Government spending is always a concern, so politicians use phrases such as “Investing in the Future.” Hence, government officials like to invest in infrastructure since it creates jobs, provides visible accomplishment, and shows government responding to citizens and businesses needs.
Sounds good doesn’t it. Well if it can work here … why not in Iraq ?
Some politicians have stated the case that creating jobs for Iraqis will encourage out-of-work males to reject the opportunity to become insurgents and put down there weapons. Newsweek reports :
“The White House insists it knows that simply adding more troops isn't the answer. The plan being considered is far more nuanced than what has been reported in the media, a senior aide to Bush, who would only discuss the talks in Crawford anonymously, told NEWSWEEK. He said it includes money for new jobs programs and reconstruction aid for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, as well as efforts to further shore up his political base.”
There should be some concerns based on the US Government’s past performance. Previous rebuilding programs in Iraq, which, according to one expert, have been a "dismal failure" that have "left a legacy of half-built projects." One of the goals was to create jobs for 1.5 million Iraqis, but USAID said they've only managed to get to 77,000.
Further, last week, The Washington Post reported “inspector general audits that show the Defense Department ended up wasting of dollars when it paid the Department of the Interior to arrange some of its contracts. The purchases totaled $1.7 billion, and procurement officers failed to meet some of the most basic contracting rules.”
For discussion sake, let’s ignore the question of the Government’s competency to properly manage the program, and consider current projects that have been approved.
Last week, the Department of Defense awarded contracts including :
Watkinson L.L.C.*, Houston, Texas, was awarded on Dec. 21, 2006, a $13,251,442 firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction of a heavy aircraft parking apron and open cargo storage yard. Work will be performed in Al Asad, Iraq, and is expected to be completed by Sept. 17, 2007.
This project is not about improving sanitation, improving electricity availability, nor improving schools … the things that ordinary Iraqis want in their daily lives. This is about building aircraft bases in Iraq.
This project could further incite terrorism, since it might help to confirm theories that the United States plans to have a permanent presence in the country for economic reasons.
The other obvious concern is that it is a US based business. Are there are provisions in the DOD contract that require (or at least encourage) the use of Iraqi subcontractors ?
The last Congress was remiss in its oversight responsibilities … the 110th Congress need to make it a top priority. As the question of troop levels is being discussed, so should the question of permanent bases in Iraq.
Defense Contracts
http://www.defenselink.mil/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3409
Newsweek article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16411558/site/newsweek/
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/24/AR2006122400916.html
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Military Poll : Send More Troops To …
There has been a lot of media attention and discussion concerning a “surge” (better defined as an escalation) of troop levels. Everyone is weighing in --- the Iraq Study Group, Senators who visited Iraq over the holidays (McCain : send more; Coleman : no more), and military leaders. But a poll of one group that has the most at stake has not received the media attention that it deserves.
Military Times commissioned a mail survey of its readers which generally are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population. This is the fourth year of the survey and over time there have been results indicate an increasingly pessimistic chances for victory.
The results are most interesting to say the least.
First the question was posed as do you believe the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism that began on September 11, 2001 or do you consider it to be an entirely separate military action? The answer was split down the middle – in other words, half the respondents could not make the connection of Iraq and the fight against al-Queda.
Second, questions were asked to about troop levels. The responses were reducing to zero, lower levels than current level, maintaining the current level and increase the troop levels. Separate questions were asked about Iraq and Afghanistan. The answers were similar that 38-39 % believed the troop levels should be increased. The most common level of increase was to increase troop levels in Iraq by 25 % while the increase in Afghanistan was to double the troop levels. 13% of the respondents did not believe that there should be any troops in Iraq while 8% did not believe that there should be any troops in Afghanistan. So, in other words, troops feel there is a greater threat in Afghanistan than Iraq and that America is understaffed for the mission significantly in Afghanistan.
Bush will make announcement in the next few weeks concerning Iraq … but why is Afghanistan being ignored ?
The news of 3,000 American deaths in Iraq was a milestone that was reported widely. But not mentioned is that there have also been more than 500 coalition deaths including 353 Americans (and 1,084 injuries) as of January 1st. Since there are only 18,000 American troops in Afghanistan that is a fairly high percentage.
Why should we care about Afghanistan? First, that is where al-Qaeda called home base prior to 9/11. Second, the Taliban is actively engaged trying to overthrow the President Hamid Karzai’s government. Third, the dependence of opium as a primary economic product will undermine all efforts in the War on Drugs. In fact, the White House’s Office of National Drug Policy states Afghanistan is now the largest illicit opium-producing country in the world acknowledging that it accounts for 87 % of the world’s production.
