SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (555255)3/23/2004 8:45:53 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Lifting the Shroud
____________________
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Columnist
The New York Times
Published: March 23, 2004

From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.

It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."

On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.

Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.

Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.

Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)

Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.

Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told "Frontline," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.

Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.

So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (555255)3/23/2004 8:47:25 AM
From: tonto  Respond to of 769667
 
I don't know...with all the terrorism of the 90's, it really does not seem to be picking up much steam. I would think that this was planned for release now...and it has everything to do with politics. Those that want to get excited about it will, others will realize nothing new has been learned that we already did not know, except that the author was denied a position and had no problem at that time with the President. Disgruntled exemployees are around everywhere.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (555255)3/23/2004 8:50:16 AM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Kerry-More taxes, less for you.

Kerry No Friend to Investors, Shareholders' Group Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
March 23, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Two out of three voters in the 2004 elections will be investors, says a group that represents their interests; and based on his past votes, those investors need to beware of Democrat John F. Kerry.

The American Shareholders Association, an investors' watchdog group, studied Kerry's 19-year record on investor issues, and it found that Kerry consistently opposed a capital gains tax cut as well as Individual Retirement Accounts.

"The best way to sum up Kerry's record on investor issues -- all talk and no action," said Daniel Clifton, executive director of ASA.


"Despite his pro-investor rhetoric, not once has Kerry voted to reduce the capital gains tax, not once has Kerry voted to index capital gains to inflation, and not once has Kerry voted to reduce the double tax on dividends," Clifton said in a press release.

Clifton said even worse was Kerry's "consistent opposition" to Individual Retirement Accounts, which currently provide retirement savings for millions of American families, ASA said.

Flip-flops

Since winning the Democratic nomination, Kerry claims he voted to reduce the capital gains tax, the ASA said. However, the group noted that it could not find a single example of Kerry voting to reduce the capital gains tax.

In fact, said the ASA, Kerry voted to increase the capital gains tax by 40 percent in 1986; and he voted against reducing the capital gains tax at least 15 times since 1989.

"It is completely disingenuous for Kerry to stand up on stage and say he voted to reduce the capital gains tax," said Clifton. "He was a key player in ensuring the reductions that failed over the years never made it through and of the reductions that passed he consistently voted for amendments to strip the capital gains provisions.

"Investors should not be fooled by Kerry's blatant distortion of the facts on this key issue."

ASA believes that capital gains tax reductions increase returns for investors, boost the stock market, and spur new capital investment.

In another apparent flip-flop, ASA said Kerry called for abolishing the double taxation of dividends in a speech on December 2, 2002. But as soon as President Bush proposed the same initiative one month later, Kerry denounced the proposal -- and voted against it seven times in 2003, the ASA said.

The legislation did finally pass, however.

According to ASA, Kerry is now proposes reinstituting the double tax on dividends.

"Kerry's flip-flop on the double taxation of dividends has to be the worst example of a politician saying one thing and doing another," said Clifton.

"In just four weeks time, he went from calling for an abolishment of the double tax to calling the proposal a giveaway to rich. Thankfully, at the end of the process, we did not need his support and shareholders are better off due to the passage of this legislation."

Sen. Kerry voted to remove the tax deduction for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) in 1986 for families with incomes over $40,000 per year. He has voted against IRA expansion at least 10 times since then, ASA said.

"Kerry voted to restrict IRAs in 1986 for the 'wealthy,' and when all was said and done, participation among families still eligible for the program declined by 40 percent," said Clifton.

Demonizing the mutual fund industry

In its report on Kerry, ASA also criticized the Democrat for attacking the mutual industry in December - at a time when Kerry's presidential campaign was foundering.

According to ASA's report, "Trailing Howard Dean by double digits and watching mutual fund scandals unfold, Kerry use the opportunity to grandstand and appeal to the left wing of his base by calling a press conference to say it was time to fight 'a new age of organized crime' in the mutual fund industry."

Not only is such rhetoric irresponsible, said ASA, but a potential president has no business demonizing an industry that holds $7 trillion of working families' assets.

ASA said his attack on the mutual fund industry shows that Kerry is more interested in becoming president than helping investors, said Clifton. Moreover, Clifton added, "Kerry continues to talk down the economy because he is worried that an expanding economy hurts his chances to become president."

The American Shareholders' Association reports concludes that, "Based on his voting record, it appears that Kerry believes the only people who own shares of stock are families named Heinz and Kennedy."

That's no longer true, the group said, with 56 percent of families' assets currently held in stocks and mutual funds.

The American Shareholders Association is an educational project of the Americans for Tax Reform, a group that analyzes public tax policy from a market perspective.

To educate U.S. investors, the American Shareholder Association analyzes legislation affecting stockholders, and reports the public positions of elected representatives on these issues.