, all while ignoring the voluminous government evidence against him.
The "great shock" of seeing perhaps tens of thousands of pages of documents — and digesting their contents — will lead to a better sense of what kind of jeopardy the sweeping federal case represents for Blagojevich, the judge said.
"The defendant has not gone through either of those preliminary stages," Zagel said. "It's way too soon. I don't think the defendant in all honesty fully understands, nor could he understand, (having) not seen everything, the position he finds himself in."
Blagojevich's lawyer, Sheldon Sorosky, described the role on "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" as a job for the ousted governor, who he said is essentially broke. He could have earned as much as $123,250 on the program.
In one bit of good news for Blagojevich, Zagel indicated he might allow the former governor to use the nearly $2.7 million in his campaign fund to help pay his legal defense.
Blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to charges he ran state government as a criminal enterprise to enrich himself and close aides, advisers and fundraisers. Tuesday marked his second appearance in court in just a week.
Following the hearing, Blagojevich endured another scrum with the media and public outside the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.
Asked about Zagel's comments that he doesn't understand the jeopardy he faces, Blagojevich said he looks forward to being vindicated in court.
"I'm fully aware of what the allegations are and I know what the truth is concerning me and I know that I've done absolutely nothing wrong," he said. "And I'm actually looking forward to this day in court. ... I want to prove my innocence. I want to vindicate myself. I want to clear my name."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
During the melee, Sorosky grasped onto a Tiffany bag that someone had given to Blagojevich before court. Inside, he said, was a gift: a candlestick.
"I don't even know if I can take it," Blagojevich said in apparent reference to state rules that track gifts for elected officials. A reporter pointed out he was no longer governor and could take whatever gifts he'd like.
When asked by a reporter how active a role he will play in his own defense, Blagojevich replied, "Very active."
"I know a lot of things about me," he said.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Sorosky said he plans to quickly file a motion to gain access to the campaign funds for legal bills. Zagel encouraged Sorosky to make the request because Blagojevich's attorney has indicated the ex-governor and former first lady Patricia Blagojevich are unemployed and taxpayers would then have to pay his legal bills.
"It shows he was an honest man," Sorosky said when asked later if Blagojevich is really broke.
Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan was not able to pay his attorneys with money from his campaign fund in part because that fund itself had previously been convicted of wrongdoing.
During the hearing, Sorosky brought along a representative from the TV show's production company and tried to convince Zagel to allow Blagojevich to travel outside the U.S. for the show. NBC was willing to pay for two security guards to watch Blagojevich "24 hours a day" and the former governor would put up his house as bail, he said.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Sorosky said the government presumes the governor will run away but that he wanted only to raise money for his family.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar said it is impossible to predict the actions of the former governor, especially once he realizes he potentially could face up to 30 years in prison if convicted.
"What Mr. Blagojevich will do ... is an inherently difficult proposition," Schar said.
"I do not have confidence that things will not go astray," Zagel said in denying Blagojevich's request.
Two former chiefs of staff for Blagojevich, John Harris and Lon Monk, are expected to plead guilty and testify against Blagojevich, Schar said. It is the first time law enforcement officials have publicly confirmed that Monk is cooperating.
NBC issued a statement saying the production wouldn't relocate to a site within the United States so Blagojevich could participate. In a short-lived 2003 version of the show, contestants had to put insects, worms and rats in their pants, sit in a tank of leeches and wade through a swamp populated by snakes and eels.
———
(Chicago Tribune reporters Robert Mitchum and Stacy St. Clair contributed to this report.)
———
(c) 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
—————
By Jeff Coen and John Chase
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
CHICAGO — A federal judge on Tuesday denied former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's bid to join a reality TV show in Costa Rica and told him it's time he focus on the actual reality of his criminal trial.
U.S. District Judge James Zagel told Blagojevich it was a "bad idea" for the ex-governor to spend a few weeks running through the jungle trying not to get voted off a show by viewers, all while ignoring the voluminous government evidence against him.
The "great shock" of seeing perhaps tens of thousands of pages of documents — and digesting their contents — will lead to a better sense of what kind of jeopardy the sweeping federal case represents for Blagojevich, the judge said.
"The defendant has not gone through either of those preliminary stages," Zagel said. "It's way too soon. I don't think the defendant in all honesty fully understands, nor could he understand, (having) not seen everything, the position he finds himself in."
Blagojevich's lawyer, Sheldon Sorosky, described the role on "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" as a job for the ousted governor, who he said is essentially broke. He could have earned as much as $123,250 on the program.
In one bit of good news for Blagojevich, Zagel indicated he might allow the former governor to use the nearly $2.7 million in his campaign fund to help pay his legal defense.
Blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to charges he ran state government as a criminal enterprise to enrich himself and close aides, advisers and fundraisers. Tuesday marked his second appearance in court in just a week.
Following the hearing, Blagojevich endured another scrum with the media and public outside the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse.
Asked about Zagel's comments that he doesn't understand the jeopardy he faces, Blagojevich said he looks forward to being vindicated in court.
"I'm fully aware of what the allegations are and I know what the truth is concerning me and I know that I've done absolutely nothing wrong," he said. "And I'm actually looking forward to this day in court. ... I want to prove my innocence. I want to vindicate myself. I want to clear my name."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
During the melee, Sorosky grasped onto a Tiffany bag that someone had given to Blagojevich before court. Inside, he said, was a gift: a candlestick.
"I don't even know if I can take it," Blagojevich said in apparent reference to state rules that track gifts for elected officials. A reporter pointed out he was no longer governor and could take whatever gifts he'd like.
When asked by a reporter how active a role he will play in his own defense, Blagojevich replied, "Very active."
"I know a lot of things about me," he said.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Sorosky said he plans to quickly file a motion to gain access to the campaign funds for legal bills. Zagel encouraged Sorosky to make the request because Blagojevich's attorney has indicated the ex-governor and former first lady Patricia Blagojevich are unemployed and taxpayers would then have to pay his legal bills.
"It shows he was an honest man," Sorosky said when asked later if Blagojevich is really broke.
Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan was not able to pay his attorneys with money from his campaign fund in part because that fund itself had previously been convicted of wrongdoing.
During the hearing, Sorosky brought along a representative from the TV show's production company and tried to convince Zagel to allow Blagojevich to travel outside the U.S. for the show. NBC was willing to pay for two security guards to watch Blagojevich "24 hours a day" and the former governor would put up his house as bail, he said.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Sorosky said the government presumes the governor will run away but that he wanted only to raise money for his family.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid Schar said it is impossible to predict the actions of the former governor, especially once he realizes he potentially could face up to 30 years in prison if convicted.
"What Mr. Blagojevich will do ... is an inherently difficult proposition," Schar said.
"I do not have confidence that things will not go astray," Zagel said in denying Blagojevich's request.
Two former chiefs of staff for Blagojevich, John Harris and Lon Monk, are expected to plead guilty and testify against Blagojevich, Schar said. It is the first time law enforcement officials have publicly confirmed that Monk is cooperating.
NBC issued a statement saying the production wouldn't relocate to a site within the United States so Blagojevich could participate. In a short-lived 2003 version of the show, contestants had to put insects, worms and rats in their pants, sit in a tank of leeches and wade through a swamp populated by snakes and eels.
———
(Chicago Tribune reporters Robert Mitchum and Stacy St. Clair contributed to this report.)
———
(c) 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
—————
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama tells Cabinet to cut spending, but trims would only total $100 million
By Christi Parsons
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called his full Cabinet together for the first time on Monday and instructed department heads to cut enough money from their budgets to set a new "tone" in Washington.
But the target the president set for the cuts amounts to a small fraction of the overall budget, leaving room for critics to question whether the reductions mean much at all.
The president has asked for a total of $100 million in trims, from a budget expected to exceed $3.5 trillion. Secretaries have a month and a half to come up with proposed cuts.
"None of these things alone are going to make a difference," Obama conceded, emerging from the meeting. "But cumulatively they would make an extraordinary difference, because they start setting a tone." If they cut "$100 million there, $100 million here," Obama said, "pretty soon, even in Washington, it adds up to real money."
Republicans characterized the target in different terms. A "meager .0025 percent," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Pathetic joke," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
"Let's not forget that at the same time they're looking for millions in savings, the president's budget calls for adding trillions to the debt," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
According to the White House, federal agencies have already started working to trim fat from their budgets.
At the Agriculture Department, for example, officials have been seeking out potential fraud and improper payments in the farm programs, the White House said. People who get program payments will now have to provide income information for verification, so that ineligible recipients can be taken off the rolls.
Most employees at the Department of Education will have either a laptop or a desktop computer, but not both. The Homeland Security Department will try to get better prices on its supplies by purchasing in bulk.
U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals plan to publish judicial forfeiture notices on the Internet instead of in newspapers. The Department of Veterans Affairs has canceled or put off more than two dozen conferences and will begin to use more video-conference in its training programs.
Some of those changes are expected to save a few hundred thousand dollars, others a few million.
As government money flows toward projects enabled by the president's nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, some GOP critics say Obama is missing an obvious place to look for cuts.
"If the administration wants to get serious about cutting waste, it should start by taking a closer look at how millions in 'stimulus' dollars are being wasted on a skateboard park in Rhode Island, bike racks in Washington, D.C., highway studies instead of construction projects in Ohio and programs led by housing agencies that routinely fail audits," Boehner said in a written statement.
Obama acknowledged "a confidence gap when it comes to the American people. And we've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at questions about the low-dollar amount of the requested cuts.
"Only in Washington, D.C.," he said, "is $100 million not a lot of money."
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
—————
Tribune Washington Bureau
(MCT)
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama called his full Cabinet together for the first time on Monday and instructed department heads to cut enough money from their budgets to set a new "tone" in Washington.
But the target the president set for the cuts amounts to a small fraction of the overall budget, leaving room for critics to question whether the reductions mean much at all.
The president has asked for a total of $100 million in trims, from a budget expected to exceed $3.5 trillion. Secretaries have a month and a half to come up with proposed cuts.
"None of these things alone are going to make a difference," Obama conceded, emerging from the meeting. "But cumulatively they would make an extraordinary difference, because they start setting a tone." If they cut "$100 million there, $100 million here," Obama said, "pretty soon, even in Washington, it adds up to real money."
Republicans characterized the target in different terms. A "meager .0025 percent," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Pathetic joke," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
"Let's not forget that at the same time they're looking for millions in savings, the president's budget calls for adding trillions to the debt," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
According to the White House, federal agencies have already started working to trim fat from their budgets.
At the Agriculture Department, for example, officials have been seeking out potential fraud and improper payments in the farm programs, the White House said. People who get program payments will now have to provide income information for verification, so that ineligible recipients can be taken off the rolls.
Most employees at the Department of Education will have either a laptop or a desktop computer, but not both. The Homeland Security Department will try to get better prices on its supplies by purchasing in bulk.
U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals plan to publish judicial forfeiture notices on the Internet instead of in newspapers. The Department of Veterans Affairs has canceled or put off more than two dozen conferences and will begin to use more video-conference in its training programs.
Some of those changes are expected to save a few hundred thousand dollars, others a few million.
As government money flows toward projects enabled by the president's nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, some GOP critics say Obama is missing an obvious place to look for cuts.
"If the administration wants to get serious about cutting waste, it should start by taking a closer look at how millions in 'stimulus' dollars are being wasted on a skateboard park in Rhode Island, bike racks in Washington, D.C., highway studies instead of construction projects in Ohio and programs led by housing agencies that routinely fail audits," Boehner said in a written statement.
Obama acknowledged "a confidence gap when it comes to the American people. And we've got to earn their trust. They've got to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at questions about the low-dollar amount of the requested cuts.
"Only in Washington, D.C.," he said, "is $100 million not a lot of money."
———
(c) 2009, Tribune Co.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
—————
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama: Cuba must take next steps toward normalizing relations with U.S.
From TheMatadorOnline.com newsroom:
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad _ President Barack Obama resisted pressure Saturday from Latin American counterparts to lift the trade embargo with Cuba, countering that the steps he has taken to loosen travel restrictions will have to suffice for now.
Obama, appearing at a weekend summit of 34 Western Hemisphere nations in Trinidad, reiterated that he is committed to improving relations with Cuba.
"He said we are on a path of changing the nature of our relationship with that country," said a senior Obama administration official who briefed reporters on the meeting. "He is interested in dialogue but not talk for talk's sake."
Cuba's fate has come to dominate the Summit of the Americas, after an unexpected overture from the nation's president, Raul Castro, last week. But White House officials caution that before the U.S. normalizes relations, Cuba's leadership needs to take actions consistent with the new tone, such as releasing political prisoners, dropping fees imposed on money sent home to Cuba and freeing up the press.
A lighter undercurrent to the summit has been Obama's periodic encounters with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. On Friday they shook hands. And on Saturday morning, Chavez handed Obama a book, "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," by Eduardo Galeano.