As Richard Clarke pointed out in the December 31st edition of The Washington Post Op-Ed piece entitled “While You Were At War" : for the Bush Administration “national security issues remain unattended, deteriorating and threatening, all while Washington's grown-up 7-year-olds play herd ball with Iraq. [snip] From relatively low levels of heroin production in 2001, Afghanistan's economy is now dependent upon the widespread cultivation of heroin that is flooding black markets in Europe and Asia. With most of the U.S. Army either in Iraq, heading to Iraq or returning from Iraq, insufficient U.S. forces were available to prevent the once-liberated Afghanistan from morphing into a narco-state. [snip] if there is a solution, it lies on the other side of the Khyber Pass where a sanctuary has emerged, a Taliban-like state within a state in western Pakistan. Dealing with that problem is more than Washington has been willing or able to handle.
When Senator Coleman, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and so quickly after two visits states the troop levels in Iraq should be lower, needs to respond to what are America’s responsibilities in Afghanistan. Coleman so quickly wanted to get his views out for the 2008 election that he called reporters from Iraq to tell them. Politicians need to define the mission and then give the military what they need ... the question of troop levels should not be made by someone whose exposure to the military was as a student protester in his college days and now has taken a whopping two trips to Iraq in five years ! Heck, hasn’t Al Franken been to Iraq and to Afghanistan at least four times? Admittedly, Franken is going on an USO tour, but why is that our elected politicians have not accepted the responsibility to see the situation first hand? It might be because every time, they go they come back questioning the mission (Gutknecht, Shay, Warner, Coleman, Collins, Wilson,…). Iraq is a quagmire and a civil war. Afghanistan is where the War on Terror originated and needs to be completed there.
Military Times Story and Poll
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
White House Office of National Drug Policy
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/international/afghanistan.html
Clarke Op-Ed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901238_pf.html
Republicans comment on “surge”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123100948.html?nav=rss_politics
Military Times commissioned a mail survey of its readers which generally are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population. This is the fourth year of the survey and over time there have been results indicate an increasingly pessimistic chances for victory.
The results are most interesting to say the least.
First the question was posed as do you believe the war in Iraq to be part of the war on terrorism that began on September 11, 2001 or do you consider it to be an entirely separate military action? The answer was split down the middle – in other words, half the respondents could not make the connection of Iraq and the fight against al-Queda.
Second, questions were asked to about troop levels. The responses were reducing to zero, lower levels than current level, maintaining the current level and increase the troop levels. Separate questions were asked about Iraq and Afghanistan. The answers were similar that 38-39 % believed the troop levels should be increased. The most common level of increase was to increase troop levels in Iraq by 25 % while the increase in Afghanistan was to double the troop levels. 13% of the respondents did not believe that there should be any troops in Iraq while 8% did not believe that there should be any troops in Afghanistan. So, in other words, troops feel there is a greater threat in Afghanistan than Iraq and that America is understaffed for the mission significantly in Afghanistan.
Bush will make announcement in the next few weeks concerning Iraq … but why is Afghanistan being ignored ?
The news of 3,000 American deaths in Iraq was a milestone that was reported widely. But not mentioned is that there have also been more than 500 coalition deaths including 353 Americans (and 1,084 injuries) as of January 1st. Since there are only 18,000 American troops in Afghanistan that is a fairly high percentage.
Why should we care about Afghanistan? First, that is where al-Qaeda called home base prior to 9/11. Second, the Taliban is actively engaged trying to overthrow the President Hamid Karzai’s government. Third, the dependence of opium as a primary economic product will undermine all efforts in the War on Drugs. In fact, the White House’s Office of National Drug Policy states Afghanistan is now the largest illicit opium-producing country in the world acknowledging that it accounts for 87 % of the world’s production.
As Richard Clarke pointed out in the December 31st edition of The Washington Post Op-Ed piece entitled “While You Were At War" : for the Bush Administration “national security issues remain unattended, deteriorating and threatening, all while Washington's grown-up 7-year-olds play herd ball with Iraq. [snip] From relatively low levels of heroin production in 2001, Afghanistan's economy is now dependent upon the widespread cultivation of heroin that is flooding black markets in Europe and Asia. With most of the U.S. Army either in Iraq, heading to Iraq or returning from Iraq, insufficient U.S. forces were available to prevent the once-liberated Afghanistan from morphing into a narco-state. [snip] if there is a solution, it lies on the other side of the Khyber Pass where a sanctuary has emerged, a Taliban-like state within a state in western Pakistan. Dealing with that problem is more than Washington has been willing or able to handle.
When Senator Coleman, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and so quickly after two visits states the troop levels in Iraq should be lower, needs to respond to what are America’s responsibilities in Afghanistan. Coleman so quickly wanted to get his views out for the 2008 election that he called reporters from Iraq to tell them. Politicians need to define the mission and then give the military what they need ... the question of troop levels should not be made by someone whose exposure to the military was as a student protester in his college days and now has taken a whopping two trips to Iraq in five years ! Heck, hasn’t Al Franken been to Iraq and to Afghanistan at least four times? Admittedly, Franken is going on an USO tour, but why is that our elected politicians have not accepted the responsibility to see the situation first hand? It might be because every time, they go they come back questioning the mission (Gutknecht, Shay, Warner, Coleman, Collins, Wilson,…). Iraq is a quagmire and a civil war. Afghanistan is where the War on Terror originated and needs to be completed there.