Chavez also said he expected to send an ambassador back to Washington soon, after a dispute in September in which each country expelled the other's ambassador.
___
© 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad _ President Barack Obama resisted pressure Saturday from Latin American counterparts to lift the trade embargo with Cuba, countering that the steps he has taken to loosen travel restrictions will have to suffice for now.
Obama, appearing at a weekend summit of 34 Western Hemisphere nations in Trinidad, reiterated that he is committed to improving relations with Cuba.
"He said we are on a path of changing the nature of our relationship with that country," said a senior Obama administration official who briefed reporters on the meeting. "He is interested in dialogue but not talk for talk's sake."
Cuba's fate has come to dominate the Summit of the Americas, after an unexpected overture from the nation's president, Raul Castro, last week. But White House officials caution that before the U.S. normalizes relations, Cuba's leadership needs to take actions consistent with the new tone, such as releasing political prisoners, dropping fees imposed on money sent home to Cuba and freeing up the press.
A lighter undercurrent to the summit has been Obama's periodic encounters with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. On Friday they shook hands. And on Saturday morning, Chavez handed Obama a book, "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," by Eduardo Galeano.
Chavez also said he expected to send an ambassador back to Washington soon, after a dispute in September in which each country expelled the other's ambassador.
___
© 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Friday, April 17, 2009
High school senior asks S.C. court to weigh in on stimulus funds
From TheMatadorOnline.com newsroom:
By John O'Connor
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
COLUMBIA, S.C. _ A high school senior has filed a lawsuit asking the South Carolina Supreme Court to decide who _ Gov. Mark Sanford or the Legislature _ controls $700 million in disputed federal stimulus money.
In an indication it could act swiftly, the court ordered South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster to respond to the lawsuit by Monday.
Casey Edwards, the 18-year-old who filed the lawsuit Thursday, said South Carolina students and schools are suffering from budget cuts and would benefit from the money.
In a statement, Sanford _ who has gained national attention for his anti-stimulus position amid speculation he might run for president in 2012 _ called the challenge a "politically driven press spectacle ... rather than a suit with any actual merit."
For weeks, Sanford and lawmakers have been at odds over whether to include $350 million in federal money in the state's budget for the year that starts July 1. More than 80 percent of that money must be spent on K-12 and colleges, according to federal rules.
An additional $350 million can be spent the following year.
Sanford must apply for the money before it can be sent to South Carolina. The Republican governor has said he will not ask for it unless lawmakers agree to pay off an equal amount of state debt.
A clause in the bill _ inserted by U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. _ was intended to allow lawmakers to accept the money if Sanford refused it, but legal questions have cut off that avenue.
"I've had a great experience in my Chapin schools," said Edwards, who said she sold Chick-Fil-A chicken sandwiches to raise money for a Dillon County school last year after seeing a documentary on the poor conditions at schools along the Interstate 95 corridor. "Every student should have that same quality of education."
The lawsuit is the first effort to force a resolution to the stimulus impasse. However, lawmakers also may include the money in the state budget or pass a bill ordering Sanford to accept it.
Dwight Drake, one of Edwards' two Columbia attorneys, said the intent of the federal legislation was clear: to allow lawmakers to accept the money if a governor refused. He added the state's high court could settle the issue within 30 days.
"There is a substantial, but simple, legal question here," said Drake. "The Supreme Court is the quickest and most certain route to get the question decided."
McMaster, who will represent the state in the suit, said he was pleased the Supreme Court indicated it would decide quickly whether to accept the case.
In a statement, the Republican attorney general called the lawsuit "premature," adding it "may be perceived as partisan and politically motivated _ because the governor and Legislature still have time to resolve the issue prior to the end of the legislative session."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
However, Drake said a suit was inevitable, whether before or after the state budget was completed.
Lawmakers, who say they want to use the money to stave off job and service cuts, were hopeful the court quickly would end questions about whether the money can be used in the state's budget for its next fiscal year.
"I would hope that the court ... would address this as quickly as they can," said Republican state Sen. Hugh Leatherman.
Sanford criticized the lawsuit as filed by two Columbia political insiders _ Drake and former South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Dick Harpootlian _ and added the White House and McMaster previously have said federal law gives him control over the money.
Referring to an anti-tax rally he addressed Wednesday, Sanford said, "Thousands of taxpayers in our state stood up yesterday and said they're tired of government spending beyond its means, that they're tired of these so-called 'stimulus' efforts out of Washington, D.C., and that they're tired of Columbia insiders like these driving decisions in the State House."
Edwards acknowledged she was stepping into a political fray.
"It's a little intimidating, but I feel it's a very important issue."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
She said she became interested in the issue after joining Columbia public relations executive Bud Ferrillo's campaign to improve South Carolina education. She added that her school district _ Lexington-Richland District 5 _ already is laying off teachers, including one who tutored her after school to improve her math scores.
Edwards said she talked about the lawsuit with her family, who supported her decision.
David Edwards described his daughter as politically conservative, adding he trusts her judgment.
"She's a leader. She's an independent person. I didn't want her to be a pawn. She's never led us wrong before."
___
(Staff writer Gina Smith contributed to this story.)
___
© 2009, The State (Columbia, S.C.).
Visit the State at http://www.thestate.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
By John O'Connor
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
COLUMBIA, S.C. _ A high school senior has filed a lawsuit asking the South Carolina Supreme Court to decide who _ Gov. Mark Sanford or the Legislature _ controls $700 million in disputed federal stimulus money.
In an indication it could act swiftly, the court ordered South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster to respond to the lawsuit by Monday.
Casey Edwards, the 18-year-old who filed the lawsuit Thursday, said South Carolina students and schools are suffering from budget cuts and would benefit from the money.
In a statement, Sanford _ who has gained national attention for his anti-stimulus position amid speculation he might run for president in 2012 _ called the challenge a "politically driven press spectacle ... rather than a suit with any actual merit."
For weeks, Sanford and lawmakers have been at odds over whether to include $350 million in federal money in the state's budget for the year that starts July 1. More than 80 percent of that money must be spent on K-12 and colleges, according to federal rules.
An additional $350 million can be spent the following year.
Sanford must apply for the money before it can be sent to South Carolina. The Republican governor has said he will not ask for it unless lawmakers agree to pay off an equal amount of state debt.
A clause in the bill _ inserted by U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C. _ was intended to allow lawmakers to accept the money if Sanford refused it, but legal questions have cut off that avenue.
"I've had a great experience in my Chapin schools," said Edwards, who said she sold Chick-Fil-A chicken sandwiches to raise money for a Dillon County school last year after seeing a documentary on the poor conditions at schools along the Interstate 95 corridor. "Every student should have that same quality of education."
The lawsuit is the first effort to force a resolution to the stimulus impasse. However, lawmakers also may include the money in the state budget or pass a bill ordering Sanford to accept it.
Dwight Drake, one of Edwards' two Columbia attorneys, said the intent of the federal legislation was clear: to allow lawmakers to accept the money if a governor refused. He added the state's high court could settle the issue within 30 days.
"There is a substantial, but simple, legal question here," said Drake. "The Supreme Court is the quickest and most certain route to get the question decided."
McMaster, who will represent the state in the suit, said he was pleased the Supreme Court indicated it would decide quickly whether to accept the case.
In a statement, the Republican attorney general called the lawsuit "premature," adding it "may be perceived as partisan and politically motivated _ because the governor and Legislature still have time to resolve the issue prior to the end of the legislative session."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
However, Drake said a suit was inevitable, whether before or after the state budget was completed.
Lawmakers, who say they want to use the money to stave off job and service cuts, were hopeful the court quickly would end questions about whether the money can be used in the state's budget for its next fiscal year.
"I would hope that the court ... would address this as quickly as they can," said Republican state Sen. Hugh Leatherman.
Sanford criticized the lawsuit as filed by two Columbia political insiders _ Drake and former South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Dick Harpootlian _ and added the White House and McMaster previously have said federal law gives him control over the money.
Referring to an anti-tax rally he addressed Wednesday, Sanford said, "Thousands of taxpayers in our state stood up yesterday and said they're tired of government spending beyond its means, that they're tired of these so-called 'stimulus' efforts out of Washington, D.C., and that they're tired of Columbia insiders like these driving decisions in the State House."
Edwards acknowledged she was stepping into a political fray.
"It's a little intimidating, but I feel it's a very important issue."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
She said she became interested in the issue after joining Columbia public relations executive Bud Ferrillo's campaign to improve South Carolina education. She added that her school district _ Lexington-Richland District 5 _ already is laying off teachers, including one who tutored her after school to improve her math scores.
Edwards said she talked about the lawsuit with her family, who supported her decision.
David Edwards described his daughter as politically conservative, adding he trusts her judgment.
"She's a leader. She's an independent person. I didn't want her to be a pawn. She's never led us wrong before."
___
(Staff writer Gina Smith contributed to this story.)
___
© 2009, The State (Columbia, S.C.).
Visit the State at http://www.thestate.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Former Ill. Gov. Blagojevich, brother, top fundraiser indicted
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By Rick Pearson and Jeff Coen
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
CHICAGO _ Federal prosecutors expanded their case against former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Thursday in an indictment that drew more of his closest aides into the scandal and adds new schemes to the list of charges against him: Pocketing money funneled through his wife through a phony real estate job. Shaking down a powerful congressman. Running the state as a racket.
Coming nearly four months after federal agents roused a sitting governor out of his home in a pre-dawn arrest _ and weeks after lawmakers dumped him from power _ Thursday's indictment of Blagojevich, his brother and four former top insiders could have been anti-climactic.
Instead, prosecutors added a few more chapters to the Blagojevich saga, further pulling in his family into the pay-to-play conspiracy, revealing yet more confidants had turned on him and suggesting he was intent on corruption before he was even sworn in. The indictment carries a potentially lengthy prison sentence and possible forfeiture of his family home should Blagojevich be convicted.
After turning Illinois politics into an amusement-park ride, most notably for allegedly trying to sell President Barack Obama's Senate seat, Blagojevich spent the day of his indictment with his family at Walt Disney World in Florida.
The indictment alleged that Blagojevich and his most trusted confidants conspired to enrich themselves before his election as governor in November 2002, even striking a deal to divide the spoils after he left the state's highest office.
Blagojevich was indicted on 16 racketeering, fraud and extortion counts. Among the new, damaging allegations were that Blagojevich delayed a $2 million grant to a public charter school while trying to extort campaign cash from now-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and threatened to withhold future state business from financial institutions that refused to hire his wife.
Blagojevich's effort to profit, both personally and for his Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund, was so pervasive that federal prosecutors labeled the racketeering scheme "The Blagojevich Enterprise."
"The primary purpose of the Blagojevich Enterprise was to exercise and preserve power over the government of the State of Illinois for the financial and political benefit of Rod Blagojevich, both directly and through Friends of Blagojevich, and for the financial benefit of his family members and associates," the indictment alleged.
Also indicted were Blagojevich's close friend and fundraiser, Christopher Kelly, and two former chiefs of staff _ Alonzo "Lon" Monk, a long-time friend who also managed Blagojevich's campaigns for governor and later became a well-healed lobbyist, and John Harris, who succeeded Monk as chief of staff. Blagojevich's brother, Robert, who headed his campaign fund, also was charged, as was Illinois Republican powerbroker William Cellini.
Blagojevich's wife, Patricia, was not indicted but was essentially described as a co-conspirator amid efforts to enrich herself and the Blagojevich family.
Prosecutors said Harris had agreed to cooperate, and details contained in the indictment indicated that Antoin "Tony" Rezko, once a major fundraiser and adviser to Blagojevich who was convicted in June on corruption charges, also was helping to build the case against the former governor. And in a new twist, sources also said Monk had negotiated to work with federal prosecutors.
In a statement released by the public relations firm representing him, Blagojevich said he was "innocent."
Orlando's WESH-TV posted on its Web site a video of the former governor in sunglasses and shorts sitting beside a pool. As his wife tried to block the camera's view, Blagojevich declined to discuss the charges and said he would talk "at the appropriate time."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
It was clear from the indictment that new cooperation from former close associates, such as Rezko, was providing prosecutors with valuable information.
The indictment alleged that Rezko played an integral role in boosting the Blagojevich family's finances, steering little- or no-work real estate commissions to Patricia Blagojevich's real estate firm and later hiring her for his own real estate business at $12,000 a month. Rezko also allegedly gave Monk as much as $90,000 to help pay for a car and home improvements.
Among the earliest and biggest plots in the "Blagojevich Enterprise" was a scheme to direct the sale of billions of dollars in bonds to refinance the state's pension debt to a company whose lobbyist secretly agreed to kick back hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rezko. Sources with knowledge of the situation identified that company as Bear Stearns and the lobbyist as Robert Kjellander.