Military Times Story and Poll
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
White House Office of National Drug Policy
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/international/afghanistan.html
Clarke Op-Ed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901238_pf.html
Republicans comment on “surge”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123100948.html?nav=rss_politics
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
MN AG Swanson IDs the problem
The first step in resolving a problem is to identify the problem.
Well, Minnesota’s new Attorney General Lori Swanson is off to an impressive start. Already she has announced her intentions to better protect the Minnesota’s citizens in the areas of :
Predatory lending;
Updating cyber crime laws specifically those related to child pornography;
Cell phone contract terms; and,
Tuition aid and financial support for Veterans.
Addressing these issues indicates that Swanson is listening to the citizens and seeking pro-active resolution.
Last week, she announced that she intends to extend the curbs on the business use of Social Security numbers.
Identity theft is too easy due to lackadaisical protection by companies and governmental agencies that have your information.
Social Security Numbers have a definitive purpose, but are used too often when they are not needed. Essentially, the Social Security Number should only be required for tax reporting purposes. Your employer, savings bank, mutual fund investment provider, mortgage lender, Medicare provider, etc. need the number, but many others do not. Yet, many ask for it. Why? Most likely because it’s a unique number that every citizen has … and that is not good enough of a reason. How many times last year did we hear about problems concerning missing personal data that contained Social Security Numbers? When an employee of the Veterans Administration laptop was stolen, it was a breakdown in protocol. Similar problems occurred at Visa, Wachovia, Equifax, ING, AIG, many colleges, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. When MN Tax Revenue mail containing tax returns was misrouted, it was a harried time for the Department, but most likely human routing errors – yet scary none the less. Many of these intrusions were on agencies that had a rightful need for our SSN … but what about other companies that do not need that information but have it?
Recently, I wanted to update my Internet service to broadband. The company wanted my SSN. I explained that there were no tax implications and that I was willing to prepay for the service or commit to a long term contract. The clerk could not explain why it was required, so I asked for a contact name at their corporate offices. The clerk stated that they do not give out corporate contacts. As you can imagine, I promptly left the store … and placed a call the office of the Minnesota Attorney General. I expressed my displeasure of this unwarranted intrusion into my private records. The staff attorney stated that my complaint would be recorded, but advised that under current law, a company may “request” that information and I had the right to seek out another service.
At the Federal level, new regulations mandating tougher online financial security measures will took effect yesterday. Banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions must begin using enhanced technologies to protect customer data against identity theft. Some online services will use “fingerprint” technology to identify you and your computer. Laptops may be better secured by requiring a separate encrypted password stored on a USB device or smart card that is not attached to a laptop.
These provisions are steps in the right direction, but the best protection is to limit who has this information … and that is where Attorney General Swanson can lead. I am glad that she recognizes the opportunity and is being responsive to the citizens concerns.
Well, Minnesota’s new Attorney General Lori Swanson is off to an impressive start. Already she has announced her intentions to better protect the Minnesota’s citizens in the areas of :
Predatory lending;
Updating cyber crime laws specifically those related to child pornography;
Cell phone contract terms; and,
Tuition aid and financial support for Veterans.
Addressing these issues indicates that Swanson is listening to the citizens and seeking pro-active resolution.
Last week, she announced that she intends to extend the curbs on the business use of Social Security numbers.
Identity theft is too easy due to lackadaisical protection by companies and governmental agencies that have your information.
Social Security Numbers have a definitive purpose, but are used too often when they are not needed. Essentially, the Social Security Number should only be required for tax reporting purposes. Your employer, savings bank, mutual fund investment provider, mortgage lender, Medicare provider, etc. need the number, but many others do not. Yet, many ask for it. Why? Most likely because it’s a unique number that every citizen has … and that is not good enough of a reason. How many times last year did we hear about problems concerning missing personal data that contained Social Security Numbers? When an employee of the Veterans Administration laptop was stolen, it was a breakdown in protocol. Similar problems occurred at Visa, Wachovia, Equifax, ING, AIG, many colleges, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. When MN Tax Revenue mail containing tax returns was misrouted, it was a harried time for the Department, but most likely human routing errors – yet scary none the less. Many of these intrusions were on agencies that had a rightful need for our SSN … but what about other companies that do not need that information but have it?
Recently, I wanted to update my Internet service to broadband. The company wanted my SSN. I explained that there were no tax implications and that I was willing to prepay for the service or commit to a long term contract. The clerk could not explain why it was required, so I asked for a contact name at their corporate offices. The clerk stated that they do not give out corporate contacts. As you can imagine, I promptly left the store … and placed a call the office of the Minnesota Attorney General. I expressed my displeasure of this unwarranted intrusion into my private records. The staff attorney stated that my complaint would be recorded, but advised that under current law, a company may “request” that information and I had the right to seek out another service.
At the Federal level, new regulations mandating tougher online financial security measures will took effect yesterday. Banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions must begin using enhanced technologies to protect customer data against identity theft. Some online services will use “fingerprint” technology to identify you and your computer. Laptops may be better secured by requiring a separate encrypted password stored on a USB device or smart card that is not attached to a laptop.