The indictment also alleged that even though it was public knowledge in 2006 that Rezko and Kelly were under federal investigation, Blagojevich continued his effort to benefit from his post. One notable example involved Emanuel, then a congressman, who was supporting a $2 million grant for Chicago Academy, but Blagojevich allegedly delayed it in an effort to force Emanuel and one of the congressman's brothers to hold a fundraiser for him.
The indictment largely restated the criminal charges leveled against Blagojevich in the December complaint. It contended he sought to profit from the sale of his appointment of a U.S. Senate successor to Obama in forms ranging from an ambassadorship or Cabinet post to a job for his wife.
The indictment also restated that Blagojevich allegedly tried to seek the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial writers who were critical of him in exchange for granting state help in the sale of Wrigley Field. The indictment indicates Blagojevich directed Harris to go to Tribune Co. leaders with the proposal, but did not allege that Harris followed through with the governor's request.
Prosecutors are seeking the forfeiture of more than $188,000 from Blagojevich, and threatened to go after his property _ including his Ravenswood Manor home and an apartment in Washington D.C.
___
© 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
By Rick Pearson and Jeff Coen
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
CHICAGO _ Federal prosecutors expanded their case against former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Thursday in an indictment that drew more of his closest aides into the scandal and adds new schemes to the list of charges against him: Pocketing money funneled through his wife through a phony real estate job. Shaking down a powerful congressman. Running the state as a racket.
Coming nearly four months after federal agents roused a sitting governor out of his home in a pre-dawn arrest _ and weeks after lawmakers dumped him from power _ Thursday's indictment of Blagojevich, his brother and four former top insiders could have been anti-climactic.
Instead, prosecutors added a few more chapters to the Blagojevich saga, further pulling in his family into the pay-to-play conspiracy, revealing yet more confidants had turned on him and suggesting he was intent on corruption before he was even sworn in. The indictment carries a potentially lengthy prison sentence and possible forfeiture of his family home should Blagojevich be convicted.
After turning Illinois politics into an amusement-park ride, most notably for allegedly trying to sell President Barack Obama's Senate seat, Blagojevich spent the day of his indictment with his family at Walt Disney World in Florida.
The indictment alleged that Blagojevich and his most trusted confidants conspired to enrich themselves before his election as governor in November 2002, even striking a deal to divide the spoils after he left the state's highest office.
Blagojevich was indicted on 16 racketeering, fraud and extortion counts. Among the new, damaging allegations were that Blagojevich delayed a $2 million grant to a public charter school while trying to extort campaign cash from now-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and threatened to withhold future state business from financial institutions that refused to hire his wife.
Blagojevich's effort to profit, both personally and for his Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund, was so pervasive that federal prosecutors labeled the racketeering scheme "The Blagojevich Enterprise."
"The primary purpose of the Blagojevich Enterprise was to exercise and preserve power over the government of the State of Illinois for the financial and political benefit of Rod Blagojevich, both directly and through Friends of Blagojevich, and for the financial benefit of his family members and associates," the indictment alleged.
Also indicted were Blagojevich's close friend and fundraiser, Christopher Kelly, and two former chiefs of staff _ Alonzo "Lon" Monk, a long-time friend who also managed Blagojevich's campaigns for governor and later became a well-healed lobbyist, and John Harris, who succeeded Monk as chief of staff. Blagojevich's brother, Robert, who headed his campaign fund, also was charged, as was Illinois Republican powerbroker William Cellini.
Blagojevich's wife, Patricia, was not indicted but was essentially described as a co-conspirator amid efforts to enrich herself and the Blagojevich family.
Prosecutors said Harris had agreed to cooperate, and details contained in the indictment indicated that Antoin "Tony" Rezko, once a major fundraiser and adviser to Blagojevich who was convicted in June on corruption charges, also was helping to build the case against the former governor. And in a new twist, sources also said Monk had negotiated to work with federal prosecutors.
In a statement released by the public relations firm representing him, Blagojevich said he was "innocent."
Orlando's WESH-TV posted on its Web site a video of the former governor in sunglasses and shorts sitting beside a pool. As his wife tried to block the camera's view, Blagojevich declined to discuss the charges and said he would talk "at the appropriate time."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
It was clear from the indictment that new cooperation from former close associates, such as Rezko, was providing prosecutors with valuable information.
The indictment alleged that Rezko played an integral role in boosting the Blagojevich family's finances, steering little- or no-work real estate commissions to Patricia Blagojevich's real estate firm and later hiring her for his own real estate business at $12,000 a month. Rezko also allegedly gave Monk as much as $90,000 to help pay for a car and home improvements.
Among the earliest and biggest plots in the "Blagojevich Enterprise" was a scheme to direct the sale of billions of dollars in bonds to refinance the state's pension debt to a company whose lobbyist secretly agreed to kick back hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rezko. Sources with knowledge of the situation identified that company as Bear Stearns and the lobbyist as Robert Kjellander.
The indictment also alleged that even though it was public knowledge in 2006 that Rezko and Kelly were under federal investigation, Blagojevich continued his effort to benefit from his post. One notable example involved Emanuel, then a congressman, who was supporting a $2 million grant for Chicago Academy, but Blagojevich allegedly delayed it in an effort to force Emanuel and one of the congressman's brothers to hold a fundraiser for him.
The indictment largely restated the criminal charges leveled against Blagojevich in the December complaint. It contended he sought to profit from the sale of his appointment of a U.S. Senate successor to Obama in forms ranging from an ambassadorship or Cabinet post to a job for his wife.
The indictment also restated that Blagojevich allegedly tried to seek the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial writers who were critical of him in exchange for granting state help in the sale of Wrigley Field. The indictment indicates Blagojevich directed Harris to go to Tribune Co. leaders with the proposal, but did not allege that Harris followed through with the governor's request.
Prosecutors are seeking the forfeiture of more than $188,000 from Blagojevich, and threatened to go after his property _ including his Ravenswood Manor home and an apartment in Washington D.C.
___
© 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
S.C. governor gives in on stimulus, will apply for state's funds
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By James Rosen
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford will comply with a midnight Friday stimulus deadline and become the last governor in the nation to seek millions of dollars in federal economic-recovery funds for his state, aides said late Thursday.
Sanford will continue contesting $700 million in education and law enforcement money for South Carolina, but his 11th-hour move to meet the deadline buys time for schools fearing mass teacher layoffs and draconian cuts.
Sanford's month-long fight over stimulus money placed South Carolina in the national spotlight and put him at loggerheads with President Barack Obama.
"Tomorrow the governor is going to send the (Section) 1607 certification for everything except the stabilization funds," Sanford's spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said Thursday evening. "The governor will apply for that (additional) money if the General Assembly is willing to compromise and pay down some debt with it."
Obama has twice rejected Sanford's written requests to use $700 million in State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money to pay off state government debt instead of its stated use to help school districts retain teachers and modernize old schools or build new ones.
White House officials confirmed for the first time Thursday that a 45-day deadline in the $787 billion stimulus bill, which Obama signed into law on Feb. 17, applies only to governors' initial requests for the money _ and not to states' formal application for it.
State leaders in Columbia, S.C., and Washington had thought that midnight Friday was the deadline for actually claiming the $700 million in disputed funds.
Obama aides cheered Sanford's decision to protect most of $8 billion in stimulus funds slated for South Carolina.
"We are pleased with reports that Governor Sanford will join the other 49 governors _ Democrats and Republicans _ in filing a certification to accept Recovery Act money," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
"The Recovery Act will create or save 3.5 million jobs (nationwide), and we do not want to see the citizens of any state denied the help that it can provide," Baer said.
Obama has claimed that the stimulus package will create or preserve 50,000 jobs in South Carolina, whose 11.4 percent unemployment rate is the nation's second-highest after Michigan's.
Sanford will likely continue to tussle with state general assembly leaders from his own Republican Party over his insistence that at least some of the disputed $700 million pay off debt, despite $1.1 billion in state budget cuts already imposed this year because of revenue shortfalls.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Sanford's expected move is an implicit acknowledgement that for weeks he'd erroneously claimed control over only the $700 million in education funds, not over the entire $8 billion package.
In fact, Sanford's failure to request the stimulus funds by midnight Friday would have imperiled all $8 billion reserved for his state.
The stimulus package, an ambitious bid by Obama to jolt the economy, provides $8 billion to South Carolina for Medicaid payments, road and bridge repairs and construction, unemployment benefits, police officers, tax cuts and a host of other needs.
In a day filled with brinksmanship, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., warned that Sanford was jeopardizing South Carolina's share of the funds.
"Does Governor Sanford intend to meet the minimal prerequisite certification requirement in order to reserve the right for the state to seek funds in the future?" a Clyburn written statement asked. "Or will he put all economic stimulus funding in jeopardy?"
In a letter to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, Orszag said that state legislatures lack the authority under the stimulus law to apply for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money.
Clyburn had crafted a provision in the law that was intended to give legislatures such power and to bypass governors who oppose using federal deficit spending to revive the economy.
Orszag's letter suggests that the Obama administration wouldn't recognize or act on a state resolution applying for the disputed $700 million.
That fact keeps the onus on Sanford to apply for the money, though he now has 75 days _ 120 days from the stimulus law's enactment _ to do so.
Even if Sanford and the legislative leaders can reach a compromise, it's uncertain how any of the $700 million could be used to pay down state debt after Orszag's explicit instruction, in two letters to him, that the law doesn't permit such use.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the Obama administration is working with Clyburn to craft new legislation in Congress that would provide the $700 million to South Carolina should Sanford fail to apply for it in time.
___
(John O'Connor of The State in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this article.)
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
By James Rosen
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford will comply with a midnight Friday stimulus deadline and become the last governor in the nation to seek millions of dollars in federal economic-recovery funds for his state, aides said late Thursday.
Sanford will continue contesting $700 million in education and law enforcement money for South Carolina, but his 11th-hour move to meet the deadline buys time for schools fearing mass teacher layoffs and draconian cuts.
Sanford's month-long fight over stimulus money placed South Carolina in the national spotlight and put him at loggerheads with President Barack Obama.
"Tomorrow the governor is going to send the (Section) 1607 certification for everything except the stabilization funds," Sanford's spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said Thursday evening. "The governor will apply for that (additional) money if the General Assembly is willing to compromise and pay down some debt with it."
Obama has twice rejected Sanford's written requests to use $700 million in State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money to pay off state government debt instead of its stated use to help school districts retain teachers and modernize old schools or build new ones.
White House officials confirmed for the first time Thursday that a 45-day deadline in the $787 billion stimulus bill, which Obama signed into law on Feb. 17, applies only to governors' initial requests for the money _ and not to states' formal application for it.
State leaders in Columbia, S.C., and Washington had thought that midnight Friday was the deadline for actually claiming the $700 million in disputed funds.
Obama aides cheered Sanford's decision to protect most of $8 billion in stimulus funds slated for South Carolina.
"We are pleased with reports that Governor Sanford will join the other 49 governors _ Democrats and Republicans _ in filing a certification to accept Recovery Act money," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
"The Recovery Act will create or save 3.5 million jobs (nationwide), and we do not want to see the citizens of any state denied the help that it can provide," Baer said.
Obama has claimed that the stimulus package will create or preserve 50,000 jobs in South Carolina, whose 11.4 percent unemployment rate is the nation's second-highest after Michigan's.
Sanford will likely continue to tussle with state general assembly leaders from his own Republican Party over his insistence that at least some of the disputed $700 million pay off debt, despite $1.1 billion in state budget cuts already imposed this year because of revenue shortfalls.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Sanford's expected move is an implicit acknowledgement that for weeks he'd erroneously claimed control over only the $700 million in education funds, not over the entire $8 billion package.
In fact, Sanford's failure to request the stimulus funds by midnight Friday would have imperiled all $8 billion reserved for his state.
The stimulus package, an ambitious bid by Obama to jolt the economy, provides $8 billion to South Carolina for Medicaid payments, road and bridge repairs and construction, unemployment benefits, police officers, tax cuts and a host of other needs.
In a day filled with brinksmanship, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., warned that Sanford was jeopardizing South Carolina's share of the funds.
"Does Governor Sanford intend to meet the minimal prerequisite certification requirement in order to reserve the right for the state to seek funds in the future?" a Clyburn written statement asked. "Or will he put all economic stimulus funding in jeopardy?"
In a letter to Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, Orszag said that state legislatures lack the authority under the stimulus law to apply for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money.
Clyburn had crafted a provision in the law that was intended to give legislatures such power and to bypass governors who oppose using federal deficit spending to revive the economy.
Orszag's letter suggests that the Obama administration wouldn't recognize or act on a state resolution applying for the disputed $700 million.
That fact keeps the onus on Sanford to apply for the money, though he now has 75 days _ 120 days from the stimulus law's enactment _ to do so.
Even if Sanford and the legislative leaders can reach a compromise, it's uncertain how any of the $700 million could be used to pay down state debt after Orszag's explicit instruction, in two letters to him, that the law doesn't permit such use.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the Obama administration is working with Clyburn to craft new legislation in Congress that would provide the $700 million to South Carolina should Sanford fail to apply for it in time.
___
(John O'Connor of The State in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this article.)
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
Fate of health care overhaul could hinge on procedural gamble
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By David Lightman
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ The best hope for overhauling the nation's health care system later this year may depend on a procedural change slipped into the House of Representatives' budget bill.
The provision would allow the Senate to approve health care legislation with a simple majority vote, a change that would block opponents from debating the issue to death.
Usually, 60 votes are needed to limit debate under Senate rules. Since Democrats control only 58 Senate seats, Republican opposition could block a health care overhaul. The House bill's terms, however, would permit Senate passage with a 51-vote threshold.
The House version of the budget, which passed Thursday evening on a vote of 233 to 196, would allow the Senate procedural change by authorizing what's known as "the reconciliation process." It would permit that process for legislation on health care, education and tax policy.
Reconciliation was first used in 1980. It's been a common feature of budget resolutions. It was used for President Bill Clinton's welfare changes in 1996, and for President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It's controversial, however, and legislative minorities hate being gagged by it.
The Senate budget doesn't include the "reconciliation" option, but congressional negotiators will resolve differences between the two budget bills later this month, and they could insert the House language into the final bill, facilitating the Senate process change. The Obama administration has said it's weighing whether to support doing it.
The reconciliation process is being considered because Democrats see a rare opportunity to enact a goal that the party's had since Harry Truman was president 60 years ago. Not only is Barack Obama, a popular president, putting his weight behind overhauling health care, he's backed by strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
Democrats have a 76-seat majority in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants to move quickly.
"The American people want us to find our common ground where we can," she said, "but they did not send us here to split the difference."
A holdup could still come in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been circumspect about whether he'd permit the reconciliation process to ram health care legislation through his chamber, not ruling it in or out.
Republicans are angry about the prospect.
"It'll be like a declaration of war," said Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming, the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Even some Democrats are wary.
"I don't think things should be done this way," Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu said of the reconciliation process. "If we're changing the whole system of health care, it needs to be done carefully, with hearings and thorough discussions."
Such uneasiness was apparent Wednesday, when 26 Senate Democrats joined 41 Republicans to pass a measure forbidding reconciliation from being used to pass legislation controlling carbon emissions.
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, had pleaded with colleagues to allow the simple-majority option for that legislation too, saying, "It is the way to govern with a majority."
Others, however, wanted to ensure a full airing of all issues surrounding efforts to control emissions, and feared that could be difficult if debate were too limited. "The question is whether technology is sufficient to really control emissions at the level you want," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
While reconciliation has been used before to muscle controversial measures through the Senate, the tactic could present another risk for Democratic lawmakers this year, because Obama has emphasized the need to try to work with Republicans. This tactic "conflicts with the new bipartisan spirit President Obama promised," Enzi said.
Not so, Democratic leaders countered. Reconciliation is an option that doesn't have to be used _ if a bipartisan consensus can be reached this summer or fall. Then a bill could move forward under standard Senate rules.
"It's a fallback position," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., "We want to work together."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
___
ON THE WEB
Congressional Research Service report on the reconciliation process: http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-814.pdf
House of Representatives 2010 budget fact sheet: http://tinyurl.com/d4ryum
President Obama's 2010 budget outline: http://tinyurl.com/bcbxk6
House of Representatives Republican 2010 budget: http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/04/01/fiscal-responsibility-republicans-on-the
Concord Coalition budget analysis: http://tinyurl.com/cwjb2e
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
By David Lightman
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ The best hope for overhauling the nation's health care system later this year may depend on a procedural change slipped into the House of Representatives' budget bill.
The provision would allow the Senate to approve health care legislation with a simple majority vote, a change that would block opponents from debating the issue to death.
Usually, 60 votes are needed to limit debate under Senate rules. Since Democrats control only 58 Senate seats, Republican opposition could block a health care overhaul. The House bill's terms, however, would permit Senate passage with a 51-vote threshold.
The House version of the budget, which passed Thursday evening on a vote of 233 to 196, would allow the Senate procedural change by authorizing what's known as "the reconciliation process." It would permit that process for legislation on health care, education and tax policy.
Reconciliation was first used in 1980. It's been a common feature of budget resolutions. It was used for President Bill Clinton's welfare changes in 1996, and for President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It's controversial, however, and legislative minorities hate being gagged by it.
The Senate budget doesn't include the "reconciliation" option, but congressional negotiators will resolve differences between the two budget bills later this month, and they could insert the House language into the final bill, facilitating the Senate process change. The Obama administration has said it's weighing whether to support doing it.
The reconciliation process is being considered because Democrats see a rare opportunity to enact a goal that the party's had since Harry Truman was president 60 years ago. Not only is Barack Obama, a popular president, putting his weight behind overhauling health care, he's backed by strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
Democrats have a 76-seat majority in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., wants to move quickly.
"The American people want us to find our common ground where we can," she said, "but they did not send us here to split the difference."
A holdup could still come in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been circumspect about whether he'd permit the reconciliation process to ram health care legislation through his chamber, not ruling it in or out.
Republicans are angry about the prospect.
"It'll be like a declaration of war," said Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming, the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Even some Democrats are wary.
"I don't think things should be done this way," Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu said of the reconciliation process. "If we're changing the whole system of health care, it needs to be done carefully, with hearings and thorough discussions."
Such uneasiness was apparent Wednesday, when 26 Senate Democrats joined 41 Republicans to pass a measure forbidding reconciliation from being used to pass legislation controlling carbon emissions.
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, had pleaded with colleagues to allow the simple-majority option for that legislation too, saying, "It is the way to govern with a majority."
Others, however, wanted to ensure a full airing of all issues surrounding efforts to control emissions, and feared that could be difficult if debate were too limited. "The question is whether technology is sufficient to really control emissions at the level you want," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
While reconciliation has been used before to muscle controversial measures through the Senate, the tactic could present another risk for Democratic lawmakers this year, because Obama has emphasized the need to try to work with Republicans. This tactic "conflicts with the new bipartisan spirit President Obama promised," Enzi said.
Not so, Democratic leaders countered. Reconciliation is an option that doesn't have to be used _ if a bipartisan consensus can be reached this summer or fall. Then a bill could move forward under standard Senate rules.
"It's a fallback position," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., "We want to work together."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
___
ON THE WEB
Congressional Research Service report on the reconciliation process: http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-814.pdf
House of Representatives 2010 budget fact sheet: http://tinyurl.com/d4ryum
President Obama's 2010 budget outline: http://tinyurl.com/bcbxk6
House of Representatives Republican 2010 budget: http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/04/01/fiscal-responsibility-republicans-on-the
Concord Coalition budget analysis: http://tinyurl.com/cwjb2e
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
Senate makes sales tax deduction permanent
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By Maria Recio
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ The Senate fulfilled a dream for taxpayers in several states without income taxes by making permanent the sales tax deductions on their federal income tax.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., led the effort on the Senate floor with an amendment to the federal budget bill for fiscal 2010. The amendment, which passed by voice vote and still must be agreed to by the House, makes good on the reinstitution of the deduction for taxpayers who itemize by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, in 2004. The deduction has been extended on a piecemeal basis ever since.
Florida, Nevada, Texas, Washington and Wyoming don't collect income taxes, and Alaska levies neither income nor sales taxes. In Tennessee, income taxes are limited to interest and dividend income.
The provision _ which allows taxpayers who itemize to deduct either their state income tax or their state and local sales tax expenses _ is currently scheduled to expire after the 2009 tax year. Reid's amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund that would offset the cost to the U.S. Treasury by cutting other programs.
"Every little bit helps when people are trying to stay in their homes and put food on the table for their families," Reid said when he introduced the amendment. "This sales tax deduction is vital to many Nevadans, especially because they cannot deduct a state income tax on their federal return like residents of many other states."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Reid worked with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who had an amendment as well. Hutchison's didn't include a reserve fund, but simply made permanent the state and local sales tax deduction.
"This is an important one because it is a matter of equity," Hutchison said as she withdrew her amendment in support of Reid's.
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee who's been a leader on the issue in the House with Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., said that the annual cost to the federal government from the deduction is about $3 billion a year.
The sales tax deduction was part of the federal tax system until the 1986 Tax Reform Act. As Reid said on the Senate floor, "It took us 22 years before fairness was restored and the deduction was reinstated in 2004."
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
By Maria Recio
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ The Senate fulfilled a dream for taxpayers in several states without income taxes by making permanent the sales tax deductions on their federal income tax.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., led the effort on the Senate floor with an amendment to the federal budget bill for fiscal 2010. The amendment, which passed by voice vote and still must be agreed to by the House, makes good on the reinstitution of the deduction for taxpayers who itemize by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, in 2004. The deduction has been extended on a piecemeal basis ever since.
Florida, Nevada, Texas, Washington and Wyoming don't collect income taxes, and Alaska levies neither income nor sales taxes. In Tennessee, income taxes are limited to interest and dividend income.
The provision _ which allows taxpayers who itemize to deduct either their state income tax or their state and local sales tax expenses _ is currently scheduled to expire after the 2009 tax year. Reid's amendment would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund that would offset the cost to the U.S. Treasury by cutting other programs.
"Every little bit helps when people are trying to stay in their homes and put food on the table for their families," Reid said when he introduced the amendment. "This sales tax deduction is vital to many Nevadans, especially because they cannot deduct a state income tax on their federal return like residents of many other states."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
Reid worked with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who had an amendment as well. Hutchison's didn't include a reserve fund, but simply made permanent the state and local sales tax deduction.
"This is an important one because it is a matter of equity," Hutchison said as she withdrew her amendment in support of Reid's.
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee who's been a leader on the issue in the House with Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., said that the annual cost to the federal government from the deduction is about $3 billion a year.
The sales tax deduction was part of the federal tax system until the 1986 Tax Reform Act. As Reid said on the Senate floor, "It took us 22 years before fairness was restored and the deduction was reinstated in 2004."
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Justice Department moves to void Stevens' conviction
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By Erika Bolstad
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ The Justice Department has moved to dismiss former Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens' indictment, effectively voiding his conviction Oct. 27 on seven counts of filing false statements on his U.S. Senate financial-disclosure forms.
"After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement released Wednesday morning. "In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial."
The Justice Department filed its motion to dismiss the case Wednesday morning, saying in it that "given the facts of this particular case, the government believes that granting a new trial is in the interest of justice." However, "the government has further determined that, based on the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice, it will not seek a new trial."
Within days of his conviction, Stevens, 85, lost his re-election bid to Anchorage's Democratic former mayor, Mark Begich.
Since Stevens was convicted, his lawyers have filed several motions to dismiss his original indictment or to grant him a new trial. Their motions have been based in part on allegations in a whistleblower complaint by an Anchorage FBI agent, along with other allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that were released after Stevens was convicted.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who oversaw the case, scheduled a hearing Tuesday on the motion to dismiss the indictment.
"I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come," Stevens said in a statement released by his lawyers. "It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognized as unfair. It was my great honor to serve the state of Alaska in the United States Senate for 40 years."
Stevens' attorneys, Brendan Sullivan and Robert Cary, issued a statement praising the Justice Department's decision. Stevens was traveling in Alaska and unavailable for further comment.
"This jury verdict was obtained unlawfully. The government disregarded the Constitution, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and well-established case law," his attorneys said, adding, "The misconduct of government prosecutors, and one or more FBI agents, was stunning. Not only did the government fail to disclose evidence of innocence, but instead intentionally hid that evidence and created false evidence that they provided to the defense."
Holder said that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility "will conduct a thorough review of the prosecution of this matter."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
The decision to dismiss the case, however, appears to be based on a matter that came up during the trial: a discrepancy in the courtroom statements of the star witness, Bill Allen, the former oil-services company chief executive officer who plied Stevens with gifts, including home renovations that doubled the size of the senator's residence in Alaska.
The Justice Department recently discovered notes from an interview that prosecutors conducted last April 15 with Allen, wrote Paul O'Brien, who's been handling post-conviction matters in the case since a judge cited some members of the original trial team with contempt for failing to turn over documents.
In the interview, Allen was asked about a 2002 note that Stevens sent him, thanking him for his work on "the chalet," Stevens' home in Alaska.
In the note, Stevens told Allen not to be "P.O.'d" but that Allen needed to have a conversation with one of Stevens' neighbors in Girdwood, Bob Persons, a close friend of both who helped oversee the renovation of the senator's home. It "has to be done right," Stevens wrote.
"You owe me a bill," Stevens' letter said. "Remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing, compliance with the ethics rules entirely different."