These provisions are steps in the right direction, but the best protection is to limit who has this information … and that is where Attorney General Swanson can lead. I am glad that she recognizes the opportunity and is being responsive to the citizens concerns.
Friday, December 29, 2006
2006 Reflections : Best and Worst of What Was
As 2006 closes, I come to the realization that some personal New Year’s Resolutions will not be achieved while others were accomplished. The last item on my list was a blog entry on the Best and Worst of 2006 … so with out further ado …
Most Fortunate Minnesota Politician – Norm Coleman
Somehow the Democrat-turned-Republican continues to be adept at smelling like a rose even when others have election losses. Coleman campaigned hard for the Republican Senate Campaign Chair … Libby Dole won by one vote… and I’ll bet Coleman is smiling now that he isn’t straddled with being the Chair when the Dems retook the Senate. And now after months of Mark Dayton pleading for support on the DM&E issue, Coleman realizes that Gutknecht’s fate was decided in Rochester over DM&E … so guess who’s trying to rally the cavalry? Oh, and did you notice that after a two day visit to Iraq, Coleman opposes increasing the troop presence in Iraq but would support an overall increase in size of the military … ah, this guy wants it both ways … recognizes that Bush/Rumsfeld have broken the military but realizes that America cannot put Iraq back together. Here’s hoping that the Dems pattern the 2008 election after the Klobuchar model and give serious consideration for Susan Gaertner - the Ramsey County Attorney -- or if nomination needs to go to someone who has already been tested in Congress, Rep. Betty McCollum be encouraged to seek the office.
Question : will any Republican compete for the Senate nomination now that Coleman is leaning so far to the middle? ( Kennedy again? Gutknecht? Brian Sullivan?)
MN Congressional District Looking Up – First District
Tim Walz is off and running. Hopefully the Everyman can ignore the tapestry of the political world and refrain from the temptation of earmarks … if so, the country may be able to make small steps at getting our financial house in order.
MN Congressional District Looking Down – Sixth District
Michelle Bachmann’s agenda may have had some Congressional support [Fiscal Issues (no taxes, cut taxes, extend tax cuts) and Social Issues (Constitutional Amendment on Abortion, Constitutional Amendment on Same-Sex Marriage)] in 2000, but with Democratic control of Congress, these are not going to be at the top of even Bush’s agenda. With Coleman’s evolving Iraq position, it may make Bachmann stand alone in her blind zealot-like support for Bush’s stance.
Best Book – Tempting Fate – An Inside Story of Political Seduction by David Kou
While there were many other good books (Cobra 2 : the inside story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor; State of Denial by Bob Woodward; Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks; and
Chasing ghosts : a soldier's fight for America from Baghdad to Washington by Paul Rieckhoff), but Kou’s book was not what I expected. I knew about Bush’s faith-based iniatives and that some Republicans felt that Kou was doing a hatchet job while trying to capitalize on his White House job experiences for his own personal gain. Kou started out working for Ted Kennedy, wrote speeches for John Ashcroft, Bob Dole, and GW Bush … all with his intent of trying to promote the idea of fighting poverty. In the end, the reader sees that the politicians care more about getting political donations and maintaining power than actually improving society. I would love to hear Kou's opinion of Paul Wellstone.
Worst Book – Godless : The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter
I prayed for the strength to read this garbage without vomiting, but that is not possible … the venom is too strong.
Worst Foreign Policy Move – Oh, there are so many.
Long Term – United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act
The escalation of nuclear proliferation by North Korea and Iran (a Shiite country) will not be helped by this agreement. The US is rewarding India who developed its own nuclear weapons. Since regional neighbor Israel has nuclear weapons, when will Saudi Arabia (a Sunni country) begin to develop their own nuclear program? Saudi Arabia will state that they need nuclear energy power plants since their petroleum supplies are being depleted and will need the financial compensations derived from supplying oil to America … and from spent nuclear fuel rods they will build their own bombs.
Looking at the Senate approval of this legislation, Coleman supported an amendment that would have required India to agree to suspend military-to-military cooperation with Iran; that amendment failed. So Coleman realized the Iranian implications, but in the end voted to give nuclear technologies to India. This is a Bad Deal for humanity, but good for the business of nuclear technology.
Short Term – Bush’s tacit approval to allow Israel to invade Lebanon.
For the man who is a born-again Christian advocating compassion and promoting democracy, Bush did not get involved and the end result was, death and destruction to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. While previous Presidents would exert influence to mediate the situation, America has lost the high moral ground under Bush.
Best Foreign Policy Move – The Dubai Port Deal
Congress actually exerted some backbone and challenged this Administration on allowing a foreign country to operate a significant number of seaside ports. The funny thing is that the United Arab Emirates -- our ally – was purchasing the business from another ally – the United Kingdom, but in this day of fear of anyone that may be an Arab … much less a Muslim nation, that was political suicide. What we learned from this situation is that there are a lot of foreign companies running our ports … Congress got public support to support stopping the deal but the problem still exists. Bush was probably right that if the Brits could run our ports, then why not the UAE ... Congress needs to follow through.