Allen said on the stand that he was unaware at the time what Stevens meant by "Torricelli." Stevens apparently was referring to former Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., whom the Justice Department investigated in 2002 for allegedly accepting improper gifts from a donor. The investigation closed, but the Senate Ethics Committee reviewed the Justice Department files and issued a public letter of admonishment to Torricelli, who then abandoned a re-election bid and left the Senate.
Allen testified that he didn't send Stevens a bill after the note. Allen also said that he had a conversation with Persons. He testified that Persons told him, "Don't worry about getting a bill, Ted's just covering his ass."
O'Brien wrote that the interview notes indicate that Allen said he "did not recall talking to Bob Persons regarding giving a bill to the defendant."
"That statement was inconsistent with Allen's recollection at trial," O'Brien wrote, and when the Justice Department discovered the interview notes last week, the government provided a copy to defense counsel. That information could have been used when Stevens' lawyers cross-examined Allen, O'Brien noted, or in their closing statement.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
The Senate's Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called the Justice Department's move "a relief to Stevens and his family."
He said, however, that had the Justice Department acted last year, before the election, Republicans might not have lost the seat. That would have given Democrats _ who have 58 Senate seats _ one fewer seat toward a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.
"It was disappointing to lose the seat, no question about it," McConnell said. "No question that if this decision had been made last year he'd still be in the Senate."
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who assumed Stevens' role as the senior senator from Alaska, said she was "deeply disturbed that the government can ruin a man's career and then say, 'Never mind.'
"There is nothing that will ever compensate for the loss of his reputation or leadership to the state of Alaska."
Stevens' replacement, Begich, said in a statement that "the decision by President Obama's Justice Department to end the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens is reasonable."
"I always said I didn't think Senator Stevens should serve time in jail, and hopefully this decision ensures that is the case," Begich said. "It's time for Senator Stevens, his family and Alaskans to move on and put this behind us."
___
(Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News in Anchorage, Alaska, and Halimah Abdullah contributed to this article.)
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
By Erika Bolstad
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ The Justice Department has moved to dismiss former Alaska Republican Sen. Ted Stevens' indictment, effectively voiding his conviction Oct. 27 on seven counts of filing false statements on his U.S. Senate financial-disclosure forms.
"After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement released Wednesday morning. "In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial."
The Justice Department filed its motion to dismiss the case Wednesday morning, saying in it that "given the facts of this particular case, the government believes that granting a new trial is in the interest of justice." However, "the government has further determined that, based on the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice, it will not seek a new trial."
Within days of his conviction, Stevens, 85, lost his re-election bid to Anchorage's Democratic former mayor, Mark Begich.
Since Stevens was convicted, his lawyers have filed several motions to dismiss his original indictment or to grant him a new trial. Their motions have been based in part on allegations in a whistleblower complaint by an Anchorage FBI agent, along with other allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that were released after Stevens was convicted.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, who oversaw the case, scheduled a hearing Tuesday on the motion to dismiss the indictment.
"I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come," Stevens said in a statement released by his lawyers. "It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognized as unfair. It was my great honor to serve the state of Alaska in the United States Senate for 40 years."
Stevens' attorneys, Brendan Sullivan and Robert Cary, issued a statement praising the Justice Department's decision. Stevens was traveling in Alaska and unavailable for further comment.
"This jury verdict was obtained unlawfully. The government disregarded the Constitution, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and well-established case law," his attorneys said, adding, "The misconduct of government prosecutors, and one or more FBI agents, was stunning. Not only did the government fail to disclose evidence of innocence, but instead intentionally hid that evidence and created false evidence that they provided to the defense."
Holder said that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility "will conduct a thorough review of the prosecution of this matter."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
The decision to dismiss the case, however, appears to be based on a matter that came up during the trial: a discrepancy in the courtroom statements of the star witness, Bill Allen, the former oil-services company chief executive officer who plied Stevens with gifts, including home renovations that doubled the size of the senator's residence in Alaska.
The Justice Department recently discovered notes from an interview that prosecutors conducted last April 15 with Allen, wrote Paul O'Brien, who's been handling post-conviction matters in the case since a judge cited some members of the original trial team with contempt for failing to turn over documents.
In the interview, Allen was asked about a 2002 note that Stevens sent him, thanking him for his work on "the chalet," Stevens' home in Alaska.
In the note, Stevens told Allen not to be "P.O.'d" but that Allen needed to have a conversation with one of Stevens' neighbors in Girdwood, Bob Persons, a close friend of both who helped oversee the renovation of the senator's home. It "has to be done right," Stevens wrote.
"You owe me a bill," Stevens' letter said. "Remember Torricelli, my friend. Friendship is one thing, compliance with the ethics rules entirely different."
Allen said on the stand that he was unaware at the time what Stevens meant by "Torricelli." Stevens apparently was referring to former Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., whom the Justice Department investigated in 2002 for allegedly accepting improper gifts from a donor. The investigation closed, but the Senate Ethics Committee reviewed the Justice Department files and issued a public letter of admonishment to Torricelli, who then abandoned a re-election bid and left the Senate.
Allen testified that he didn't send Stevens a bill after the note. Allen also said that he had a conversation with Persons. He testified that Persons told him, "Don't worry about getting a bill, Ted's just covering his ass."
O'Brien wrote that the interview notes indicate that Allen said he "did not recall talking to Bob Persons regarding giving a bill to the defendant."
"That statement was inconsistent with Allen's recollection at trial," O'Brien wrote, and when the Justice Department discovered the interview notes last week, the government provided a copy to defense counsel. That information could have been used when Stevens' lawyers cross-examined Allen, O'Brien noted, or in their closing statement.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
The Senate's Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called the Justice Department's move "a relief to Stevens and his family."
He said, however, that had the Justice Department acted last year, before the election, Republicans might not have lost the seat. That would have given Democrats _ who have 58 Senate seats _ one fewer seat toward a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.
"It was disappointing to lose the seat, no question about it," McConnell said. "No question that if this decision had been made last year he'd still be in the Senate."
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who assumed Stevens' role as the senior senator from Alaska, said she was "deeply disturbed that the government can ruin a man's career and then say, 'Never mind.'
"There is nothing that will ever compensate for the loss of his reputation or leadership to the state of Alaska."
Stevens' replacement, Begich, said in a statement that "the decision by President Obama's Justice Department to end the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens is reasonable."
"I always said I didn't think Senator Stevens should serve time in jail, and hopefully this decision ensures that is the case," Begich said. "It's time for Senator Stevens, his family and Alaskans to move on and put this behind us."
___
(Richard Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News in Anchorage, Alaska, and Halimah Abdullah contributed to this article.)
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
Sebelius becomes latest Obama Cabinet pick with tax troubles
By David Goldstein
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Tuesday joined a list of Cabinet nominees who were forced to pay back taxes because of errors in their returns.
In a letter to the Senate Finance Committee, Sebelius, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department, said she repaid nearly $8,000, including interest, because of "unintentional errors."
Sebelius said the errors concerned charitable contributions, the sale of a home and business expenses.
The list of nominees with tax trouble includes Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was Obama's first choice for HHS and withdrew after disclosing that he paid $140,000 in back taxes and interest.
Neither Sebelius nor the White House issued a comment.
Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which will vote Thursday on sending her nomination to the full Senate, quickly sent out a statement that indicated his support.
"Congress is going to need a strong partner at the Department of Health and Human Services to achieve comprehensive health reform this year and that partner is Governor Sebelius," Baucus said. "She is the right person for the job."
Apart from the errors that Sebelius cited, Baucus and Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the finance panel's ranking Republican, told her in a letter that "No additional items were identified that needed to be addressed as a result of our review."
Sebelius said in her letter that she found out about the errors when she hired a certified public accountant to scrub her tax returns from 2005 to 2007 after Obama nominated her.
She then filed amended returns. Those were included in the nomination packet on Sebelius that the White House sent to the Finance Committee on March 17.
One of the errors resulted from not providing an acknowledgement letter from three out of the 49 charitable recipients to which she contributed money. The law requires the letter for any gift over $250.
Another involved an erroneous deduction for mortgage interest after she and her husband, Gary Sebelius, a federal magistrate judge, sold their home. The third involved business deductions.
The tax problems surfaced on a day when she appeared at her first hearing on Capitol Hill as a nominee. Her initial trial by fire was actually more of a warm embrace.
During more than two hours of largely friendly questioning, most members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee praised "her willingness" to take the job.
"I can't think of a tougher job to step into now," former Kansas Republican Sen. Bob Dole, who sat by Sebelius for nearly the entire hearing, told the panel.
The hearing gave Sebelius a roadmap to the concerns of the committee, which has jurisdiction over so much of what could be on her plate: AIDS, food safety, doctors who refuse to treat patients covered by Medicare, and more.
"We face a health system that burdens families, businesses and government budgets with skyrocketing costs," Sebelius said. "Action is not a choice. It is a necessity."
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Tuesday joined a list of Cabinet nominees who were forced to pay back taxes because of errors in their returns.
In a letter to the Senate Finance Committee, Sebelius, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department, said she repaid nearly $8,000, including interest, because of "unintentional errors."
Sebelius said the errors concerned charitable contributions, the sale of a home and business expenses.
The list of nominees with tax trouble includes Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was Obama's first choice for HHS and withdrew after disclosing that he paid $140,000 in back taxes and interest.
Neither Sebelius nor the White House issued a comment.
Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which will vote Thursday on sending her nomination to the full Senate, quickly sent out a statement that indicated his support.
"Congress is going to need a strong partner at the Department of Health and Human Services to achieve comprehensive health reform this year and that partner is Governor Sebelius," Baucus said. "She is the right person for the job."
Apart from the errors that Sebelius cited, Baucus and Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the finance panel's ranking Republican, told her in a letter that "No additional items were identified that needed to be addressed as a result of our review."
Sebelius said in her letter that she found out about the errors when she hired a certified public accountant to scrub her tax returns from 2005 to 2007 after Obama nominated her.
She then filed amended returns. Those were included in the nomination packet on Sebelius that the White House sent to the Finance Committee on March 17.
One of the errors resulted from not providing an acknowledgement letter from three out of the 49 charitable recipients to which she contributed money. The law requires the letter for any gift over $250.
Another involved an erroneous deduction for mortgage interest after she and her husband, Gary Sebelius, a federal magistrate judge, sold their home. The third involved business deductions.
The tax problems surfaced on a day when she appeared at her first hearing on Capitol Hill as a nominee. Her initial trial by fire was actually more of a warm embrace.
During more than two hours of largely friendly questioning, most members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee praised "her willingness" to take the job.
"I can't think of a tougher job to step into now," former Kansas Republican Sen. Bob Dole, who sat by Sebelius for nearly the entire hearing, told the panel.
The hearing gave Sebelius a roadmap to the concerns of the committee, which has jurisdiction over so much of what could be on her plate: AIDS, food safety, doctors who refuse to treat patients covered by Medicare, and more.
"We face a health system that burdens families, businesses and government budgets with skyrocketing costs," Sebelius said. "Action is not a choice. It is a necessity."
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
Sen. Ted Stevens Case Update
Bulletin: CNN: The Justice Department has dropped its case against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a source tells CNN.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Young Obama voters stay in the game by lobbying for policy changes
From TheMatadorOnline.com newsroom:
By Laura Isensee
The Dallas Morning News
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ Backpacks on the floor, dozens of Texas college students crowded into the atrium of a Senate office building and circled around an aide to Sen. John Cornyn.
The subject was legislation. But this was no school tour: These students came to Washington to lobby.
"Can we count on the senator to stand as a voice in Congress for capping carbon emissions?" asked Jacob Bintliff, a 21-year-old University of Texas at Austin senior who sported a khaki blazer, shiny tie and purple bandana around his head.
The Texas students joined some 10,000 other youth on Capitol Hill in March to push for climate action, in what organizers called the second-largest lobbying day in the nation's history. (The fact that a freak snowstorm hit the same day hardly fazed them.)
The event gives some clues how young voters who helped propel Barack Obama to the White House are trying to shift their influence from the campaign trail to the policy realm. It's a tough task _ shaping legislation is often a professional pursuit involving millions of dollars the college students don't have.
But they're trying to fill the gaps with the tools they do have: progressive issues that move young people; old-school techniques like Capitol Hill visits; civil disobedience when necessary; and a heavy dose of social networking tools such as Twitter.
Youth organizers believe their cohort earned a louder voice in Congress on Election Day last year. Youth mobilized in the campaign, with turnout slightly higher than four years before, and young voters made up a bigger share than usual in some key battleground states. And about two-thirds voted for Obama.
"This is the first time we can go to the political table and flex our muscle," said Praween Dayananda. He helped organized the 160-strong Texas contingent at the event and pointed out this year Cornyn's office was more receptive than last year.
Texas A&M senior Adrienne Jones, who used her own cell phone to make voter turnout calls for Obama last year, trekked to Washington.
"This is our movement. This is our time to make change in the world. I want to be a part of it," said Jones, a 23-year-old from Dallas.