Best Movie - An inconvenient truth
If you believe that global warming is overblown imaginary issue and/or that Al Gore is an android, you will be surprised and informed after viewing this movie. It’s an issue that should be non-partisan, and secular. It’s a short movie at 96 minutes, so SEE IT. Copies are available at your local library and the producers are offering 50,000 copies to teachers.
Best Columnist (Minnesota) – Nick Coleman – Star and Tribune.
Naturally, I would think he’s the greatest … he referenced me by name in two of his columns.
Best Columnist (National) - Fareed Zakaria – Newsweek
An insider with insight.
Worst Columnist (Minnesota) - Katherine Kersten – Star and Tribune
Minnesota’s own Ann Coulter … finding evil in everyone (including Tim Pawlenty) unless you are an affluent WASP. Reading her column is like listening to Rush or O’Reilly, sometimes you gotta do it to try to understand the narrow-minded thinking of some people.
Best Blog (Minnesota) – A Bluestem Prairie (http://www.bluestemprairie.com)
Hard working and informative blogger who focuses on the First District … something new there everyday.
Best Blog (National) - Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com)
Cole is a professor at Michigan and an expert in the Middle East who provides a daily recap of events in that region. During my college days, one of my professors would travel to Washington for weekend meetings with Nixon’s staff to discuss Vietnam and that region. If Bush wants to hear from outside his bubble, Cole would provide great insight and opinion.
Here’s hoping that 2007 will be a lot better than 2006 !
Most Fortunate Minnesota Politician – Norm Coleman
Somehow the Democrat-turned-Republican continues to be adept at smelling like a rose even when others have election losses. Coleman campaigned hard for the Republican Senate Campaign Chair … Libby Dole won by one vote… and I’ll bet Coleman is smiling now that he isn’t straddled with being the Chair when the Dems retook the Senate. And now after months of Mark Dayton pleading for support on the DM&E issue, Coleman realizes that Gutknecht’s fate was decided in Rochester over DM&E … so guess who’s trying to rally the cavalry? Oh, and did you notice that after a two day visit to Iraq, Coleman opposes increasing the troop presence in Iraq but would support an overall increase in size of the military … ah, this guy wants it both ways … recognizes that Bush/Rumsfeld have broken the military but realizes that America cannot put Iraq back together. Here’s hoping that the Dems pattern the 2008 election after the Klobuchar model and give serious consideration for Susan Gaertner - the Ramsey County Attorney -- or if nomination needs to go to someone who has already been tested in Congress, Rep. Betty McCollum be encouraged to seek the office.
Question : will any Republican compete for the Senate nomination now that Coleman is leaning so far to the middle? ( Kennedy again? Gutknecht? Brian Sullivan?)
MN Congressional District Looking Up – First District
Tim Walz is off and running. Hopefully the Everyman can ignore the tapestry of the political world and refrain from the temptation of earmarks … if so, the country may be able to make small steps at getting our financial house in order.
MN Congressional District Looking Down – Sixth District
Michelle Bachmann’s agenda may have had some Congressional support [Fiscal Issues (no taxes, cut taxes, extend tax cuts) and Social Issues (Constitutional Amendment on Abortion, Constitutional Amendment on Same-Sex Marriage)] in 2000, but with Democratic control of Congress, these are not going to be at the top of even Bush’s agenda. With Coleman’s evolving Iraq position, it may make Bachmann stand alone in her blind zealot-like support for Bush’s stance.
Best Book – Tempting Fate – An Inside Story of Political Seduction by David Kou
While there were many other good books (Cobra 2 : the inside story of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor; State of Denial by Bob Woodward; Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks; and
Chasing ghosts : a soldier's fight for America from Baghdad to Washington by Paul Rieckhoff), but Kou’s book was not what I expected. I knew about Bush’s faith-based iniatives and that some Republicans felt that Kou was doing a hatchet job while trying to capitalize on his White House job experiences for his own personal gain. Kou started out working for Ted Kennedy, wrote speeches for John Ashcroft, Bob Dole, and GW Bush … all with his intent of trying to promote the idea of fighting poverty. In the end, the reader sees that the politicians care more about getting political donations and maintaining power than actually improving society. I would love to hear Kou's opinion of Paul Wellstone.
Worst Book – Godless : The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter
I prayed for the strength to read this garbage without vomiting, but that is not possible … the venom is too strong.
Worst Foreign Policy Move – Oh, there are so many.
Long Term – United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act
The escalation of nuclear proliferation by North Korea and Iran (a Shiite country) will not be helped by this agreement. The US is rewarding India who developed its own nuclear weapons. Since regional neighbor Israel has nuclear weapons, when will Saudi Arabia (a Sunni country) begin to develop their own nuclear program? Saudi Arabia will state that they need nuclear energy power plants since their petroleum supplies are being depleted and will need the financial compensations derived from supplying oil to America … and from spent nuclear fuel rods they will build their own bombs.
Looking at the Senate approval of this legislation, Coleman supported an amendment that would have required India to agree to suspend military-to-military cooperation with Iran; that amendment failed. So Coleman realized the Iranian implications, but in the end voted to give nuclear technologies to India. This is a Bad Deal for humanity, but good for the business of nuclear technology.
Short Term – Bush’s tacit approval to allow Israel to invade Lebanon.
For the man who is a born-again Christian advocating compassion and promoting democracy, Bush did not get involved and the end result was, death and destruction to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. While previous Presidents would exert influence to mediate the situation, America has lost the high moral ground under Bush.
Best Foreign Policy Move – The Dubai Port Deal
Congress actually exerted some backbone and challenged this Administration on allowing a foreign country to operate a significant number of seaside ports. The funny thing is that the United Arab Emirates -- our ally – was purchasing the business from another ally – the United Kingdom, but in this day of fear of anyone that may be an Arab … much less a Muslim nation, that was political suicide. What we learned from this situation is that there are a lot of foreign companies running our ports … Congress got public support to support stopping the deal but the problem still exists. Bush was probably right that if the Brits could run our ports, then why not the UAE ... Congress needs to follow through.
Best Movie - An inconvenient truth
If you believe that global warming is overblown imaginary issue and/or that Al Gore is an android, you will be surprised and informed after viewing this movie. It’s an issue that should be non-partisan, and secular. It’s a short movie at 96 minutes, so SEE IT. Copies are available at your local library and the producers are offering 50,000 copies to teachers.
Best Columnist (Minnesota) – Nick Coleman – Star and Tribune.
Naturally, I would think he’s the greatest … he referenced me by name in two of his columns.
Best Columnist (National) - Fareed Zakaria – Newsweek
An insider with insight.
Worst Columnist (Minnesota) - Katherine Kersten – Star and Tribune
Minnesota’s own Ann Coulter … finding evil in everyone (including Tim Pawlenty) unless you are an affluent WASP. Reading her column is like listening to Rush or O’Reilly, sometimes you gotta do it to try to understand the narrow-minded thinking of some people.
Best Blog (Minnesota) – A Bluestem Prairie (http://www.bluestemprairie.com)
Hard working and informative blogger who focuses on the First District … something new there everyday.
Best Blog (National) - Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com)
Cole is a professor at Michigan and an expert in the Middle East who provides a daily recap of events in that region. During my college days, one of my professors would travel to Washington for weekend meetings with Nixon’s staff to discuss Vietnam and that region. If Bush wants to hear from outside his bubble, Cole would provide great insight and opinion.
Here’s hoping that 2007 will be a lot better than 2006 !
Sunday, November 19, 2006
GUTKNECHT’s LAST CHANCE TO ALTER MEDICARE-D
Gil Gutknecht, who voted against the Prescription Drug plan known as Medicare Part-D, has endorsed legislation to alter that law to allow the government to negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. The Republican leadership would not allow this legislation to be voted upon and this became a rallying cry for the Democrats in November’s election. No doubt, this will be addressed early when the next Congress convenes in January.
But, for many Americans there are changes coming that cannot wait until January.
Last year, the federal government randomly assigned 6 million people, who had received their medicine through the Medicaid program for low-income families. Now, the government is telling an estimated 1 million low-income seniors that they will be randomly assigned - again - to a new plan next year because their current plan was canceled or raised its price. At the same time, some enrollees also are receiving letters from their current plans telling them they can stay. These letters don't mention they will have to pay for the privilege, even though they qualify for a waiver of the premium and other fees. If low-income drug plan members disregard the wrong letter, they could end up paying a bill they didn't expect.
Confusion seemed to be the norm when the program started. Pharmacists often couldn't confirm coverage with the government's computers. Many seniors wound up in plans that didn't cover their drugs, were enrolled in two plans or were overcharged.
We don’t need this happening again.
Gutknecht has a chance to step up and lead on legislation to delay the government from implementing these changes until the next Congress can thoroughly review this poorly managed and excessively costly program.
But, for many Americans there are changes coming that cannot wait until January.
Last year, the federal government randomly assigned 6 million people, who had received their medicine through the Medicaid program for low-income families. Now, the government is telling an estimated 1 million low-income seniors that they will be randomly assigned - again - to a new plan next year because their current plan was canceled or raised its price. At the same time, some enrollees also are receiving letters from their current plans telling them they can stay. These letters don't mention they will have to pay for the privilege, even though they qualify for a waiver of the premium and other fees. If low-income drug plan members disregard the wrong letter, they could end up paying a bill they didn't expect.
Confusion seemed to be the norm when the program started. Pharmacists often couldn't confirm coverage with the government's computers. Many seniors wound up in plans that didn't cover their drugs, were enrolled in two plans or were overcharged.
We don’t need this happening again.
Gutknecht has a chance to step up and lead on legislation to delay the government from implementing these changes until the next Congress can thoroughly review this poorly managed and excessively costly program.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Rumsfeld crisis : Mutiny or Wasted Words ?