Confidence is key for youth to engage in policy-making, said Peter Levine, who directs research at Tufts University's Jonathan Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service. Young people have to believe they're able to make a difference.
Levine's extensive research on the "Millennial" generation finds that, compared to previous generations, twentysomethings are more liberal, trust Congress more and volunteer more.
But anyone _ young or old _ who wants to engage in policy-making faces serious challenges, said Levine and others who promote civic engagement.
First, there have to be opportunities to engage. Traditional methods _ like writing, emailing or calling your congressman _ can be superficial and easy to manufacture on a large scale.
"There are so many people doing it, that every single individual letter ends up counting very little," Levine said.
Then there are institutional barriers: pressure from interest groups, fundraising difficulties and partisanship, said Joe Goldman, vice president of citizen engagement at AmericaSpeaks. The nonprofit group was started by a former Clinton administration official who wanted to close the gap between citizens and government decision-making.
"People want to participate but they only want to do that if they're actually going to be heard," Goldman said. And youth, he contends, have often been forgotten in the process.
Adding to the challenge, young people have few political groups with the legal status to lobby, said Matt Segal, the young executive director of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment.
Plus, "money talks in this town," Segal said.
To help remedy that, Segal's group may merge with two or three other organizations, so they can have a nonprofit arm and a legislative advocacy arm.
"We're not organized, not powerful enough. We need to do more than just blogging and Facebook posts," Segal said.
For the Texas students who trooped to Washington, the lobby day was just a start. Next on the agenda: meetings with their representatives at home and a statewide energy conference in Austin this weekend.
They're already learning about ways to send their message. Before a final photo op with Cornyn's aide, the group had something for the senator: a plastic green hard-hat slapped with a sticker "Get to Work!"
___
If the "Millennial" generation is able to put its stamp on government policy, what might that look like?
First, don't expect a narrow agenda focused only on college students' issues, said Hans Riemer, who was key in organizing youth voters in the Obama campaign and now works with AARP in Washington.
"We don't want to ghettoize them," said Riemer, adding that young people would be involved in issues ranging from the environment to health care.
Also, watch for Millennials to develop new ways of influencing policy, said Ian Storrar, with Moblize.org, which works to get young people involved in policy at all levels of government.
Storrar, 27, predicts his generation will not follow the traditional, top-down approach to political organizing. Instead, individuals will be able to share ideas and organize action through social networking, rather than wait for direction from leaders of a group.
_Laura Isensee
___
© 2009, The Dallas Morning News.
Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at http://www.dallasnews.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
By Laura Isensee
The Dallas Morning News
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ Backpacks on the floor, dozens of Texas college students crowded into the atrium of a Senate office building and circled around an aide to Sen. John Cornyn.
The subject was legislation. But this was no school tour: These students came to Washington to lobby.
"Can we count on the senator to stand as a voice in Congress for capping carbon emissions?" asked Jacob Bintliff, a 21-year-old University of Texas at Austin senior who sported a khaki blazer, shiny tie and purple bandana around his head.
The Texas students joined some 10,000 other youth on Capitol Hill in March to push for climate action, in what organizers called the second-largest lobbying day in the nation's history. (The fact that a freak snowstorm hit the same day hardly fazed them.)
The event gives some clues how young voters who helped propel Barack Obama to the White House are trying to shift their influence from the campaign trail to the policy realm. It's a tough task _ shaping legislation is often a professional pursuit involving millions of dollars the college students don't have.
But they're trying to fill the gaps with the tools they do have: progressive issues that move young people; old-school techniques like Capitol Hill visits; civil disobedience when necessary; and a heavy dose of social networking tools such as Twitter.
Youth organizers believe their cohort earned a louder voice in Congress on Election Day last year. Youth mobilized in the campaign, with turnout slightly higher than four years before, and young voters made up a bigger share than usual in some key battleground states. And about two-thirds voted for Obama.
"This is the first time we can go to the political table and flex our muscle," said Praween Dayananda. He helped organized the 160-strong Texas contingent at the event and pointed out this year Cornyn's office was more receptive than last year.
Texas A&M senior Adrienne Jones, who used her own cell phone to make voter turnout calls for Obama last year, trekked to Washington.
"This is our movement. This is our time to make change in the world. I want to be a part of it," said Jones, a 23-year-old from Dallas.
Confidence is key for youth to engage in policy-making, said Peter Levine, who directs research at Tufts University's Jonathan Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service. Young people have to believe they're able to make a difference.
Levine's extensive research on the "Millennial" generation finds that, compared to previous generations, twentysomethings are more liberal, trust Congress more and volunteer more.
But anyone _ young or old _ who wants to engage in policy-making faces serious challenges, said Levine and others who promote civic engagement.
First, there have to be opportunities to engage. Traditional methods _ like writing, emailing or calling your congressman _ can be superficial and easy to manufacture on a large scale.
"There are so many people doing it, that every single individual letter ends up counting very little," Levine said.
Then there are institutional barriers: pressure from interest groups, fundraising difficulties and partisanship, said Joe Goldman, vice president of citizen engagement at AmericaSpeaks. The nonprofit group was started by a former Clinton administration official who wanted to close the gap between citizens and government decision-making.
"People want to participate but they only want to do that if they're actually going to be heard," Goldman said. And youth, he contends, have often been forgotten in the process.
Adding to the challenge, young people have few political groups with the legal status to lobby, said Matt Segal, the young executive director of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment.
Plus, "money talks in this town," Segal said.
To help remedy that, Segal's group may merge with two or three other organizations, so they can have a nonprofit arm and a legislative advocacy arm.
"We're not organized, not powerful enough. We need to do more than just blogging and Facebook posts," Segal said.
For the Texas students who trooped to Washington, the lobby day was just a start. Next on the agenda: meetings with their representatives at home and a statewide energy conference in Austin this weekend.
They're already learning about ways to send their message. Before a final photo op with Cornyn's aide, the group had something for the senator: a plastic green hard-hat slapped with a sticker "Get to Work!"
___
If the "Millennial" generation is able to put its stamp on government policy, what might that look like?
First, don't expect a narrow agenda focused only on college students' issues, said Hans Riemer, who was key in organizing youth voters in the Obama campaign and now works with AARP in Washington.
"We don't want to ghettoize them," said Riemer, adding that young people would be involved in issues ranging from the environment to health care.
Also, watch for Millennials to develop new ways of influencing policy, said Ian Storrar, with Moblize.org, which works to get young people involved in policy at all levels of government.
Storrar, 27, predicts his generation will not follow the traditional, top-down approach to political organizing. Instead, individuals will be able to share ideas and organize action through social networking, rather than wait for direction from leaders of a group.
_Laura Isensee
___
© 2009, The Dallas Morning News.
Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web at http://www.dallasnews.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Blagojevich indictment could bring more defendants
From TheMatadorOnline.com Newsroom:
By John Chase and Jeff Coen
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
CHICAGO _ With a deadline fast approaching for federal prosecutors to file an indictment against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, all eyes will be on the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse this week.
Sources with knowledge of the probe have said the indictment could be filed as soon as Thursday. That is the last scheduled day for the grand jury investigating the former governor to meet before an April 7 deadline for filing the indictment.
The grand jury has convened on Thursdays throughout the probe.
The indictment is expected to include more details about the allegations against Blagojevich and his former chief of staff John Harris regarding the corruption charges leveled against them in December. It also could include more defendants.
Known targets include Blagojevich's brother, Robert, who headed the former governor's campaign fund; Lon Monk, Blagojevich's onetime best friend and former chief of staff; Blagojevich's wife, Patricia; and Friends of Blagojevich, the ex-governor's campaign committee.
Robert Blagojevich was caught on several federal wiretaps, including discussing campaign donations from a horse track owner who wanted the governor to sign legislation favorable to the horse-racing industry. Monk, who was identified only as "Lobbyist 1" in the original charges, was also caught on the recordings. And investigators have probed Patricia Blagojevich's real estate deals for more than a year.
FBI agents arrested Blagojevich on Dec. 9 on various corruption charges, including trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama. U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald said investigators moved quickly to stop a crime spree.
But in doing so, prosecutors had to charge Blagojevich and Harris in a criminal complaint, not an indictment. An indictment is necessary because defendants cannot be tried on criminal complaints, which are used only to initiate criminal cases.
___
© 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
By John Chase and Jeff Coen
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
CHICAGO _ With a deadline fast approaching for federal prosecutors to file an indictment against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, all eyes will be on the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse this week.
Sources with knowledge of the probe have said the indictment could be filed as soon as Thursday. That is the last scheduled day for the grand jury investigating the former governor to meet before an April 7 deadline for filing the indictment.
The grand jury has convened on Thursdays throughout the probe.
The indictment is expected to include more details about the allegations against Blagojevich and his former chief of staff John Harris regarding the corruption charges leveled against them in December. It also could include more defendants.
Known targets include Blagojevich's brother, Robert, who headed the former governor's campaign fund; Lon Monk, Blagojevich's onetime best friend and former chief of staff; Blagojevich's wife, Patricia; and Friends of Blagojevich, the ex-governor's campaign committee.
Robert Blagojevich was caught on several federal wiretaps, including discussing campaign donations from a horse track owner who wanted the governor to sign legislation favorable to the horse-racing industry. Monk, who was identified only as "Lobbyist 1" in the original charges, was also caught on the recordings. And investigators have probed Patricia Blagojevich's real estate deals for more than a year.
FBI agents arrested Blagojevich on Dec. 9 on various corruption charges, including trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama. U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald said investigators moved quickly to stop a crime spree.
But in doing so, prosecutors had to charge Blagojevich and Harris in a criminal complaint, not an indictment. An indictment is necessary because defendants cannot be tried on criminal complaints, which are used only to initiate criminal cases.
___
© 2009, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama reaches out to Iran
By Trudy Rubin
The Philadelphia Inquirer
(MCT)
If you want to know how President Obama is changing America's foreign-policy strategy, watch the short video in which he wishes Iran's people and leaders a happy Nowruz.
Nowruz is the Persian new year, an ancient holiday celebrated on the first day of spring. The president's greeting (www.whitehouse.gov/nowruz), broadcast last Friday, shows how he intends to fulfill his pledge to reach out to Iran.
Obama's Nowruz message was striking for what it included _ and what it omitted. His words were sharply different in tone from messages sent by President George W. Bush, who considered Iran's regime part of the "axis of evil." Unlike Bush, Obama addressed Iran's leaders as well as the Iranian people, making it clear that he is not seeking regime change.
The president said clearly that "the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations." But he added that such a place "cannot be reached through terror or arms."
At the same time, by sending his message on a traditional holiday not linked to religion, Obama showed his respect for the Persian nation. He praised Iran's "great civilization." And, to counter those who say past differences between our two countries can't be overcome, he quoted the words of the Persian medieval poet Saadi: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."
Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was visiting Dubai when Obama delivered his message. He said the large Iranian community there had an "overwhelmingly positive" reaction to Obama's recognition of Iran's new year and its rich culture.
Perhaps most important, Obama never mentioned Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has convinced many Americans of the impossibility of dialogue with Tehran. Some Iran experts have criticized Obama for not responding to a letter the Iranian president sent him after he won election. However, Obama's new-year message was a better idea than a quick response to the mercurial Ahmadinejad.
That's because Obama's message was directed at Iran's leaders _ plural. He made clear that he recognizes that Ahmadinejad is not the key figure in Iran's power structure; the supreme clerical leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holds that position. Some reports indicate Obama may follow up with a private message directly to the supreme leader.
Press reports noted Khamenei's cool reaction to the extended hand of Obama. The cleric insisted the United States would have to make "real changes" in foreign policy before relations could improve.
Many experts argue that Khamenei considers anti-Americanism to be an immutable tenet of the regime's ideology. Obama's new-year message, and his new policy, will put that thesis to the test.
Sadjadpour contends that the Nowruz video will provoke an internal Iranian political debate over whether Iran should take up Obama's offer of honest engagement "grounded in mutual respect." With Iranian elections coming up in June, the new U.S. approach will put the burden on hard-liners to justify continued enmity toward America at a time when Iran's economy is in deep trouble.
"We may see Obama's approach accentuate deep internal Iranian divisions," Sadjadpour said, "between those who want to continue hostility for domestic reasons and those who recognize that the 'death to America' culture of 1979 is unproductive in 2009." He thinks Obama's offer will likely increase public pressure for Iran's leaders to come down on the 2009 end of that debate.
Of course, there's no guarantee Khamenei will be responsive. It won't be easy to improve the United States' toxic relationship with Iran's Islamic republic or agree on a formula to deal with Tehran's suspect nuclear program. It's not clear whether Iran will even be willing to cooperate with Obama on areas of mutual security interest, such as stability in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And spoilers within Iran's government will try to impede warmer relations by continuing to arrest Iranian-Americans. The latest victim is 31-year-old Roxana Saberi, a freelance journalist from North Dakota who was working in Tehran before being thrown in Evin prison nearly two months ago. Her father says she is depressed and suicidal.
Yet Obama is right to throw down a challenge to Iranian leaders and test the possibility of better relations. If they choose not to respond, the onus will be on them.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her at: Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by e-mail at trubin@phillynews.com.
___
© 2009, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
The Philadelphia Inquirer
(MCT)
If you want to know how President Obama is changing America's foreign-policy strategy, watch the short video in which he wishes Iran's people and leaders a happy Nowruz.
Nowruz is the Persian new year, an ancient holiday celebrated on the first day of spring. The president's greeting (www.whitehouse.gov/nowruz), broadcast last Friday, shows how he intends to fulfill his pledge to reach out to Iran.
Obama's Nowruz message was striking for what it included _ and what it omitted. His words were sharply different in tone from messages sent by President George W. Bush, who considered Iran's regime part of the "axis of evil." Unlike Bush, Obama addressed Iran's leaders as well as the Iranian people, making it clear that he is not seeking regime change.
The president said clearly that "the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations." But he added that such a place "cannot be reached through terror or arms."
At the same time, by sending his message on a traditional holiday not linked to religion, Obama showed his respect for the Persian nation. He praised Iran's "great civilization." And, to counter those who say past differences between our two countries can't be overcome, he quoted the words of the Persian medieval poet Saadi: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."
Iran expert Karim Sadjadpour, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was visiting Dubai when Obama delivered his message. He said the large Iranian community there had an "overwhelmingly positive" reaction to Obama's recognition of Iran's new year and its rich culture.
Perhaps most important, Obama never mentioned Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" has convinced many Americans of the impossibility of dialogue with Tehran. Some Iran experts have criticized Obama for not responding to a letter the Iranian president sent him after he won election. However, Obama's new-year message was a better idea than a quick response to the mercurial Ahmadinejad.
That's because Obama's message was directed at Iran's leaders _ plural. He made clear that he recognizes that Ahmadinejad is not the key figure in Iran's power structure; the supreme clerical leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holds that position. Some reports indicate Obama may follow up with a private message directly to the supreme leader.
Press reports noted Khamenei's cool reaction to the extended hand of Obama. The cleric insisted the United States would have to make "real changes" in foreign policy before relations could improve.
Many experts argue that Khamenei considers anti-Americanism to be an immutable tenet of the regime's ideology. Obama's new-year message, and his new policy, will put that thesis to the test.
Sadjadpour contends that the Nowruz video will provoke an internal Iranian political debate over whether Iran should take up Obama's offer of honest engagement "grounded in mutual respect." With Iranian elections coming up in June, the new U.S. approach will put the burden on hard-liners to justify continued enmity toward America at a time when Iran's economy is in deep trouble.
"We may see Obama's approach accentuate deep internal Iranian divisions," Sadjadpour said, "between those who want to continue hostility for domestic reasons and those who recognize that the 'death to America' culture of 1979 is unproductive in 2009." He thinks Obama's offer will likely increase public pressure for Iran's leaders to come down on the 2009 end of that debate.
Of course, there's no guarantee Khamenei will be responsive. It won't be easy to improve the United States' toxic relationship with Iran's Islamic republic or agree on a formula to deal with Tehran's suspect nuclear program. It's not clear whether Iran will even be willing to cooperate with Obama on areas of mutual security interest, such as stability in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And spoilers within Iran's government will try to impede warmer relations by continuing to arrest Iranian-Americans. The latest victim is 31-year-old Roxana Saberi, a freelance journalist from North Dakota who was working in Tehran before being thrown in Evin prison nearly two months ago. Her father says she is depressed and suicidal.
Yet Obama is right to throw down a challenge to Iranian leaders and test the possibility of better relations. If they choose not to respond, the onus will be on them.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her at: Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by e-mail at trubin@phillynews.com.
___
© 2009, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Expanding federal control of health care will only raise costs and reduce quality
From TheMatadorOnline.com newsroom:
(EDITORS: The writer is addressing the question, Is President's Barack Obama's proposed $634 billion down payment on health care reform too costly in the midst of a recession?)
By Grace-Marie Turner
(MCT)
ALEXANDRIA, Va. _ President Obama says we can't afford not to pass health care reform, even as our economy faces its biggest challenges in decades.
So far this year, his stimulus legislation has pumped an additional $150 billion into our $2.4 trillion health sector, with no efforts at reform. And the health care plans he is proposing would add trillions more.
Mr. Obama argues that American companies are at a competitive disadvantage because of high health costs that add, for example, $1,500 to the price of a car. But health costs wouldn't vanish under his plan; they would just get switched to another ledger through higher taxes.
The president is working with congressional leaders to write legislation that would require companies to provide a rich health benefits package _ one more expensive than most can afford today. Companies that don't comply would pay heavy fines. This is hardly a prescription for reducing costs.
The plan involves major new subsidies, creation of a new government health insurance plan, and possibly a requirement that all Americans must buy insurance. The entire plan is expected to cost at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade. This is far too much to be taking on in this economy.
To pay for this and many other changes to our health sector, the White House has set aside $634 billion as a "down payment" on health reform. But even this is difficult for Congress to swallow because it involves increasing taxes on mortgage interest deductions and charitable contributions for affluent taxpayers and cutting Medicare Advantage programs that serve lower-income seniors. These are bad ideas, especially in a fragile economy.
Pumping more money into the health sector and increasing demand will add to the inflationary pressuring, which will in turn exacerbate the cost problem.
The president argues there will be huge savings from the plan's multibillion dollar investments in information technology, wellness and prevention.
He says the average family would save up to $2,500 a year as a result. But analysts say it will be hard to see any savings from these programs for the next decade, if then. And even if the savings materialized, Mr. Obama's own advisers have acknowledged they would not actually accrue to individual consumers but to the system as a whole. So don't hold your breath waiting.
They also argue that we must get everyone covered to lower health costs. Massachusetts actually provides us with evidence: The state was the first to require all residents to have health insurance, but the subsidies enacted as part of its reform plan are forcing lawmakers to impose new fees, taxes and fines on employers and providers, and the program still is in the red, even with huge subsidies from the federal government through additional Medicaid funds.
The United States already is on red-ink alert with huge federal deficits as far as the eye can see and with existing entitlement programs that are threatening our country's long-term economic survival.
So where does that leave us? It means that we need to focus on providing targeted help to the uninsured to purchase private coverage, giving people more options in buying health insurance, and building a stronger safety net for those with pre-existing conditions.
That's a full plate in itself, but one more likely to achieve results.
We can build on the strengths of our system, but it won't happen if we try to reform one-sixth of our economy in one sweeping bill.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Grace-Marie Turner is a health policy expert who advised John McCain's presidential campaign. She is president and founder of the Galen Institute, a nonprofit research organization devoted exclusively to health policy. Readers may write her at Galen, 128 S. Royal Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
___
© 2009, Galen Institute
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
(EDITORS: The writer is addressing the question, Is President's Barack Obama's proposed $634 billion down payment on health care reform too costly in the midst of a recession?)
By Grace-Marie Turner
(MCT)
ALEXANDRIA, Va. _ President Obama says we can't afford not to pass health care reform, even as our economy faces its biggest challenges in decades.
So far this year, his stimulus legislation has pumped an additional $150 billion into our $2.4 trillion health sector, with no efforts at reform. And the health care plans he is proposing would add trillions more.
Mr. Obama argues that American companies are at a competitive disadvantage because of high health costs that add, for example, $1,500 to the price of a car. But health costs wouldn't vanish under his plan; they would just get switched to another ledger through higher taxes.
The president is working with congressional leaders to write legislation that would require companies to provide a rich health benefits package _ one more expensive than most can afford today. Companies that don't comply would pay heavy fines. This is hardly a prescription for reducing costs.
The plan involves major new subsidies, creation of a new government health insurance plan, and possibly a requirement that all Americans must buy insurance. The entire plan is expected to cost at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade. This is far too much to be taking on in this economy.
To pay for this and many other changes to our health sector, the White House has set aside $634 billion as a "down payment" on health reform. But even this is difficult for Congress to swallow because it involves increasing taxes on mortgage interest deductions and charitable contributions for affluent taxpayers and cutting Medicare Advantage programs that serve lower-income seniors. These are bad ideas, especially in a fragile economy.
Pumping more money into the health sector and increasing demand will add to the inflationary pressuring, which will in turn exacerbate the cost problem.
The president argues there will be huge savings from the plan's multibillion dollar investments in information technology, wellness and prevention.
He says the average family would save up to $2,500 a year as a result. But analysts say it will be hard to see any savings from these programs for the next decade, if then. And even if the savings materialized, Mr. Obama's own advisers have acknowledged they would not actually accrue to individual consumers but to the system as a whole. So don't hold your breath waiting.
They also argue that we must get everyone covered to lower health costs. Massachusetts actually provides us with evidence: The state was the first to require all residents to have health insurance, but the subsidies enacted as part of its reform plan are forcing lawmakers to impose new fees, taxes and fines on employers and providers, and the program still is in the red, even with huge subsidies from the federal government through additional Medicaid funds.
The United States already is on red-ink alert with huge federal deficits as far as the eye can see and with existing entitlement programs that are threatening our country's long-term economic survival.
So where does that leave us? It means that we need to focus on providing targeted help to the uninsured to purchase private coverage, giving people more options in buying health insurance, and building a stronger safety net for those with pre-existing conditions.
That's a full plate in itself, but one more likely to achieve results.
We can build on the strengths of our system, but it won't happen if we try to reform one-sixth of our economy in one sweeping bill.
___
ABOUT THE WRITER
Grace-Marie Turner is a health policy expert who advised John McCain's presidential campaign. She is president and founder of the Galen Institute, a nonprofit research organization devoted exclusively to health policy. Readers may write her at Galen, 128 S. Royal Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
___
© 2009, Galen Institute
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
When are liberals not liberals? When they're progressives
From TheMatadorOnline.com newsroom:
By Frank Greve
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ About as many left-of-center political groups in the nation's capital call themselves liberals these days as say they're Whigs. Instead, they call themselves "progressives."
What progressive means is "pretty murky," political historian Alan Brinkley said. Still, murky is a big improvement over "liberal," a mainstream term in the '60s that conservatives reduced to a dirty word in the '80s.
Pollsters say that the shift to "progressive" sheds the onus of the liberal label and enables left-of-center groups and candidates to fight again.
Although the term "progressive" has a distinguished early 20th-century history that includes reformers Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, uncertainty about what it means today works in favor of erstwhile liberals.
Mary Helms, for example, whose family raises peanuts and cotton in Dothan, Ala., said that she knew what a liberal was. "Someone who doesn't have very good morals," said Helms, who's 54.
And a progressive? "I don't really know anyone who says he's a progressive," Helms said. So she has nothing against them.
Among Washington L-groups that eschew the L-word in favor of "progressive" are:
_People For the American Way, among whose stated missions is to "promote progressive policies" and "elect progressive candidates."
_America Votes, a powerful voter-recruitment coalition that seeks to "increase progressive voter registration and turnout."
_EMILY's List, "dedicated to building a progressive America" by raising money for left-of-center candidates.
_MoveOn.org, a promoter of liberal causes whose constituent groups "work together to realize the progressive promise of our country."
_President Barack Obama's favorite policy institute, the Center for American Progress, may be the most progressive of all. It uses the term 12 times in its online mission statement.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is on to the switch. To spread the old tar, he often refers now to "liberal progressives." So is Michael Savage, another leading conservative radio voice. Both liberals and progressives, he says, are "degenerates ... on an express train to hell."
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
Founder John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, spelled out what he meant by progressive in a 2008 election season book, "The Power of Progress."
Liberals tend to care more about individual freedom, Podesta wrote, while progressives care more about the public good. Their number includes Republicans, he adds, citing historic reformers such as Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette. That liberals in their day also included Republicans goes unmentioned, as Podesta is at great pains to make the small point that liberal and progressive are "not exactly the same."
Still, Podesta wrote that when he's asked the difference between liberals and progressives, he responds, "Call me whatever you want."
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
Democratic presidential contenders were fey about the L-word, too, in the last campaign. "I prefer the word progressive," Hillary Clinton said in a July 2007 debate.
"We're all progressives," John Edwards chimed in.
The political gain from shifting to "progressive" is massive, according to a post-debate analysis by the public opinion research firm Rasmussen Reports.
Only 20 percent of respondents considered calling a candidate a liberal to be a positive description, it found. However, 35 percent considered it positive to call a candidate a progressive.
Equally telling, 39 percent considered "liberal" a negative, while only 18 percent saw "progressive" as negative.