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has been a hot topic during this election season punctuated by calls from Republican candidates and officeholders to resign (Hagel, Shays, Kean) joining those who have previously expressed a voice of no confidence by Senators McCain, Snow, Lott and Minnesota’s own Norm Coleman.
Retired generals have spoken out before but on Monday, an editorial appeared in four military newspapers calling for Rumsfeld to be replaced. The editorial rehashes a number of mistakes and questions whether he still has the allegiance of the military establishment.
From the editorial http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
[snip]
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
Obviously there is a question of confidence in leadership, but as a fiscal conservative, I am as concerned about the Bush/Rumsfeld handling of the funding for the war on terror.
The wars have contributed to the rising deficit. And how the war spending is authorized has created a situation of irresponsible budgeting whereby the wars have been paid for through emergency spending bills and “bridge funds” that amount to about $450 billion so far. Congress recognized that we are masking the problems of the future by not including provisions for war funding in the budget process. An amendment requiring war funding to be included in the regular defense budget, introduced by Sen. John McCain, was approved 99 to 0 by the Senate in July. It was accepted by the House in September. In a “signing statement” released when Bush signed the 2007 Defense Authorization Act on Oct. 17, the President listed two dozen provisions in the act that he indicated he may or may not abide by. Among the provisions is Section 1008 of the Authorization Act, which requires the President to submit defense budgets for 2008 and beyond that include funding for the wars.
Centcom’s commander, Gen. John Abizaid, likes to refer to it as the “long war,” where “long,” means generational, with no end in sight … so why isn’t it being included in the budget ?
At a press conference during the last week of October, Rumsfeld was asked about funding shortfalls and his response was to wave it off as insignificant since they would rely on supplemental spending bills … obviously rejecting the efforts by Congress to include some degree of fiscal responsibility for the Department of Defense.
Q I've got a quick question on the Army budget. Last week, Gordon England came out with his three-page fiscal guidance to the Army, giving them $120.6 billion in '08 instead of the $138 billion that you and General Schoomaker have pressed OMB on.
Question one, why did you not get the larger figure? And two, how are you going to make up this rather large shortfall where the Army --
[snip to his answer]
SEC. RUMSFELD: You see, the trouble with chasing that number until you look at the totality of it is that in the environment we're in, we have to give guidance, so the work has to be done, and then the services do the work. And then they start putting all that together, and simultaneously there is a -- the issue of a supplemental. And it is very difficult to know what ought to go in the budget and what ought to go in the supplemental.
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3772
The question is will it make any difference if Rumsfeld resigns, as the Bush’s management of the will not change ?
Past experiences (i.e. replacing the CIA Director, Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, etc). seem to be more akin to changing chairs on the Titanic than addressing the problems of accountability – both of the operation of the war and its fiscal management.
When the 109th Congress returns next week, it needs to address the Bush Administration's financial management of this war.
Retired generals have spoken out before but on Monday, an editorial appeared in four military newspapers calling for Rumsfeld to be replaced. The editorial rehashes a number of mistakes and questions whether he still has the allegiance of the military establishment.
From the editorial http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
[snip]
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
Obviously there is a question of confidence in leadership, but as a fiscal conservative, I am as concerned about the Bush/Rumsfeld handling of the funding for the war on terror.
The wars have contributed to the rising deficit. And how the war spending is authorized has created a situation of irresponsible budgeting whereby the wars have been paid for through emergency spending bills and “bridge funds” that amount to about $450 billion so far. Congress recognized that we are masking the problems of the future by not including provisions for war funding in the budget process. An amendment requiring war funding to be included in the regular defense budget, introduced by Sen. John McCain, was approved 99 to 0 by the Senate in July. It was accepted by the House in September. In a “signing statement” released when Bush signed the 2007 Defense Authorization Act on Oct. 17, the President listed two dozen provisions in the act that he indicated he may or may not abide by. Among the provisions is Section 1008 of the Authorization Act, which requires the President to submit defense budgets for 2008 and beyond that include funding for the wars.
Centcom’s commander, Gen. John Abizaid, likes to refer to it as the “long war,” where “long,” means generational, with no end in sight … so why isn’t it being included in the budget ?
At a press conference during the last week of October, Rumsfeld was asked about funding shortfalls and his response was to wave it off as insignificant since they would rely on supplemental spending bills … obviously rejecting the efforts by Congress to include some degree of fiscal responsibility for the Department of Defense.
Q I've got a quick question on the Army budget. Last week, Gordon England came out with his three-page fiscal guidance to the Army, giving them $120.6 billion in '08 instead of the $138 billion that you and General Schoomaker have pressed OMB on.
Question one, why did you not get the larger figure? And two, how are you going to make up this rather large shortfall where the Army --
[snip to his answer]
SEC. RUMSFELD: You see, the trouble with chasing that number until you look at the totality of it is that in the environment we're in, we have to give guidance, so the work has to be done, and then the services do the work. And then they start putting all that together, and simultaneously there is a -- the issue of a supplemental. And it is very difficult to know what ought to go in the budget and what ought to go in the supplemental.