Ralph Nader, an anti-corporate progressive of the old school, isn't suffering one-time liberals who'd rather switch than fight. So many are "deserting the liberal ship and swimming over to the progressive ship," he said, that "you have people calling themselves progressives that make me laugh."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
One of the few groups still aboard the liberal ship is Americans for Democratic Action, which describes itself as "committed to liberal politics, liberal policies and a liberal future."
Amy Isaacs, the national director of Americans for Democratic Action, dismisses progressives as "liberals who don't have the courage of their own convictions."
She and others blame Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis _ a former member of Americans for Democratic Action's Swarthmore College chapter _ for failing to stand up for liberalism in his 1988 campaign. Although Reagan spoke out against the "L-word" at the Republican convention that year, and George H.W. Bush baited Dukakis with it, the former Massachusetts governor ignored the jibes until his campaign's last days.
"I made the biggest mistake of my life when I decided not to respond to that attack campaign," said Dukakis, who now teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles.
"But if 'progressive' sounds better and reflects better what we're talking about," he added, "I'm all for using 'progressive.' "
___
THE ORIGINS OF 'PROGRESSIVE'
The original Progressive era, from the 1890s to the 1920s, produced many important social changes, including women's suffrage, child labor limits, workers' compensation, open government laws, a minimum wage, the progressive income tax and open primary elections.
Faith in government intervention to achieve fairness was a hallmark of Progressive thinking, as was faith in science to improve humankind. Corporate power was the archfoe. Among Progressive leaders were Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Wisconsin's Robert LaFollette, a governor and senator who ran for president as a Progressive in 1924.
Woodrow Wilson, W.E.B. Du Bois, Ida Tarbell and Thorstein Veblen also were Progressives. Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt and Walter Lippmann helped carry Progressive politics into the '40s and beyond.
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
By Frank Greve
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ About as many left-of-center political groups in the nation's capital call themselves liberals these days as say they're Whigs. Instead, they call themselves "progressives."
What progressive means is "pretty murky," political historian Alan Brinkley said. Still, murky is a big improvement over "liberal," a mainstream term in the '60s that conservatives reduced to a dirty word in the '80s.
Pollsters say that the shift to "progressive" sheds the onus of the liberal label and enables left-of-center groups and candidates to fight again.
Although the term "progressive" has a distinguished early 20th-century history that includes reformers Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, uncertainty about what it means today works in favor of erstwhile liberals.
Mary Helms, for example, whose family raises peanuts and cotton in Dothan, Ala., said that she knew what a liberal was. "Someone who doesn't have very good morals," said Helms, who's 54.
And a progressive? "I don't really know anyone who says he's a progressive," Helms said. So she has nothing against them.
Among Washington L-groups that eschew the L-word in favor of "progressive" are:
_People For the American Way, among whose stated missions is to "promote progressive policies" and "elect progressive candidates."
_America Votes, a powerful voter-recruitment coalition that seeks to "increase progressive voter registration and turnout."
_EMILY's List, "dedicated to building a progressive America" by raising money for left-of-center candidates.
_MoveOn.org, a promoter of liberal causes whose constituent groups "work together to realize the progressive promise of our country."
_President Barack Obama's favorite policy institute, the Center for American Progress, may be the most progressive of all. It uses the term 12 times in its online mission statement.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is on to the switch. To spread the old tar, he often refers now to "liberal progressives." So is Michael Savage, another leading conservative radio voice. Both liberals and progressives, he says, are "degenerates ... on an express train to hell."
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
Founder John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, spelled out what he meant by progressive in a 2008 election season book, "The Power of Progress."
Liberals tend to care more about individual freedom, Podesta wrote, while progressives care more about the public good. Their number includes Republicans, he adds, citing historic reformers such as Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette. That liberals in their day also included Republicans goes unmentioned, as Podesta is at great pains to make the small point that liberal and progressive are "not exactly the same."
Still, Podesta wrote that when he's asked the difference between liberals and progressives, he responds, "Call me whatever you want."
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
Democratic presidential contenders were fey about the L-word, too, in the last campaign. "I prefer the word progressive," Hillary Clinton said in a July 2007 debate.
"We're all progressives," John Edwards chimed in.
The political gain from shifting to "progressive" is massive, according to a post-debate analysis by the public opinion research firm Rasmussen Reports.
Only 20 percent of respondents considered calling a candidate a liberal to be a positive description, it found. However, 35 percent considered it positive to call a candidate a progressive.
Equally telling, 39 percent considered "liberal" a negative, while only 18 percent saw "progressive" as negative.
Ralph Nader, an anti-corporate progressive of the old school, isn't suffering one-time liberals who'd rather switch than fight. So many are "deserting the liberal ship and swimming over to the progressive ship," he said, that "you have people calling themselves progressives that make me laugh."
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
One of the few groups still aboard the liberal ship is Americans for Democratic Action, which describes itself as "committed to liberal politics, liberal policies and a liberal future."
Amy Isaacs, the national director of Americans for Democratic Action, dismisses progressives as "liberals who don't have the courage of their own convictions."
She and others blame Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis _ a former member of Americans for Democratic Action's Swarthmore College chapter _ for failing to stand up for liberalism in his 1988 campaign. Although Reagan spoke out against the "L-word" at the Republican convention that year, and George H.W. Bush baited Dukakis with it, the former Massachusetts governor ignored the jibes until his campaign's last days.
"I made the biggest mistake of my life when I decided not to respond to that attack campaign," said Dukakis, who now teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles.
"But if 'progressive' sounds better and reflects better what we're talking about," he added, "I'm all for using 'progressive.' "
___
THE ORIGINS OF 'PROGRESSIVE'
The original Progressive era, from the 1890s to the 1920s, produced many important social changes, including women's suffrage, child labor limits, workers' compensation, open government laws, a minimum wage, the progressive income tax and open primary elections.
Faith in government intervention to achieve fairness was a hallmark of Progressive thinking, as was faith in science to improve humankind. Corporate power was the archfoe. Among Progressive leaders were Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Wisconsin's Robert LaFollette, a governor and senator who ran for president as a Progressive in 1924.
Woodrow Wilson, W.E.B. Du Bois, Ida Tarbell and Thorstein Veblen also were Progressives. Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt and Walter Lippmann helped carry Progressive politics into the '40s and beyond.
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Law enforcement overwhelmed on Inauguration Day, panel told
By Barbara Barrett
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ Members of Congress scolded federal law enforcement officials Wednesday over why thousands of their constituents didn't get to see Barack Obama sworn in as president in January despite holding coveted tickets to the ceremony.
A classified congressional report, part of which was released this week, found that visitors overwhelmed an understaffed cadre of law enforcement officers on Inauguration Day. Crowds knocked down barriers, crowded security zones and forced many ticket-holding spectators away from their coveted viewing areas nearest the Capitol.
"These were constituents from each of our districts, who traveled often at great expense and personal sacrifice to witness this historic day," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who led the hearing along with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.
Price and Wasserman Schultz are the chiefs of the Homeland Security and Legislative Branch subcommittees, respectively, of the House Appropriations Committee.
Among the problems, according to Wednesday's testimony: Spectators arrived before law enforcement officers. Signage was poor, and visitors without tickets mingled among those carrying tickets, breaking down any hope of orderly queues. Security maps conflicted.
Police tried to funnel 100,000 carriers of silver tickets through a single checkpoint and had turned down offers of help from the District of Columbia Army National Guard.
Also, just more than 300 police officers were dispatched to manage a crowd of 250,000.
Thousands were caught underground for hours in the so-called "Purple Tunnel of Doom" as emergency vehicles whizzed by and police officers did nothing to disperse the crowd.
The congressional report on the inaugural crowds found that the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Capitol Police didn't have enough support to handle the crush of people.
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
"It was just horrible," said Kay Singer of Hillsborough, N.C., whose blue ticket line moved just 25 feet in three hours in subfreezing weather. As the noon swearing-in time grew nearer, she abandoned the line and went to a friend's apartment to watch on television. Next time, she said, she'll just go to the National Mall without a ticket.
The chaos marred an otherwise calm day in which jubilant Obama supporters cheered for the new president and sang in the streets afterward. Police agencies reported no arrests among the estimated crowd of 1.8 million people.
Thousands of people who had traveled from across the country with tickets from their members of Congress couldn't get close enough to see the swearing-in, however.
"What was supposed to be a positive experience for my constituents turned into an embittering one," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
"I want to go back to the Purple of Tunnel of Doom," Wasserman Schultz said.
Police officers knew about the crowds in the tunnel, which was supposed to be off-limits to pedestrians, but they did nothing because the group stood peacefully.
Wasserman Schultz wondered what would prevent such problems in four years.
"Do you know what will happen so we don't have 'Son of Purple Tunnel of Doom' in 2013?" she asked.
Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, said that most of the decisions about signs, tickets and other plans were made by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. That committee is run by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who wasn't at the hearing.
"I don't know what we're doing here," Rogers said.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said it was important to understand what happened because the event not only was massive but also was infused with a historic significance that was tarnished for many visitors.
"I had people coming from my district in the Bronx who were over 90 years old," Serrano said. "This was going to be emotional. This was going to be important. And that's why there's so much concern about it."
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse testified that police were overwhelmed by what he called a "cascading" effect of ticketed and nonticketed visitors scrambling to find space after access to the National Mall closed earlier than expected.
Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said that in four years, law enforcement would open screening sites earlier in the morning, add better signage, enlarge the security perimeter and monitor the crowds through online social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
"We were caught short," Sullivan said.
Only the eight-page executive summary of the congressional report was released to the public this week, as most of it is considered a law enforcement secret. Sullivan pledged Wednesday to review the report again and make as much of it public as possible.
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
WASHINGTON _ Members of Congress scolded federal law enforcement officials Wednesday over why thousands of their constituents didn't get to see Barack Obama sworn in as president in January despite holding coveted tickets to the ceremony.
A classified congressional report, part of which was released this week, found that visitors overwhelmed an understaffed cadre of law enforcement officers on Inauguration Day. Crowds knocked down barriers, crowded security zones and forced many ticket-holding spectators away from their coveted viewing areas nearest the Capitol.
"These were constituents from each of our districts, who traveled often at great expense and personal sacrifice to witness this historic day," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who led the hearing along with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.
Price and Wasserman Schultz are the chiefs of the Homeland Security and Legislative Branch subcommittees, respectively, of the House Appropriations Committee.
Among the problems, according to Wednesday's testimony: Spectators arrived before law enforcement officers. Signage was poor, and visitors without tickets mingled among those carrying tickets, breaking down any hope of orderly queues. Security maps conflicted.
Police tried to funnel 100,000 carriers of silver tickets through a single checkpoint and had turned down offers of help from the District of Columbia Army National Guard.
Also, just more than 300 police officers were dispatched to manage a crowd of 250,000.
Thousands were caught underground for hours in the so-called "Purple Tunnel of Doom" as emergency vehicles whizzed by and police officers did nothing to disperse the crowd.
The congressional report on the inaugural crowds found that the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Capitol Police didn't have enough support to handle the crush of people.
(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)
"It was just horrible," said Kay Singer of Hillsborough, N.C., whose blue ticket line moved just 25 feet in three hours in subfreezing weather. As the noon swearing-in time grew nearer, she abandoned the line and went to a friend's apartment to watch on television. Next time, she said, she'll just go to the National Mall without a ticket.
The chaos marred an otherwise calm day in which jubilant Obama supporters cheered for the new president and sang in the streets afterward. Police agencies reported no arrests among the estimated crowd of 1.8 million people.
Thousands of people who had traveled from across the country with tickets from their members of Congress couldn't get close enough to see the swearing-in, however.
"What was supposed to be a positive experience for my constituents turned into an embittering one," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
"I want to go back to the Purple of Tunnel of Doom," Wasserman Schultz said.
Police officers knew about the crowds in the tunnel, which was supposed to be off-limits to pedestrians, but they did nothing because the group stood peacefully.
Wasserman Schultz wondered what would prevent such problems in four years.
"Do you know what will happen so we don't have 'Son of Purple Tunnel of Doom' in 2013?" she asked.
Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, said that most of the decisions about signs, tickets and other plans were made by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. That committee is run by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who wasn't at the hearing.
"I don't know what we're doing here," Rogers said.
Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said it was important to understand what happened because the event not only was massive but also was infused with a historic significance that was tarnished for many visitors.
"I had people coming from my district in the Bronx who were over 90 years old," Serrano said. "This was going to be emotional. This was going to be important. And that's why there's so much concern about it."
(END OPTIONAL TRIM)
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse testified that police were overwhelmed by what he called a "cascading" effect of ticketed and nonticketed visitors scrambling to find space after access to the National Mall closed earlier than expected.
Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said that in four years, law enforcement would open screening sites earlier in the morning, add better signage, enlarge the security perimeter and monitor the crowds through online social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
"We were caught short," Sullivan said.
Only the eight-page executive summary of the congressional report was released to the public this week, as most of it is considered a law enforcement secret. Sullivan pledged Wednesday to review the report again and make as much of it public as possible.
___
© 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