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3772
The question is will it make any difference if Rumsfeld resigns, as the Bush’s management of the will not change ?
Past experiences (i.e. replacing the CIA Director, Chief of Staff, Press Secretary, etc). seem to be more akin to changing chairs on the Titanic than addressing the problems of accountability – both of the operation of the war and its fiscal management.
When the 109th Congress returns next week, it needs to address the Bush Administration's financial management of this war.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Remember Father Tim when you vote
I have previously written about a priest from Minnesota who was injured in Iraq; initially when CBS ran a story and subsequently when Congress was considering cutting funding for veteran’s treatment.
The Star-Tribune has an update on Father Tim.
Just three weeks ago, one of his doctors said she thought he'd never speak again. The hospital was preparing to cut off his speech therapy because they had seen no progress.
And then he spoke.
On Oct. 26, Phyllis Vakoc of Plymouth got a phone call from her son's hospital room.
"Hi, Mom," he said, and she froze. It had been two and a half years since her son had suffered a devastating head injury in Iraq. Two and a half years since he had spoken. "I thought I was hearing things," she said last week. "I thought I'd never hear that voice again."
The Rev. H. Timothy Vakoc, a Catholic priest, was so seriously wounded that doctors at first thought he wouldn't survive. But in recent days, he has started to speak, to the astonished delight of family, friends and caretakers.
Here's the rest of the story : http://www.startribune.com/1244/story/788525.html
Treatment and care of our soldiers is the nation's duty. Funding is a battle. According to the Office of the Surgeon General of the Army, 64 percent of soldiers recently wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom have sustained "blast injury," which is the leading cause of traumatic brain injuries for active duty military personnel in war zones.
As we go to the polls on Tuesday, the Disabled American Veterans have issued their ratings on Congressmen in our area :
20 % - Gil Gutknecht
0 % - John Kline
20 % - Mark Kennedy
And for reference, although they are not on the ballot Tuesday, Norm Coleman received a 50 % rating and Mark Dayton a 92 %.
Also, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) issued the following ratings :
C+ Gil Gutknecht
C John Kline
C+ Mark Kennedy
D Norm Coleman
A- Mark Dayton
I know that Gil Gutknecht is proud of his 2001 Charles Dick Award of Merit from the National Guard, but that was five years ago. The soldiers, and their families, need help today and tomorrow. Let's elect leaders that will not go wobbly when it's truly time to support the troops and their families.
Ratings : http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004044M
http://capwiz.com/iava/bio/?id=332&submit.x=11&submit.y=13
Previous Commentaries :
http://minnesotacentral.blogspot.com/2006/08/congress-wants-to-cut-veterans-funding.html
http://minnesotacentral.blogspot.com/2006/08/sen-coleman-iraq-war-vet-father-tim-vs.html
The Star-Tribune has an update on Father Tim.
Just three weeks ago, one of his doctors said she thought he'd never speak again. The hospital was preparing to cut off his speech therapy because they had seen no progress.
And then he spoke.
On Oct. 26, Phyllis Vakoc of Plymouth got a phone call from her son's hospital room.
"Hi, Mom," he said, and she froze. It had been two and a half years since her son had suffered a devastating head injury in Iraq. Two and a half years since he had spoken. "I thought I was hearing things," she said last week. "I thought I'd never hear that voice again."
The Rev. H. Timothy Vakoc, a Catholic priest, was so seriously wounded that doctors at first thought he wouldn't survive. But in recent days, he has started to speak, to the astonished delight of family, friends and caretakers.
Here's the rest of the story : http://www.startribune.com/1244/story/788525.html
Treatment and care of our soldiers is the nation's duty. Funding is a battle. According to the Office of the Surgeon General of the Army, 64 percent of soldiers recently wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom have sustained "blast injury," which is the leading cause of traumatic brain injuries for active duty military personnel in war zones.
As we go to the polls on Tuesday, the Disabled American Veterans have issued their ratings on Congressmen in our area :
20 % - Gil Gutknecht
0 % - John Kline
20 % - Mark Kennedy
And for reference, although they are not on the ballot Tuesday, Norm Coleman received a 50 % rating and Mark Dayton a 92 %.
Also, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) issued the following ratings :
C+ Gil Gutknecht
C John Kline
C+ Mark Kennedy
D Norm Coleman
A- Mark Dayton
I know that Gil Gutknecht is proud of his 2001 Charles Dick Award of Merit from the National Guard, but that was five years ago. The soldiers, and their families, need help today and tomorrow. Let's elect leaders that will not go wobbly when it's truly time to support the troops and their families.
Ratings : http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004044M
http://capwiz.com/iava/bio/?id=332&submit.x=11&submit.y=13
Previous Commentaries :
http://minnesotacentral.blogspot.com/2006/08/congress-wants-to-cut-veterans-funding.html
http://minnesotacentral.blogspot.com/2006/08/sen-coleman-iraq-war-vet-father-tim-vs.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Vote 60](http://img%20src=http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/ravendog/clic.gif%20border=”0"){kind=link}