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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (318939)1/5/2007 4:15:11 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576336
 
First act for Dems is ethics cleanup

By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Democrats take control of the House Thursday for the first time in a dozen years and plan as their first act to tackle a problem that helped them oust the Republicans in November: potential corruption involving lobbyists.
The changes range from a total ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists to greater restrictions on lawmakers' travel.

But efforts to cut down on the special projects that lawmakers add, often secretly, to spending bills, face a tougher battle. President Bush on Wednesday called for Congress to reduce the number and cost of those projects, known as earmarks, by half in the next year.

"Earmarks often divert precious funds from vital priorities like national defense," Bush said.

The ethics changes proposed by House Democrats would not limit earmarks. Instead, they would require lawmakers to disclose the special projects and declare in writing whether they or their spouses have financial stakes in the projects. Tax breaks that benefit 10 or fewer people also would be disclosed.

Incoming Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., predicted there would be fewer earmarks in the Democratic Congress because of new rules. But he said Congress should retain the power to funnel money to specific projects. "Every president would like to say to Congress, 'Only the president can add (projects),' " Hoyer said. "That would substantially skew the relationship and undermine the independence of the U.S. Congress."

Spending watchdog David Williams of Citizens Against Government Waste said the new transparency is a good step. But "Democrats are still politicians and … the main way to get elected is to get pork," he said. For his part, Bush had "ample opportunity" to offer ways to clamp down on earmarks during his presidency but failed to do so, Williams said.

The number of earmarks and their price tag has grown dramatically in recent years. Williams' group reports that the pork-barrel spending has nearly tripled in the last decade to $29 billion in 2006.

Incoming Democratic leaders said the rules changes are designed to clean up a Congress buffeted by corruption charges that have led to investigations of several lawmakers and jail terms for former Republican congressman Duke Cunningham of California and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"We're bringing back a Congress we can be proud of," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who will lead the panel that oversees rules for House members.

Other House Democratic changes would:

• Ban gifts and meals from lobbyists. Current rules set a $100 limit on gifts and meals from the same person in one year.

• Trips organized and paid for by lobbyists also would be limited. Lawmakers still could travel at expense of colleges and foundations that want to influence public policy, but the travel would have to be approved beforehand by the House ethics panel.

• Bar congressional travel on corporate jets.

Democratic leaders have decided to delay until March a decision on whether to create an outside body to investigate and help enforce ethics violations.

usatoday.com



To: jlallen who wrote (318939)1/5/2007 4:16:42 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1576336
 
January 2, 2007 at 12:26:45

THE BUTCHER'S BILL: 3,000 DEAD, AND COUNTING, IN IRAQ

by Randolph T. Holhut

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - The butcher's bill - the human and financial costs of the war in Iraq - continues to grow.

On Sunday, the last day of 2006, the Pentagon announced the death of Spc. Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Texas. He was the 3,000th U.S. service member to die in Iraq.

Donica, serving with the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, was killed by small arms fire in Baghdad on Dec. 28.

His death was the 111th in December, the deadliest month for U.S. forces in 2006. At least 820 U.S. service members died in Iraq in the past 12 months, according to the Associated Press' tally.

Remember White House spokesman Tony Snow's words last spring when the death toll for American service members in Iraq had reached 2,500?

"It's a number," Snow said.

And I'm sure 3,000 is just another number to the folks in the White House. Yes, President Bush mouthed the required words of condolence, but he didn't mean it. If he did, he would be begging the nation for forgiveness and announcing plans for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Three thousand is not just a number. It represents 3,000 families who lost a loved one in Iraq; 3,000 families who will feel that loss for decades to come.

About 60 percent of those killed in Iraq never saw their 25th birthday. Nearly half of all the deaths came as a result of the sadly ubiquitous IEDs, improvised explosive devices, detonated nearly every day on the Iraqi roads traveled by U.S. soldiers.

Nearly 1,700 of those killed were enlisted men. Nearly 2,000 served in the Army. Sixty-two of those killed were women, two-thirds of them by hostile fire. That's the most female deaths by far in any war in this nation's history.

You want some more numbers, Mr President? How about these, courtesy of the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index:

• About 23,000 U.S. service members have been wounded in this war - half of them hurt so badly that they are unable to return to duty.

• More than 6,000 members of the Iraqi military have been killed since the start of the U.S. occupation.

• Nearly 400 non-Iraqi civilian contractors have been killed, have been killed since the start of the occupation.

• Sixty-eight media workers died in Iraq in 2006, bringing the total number killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003 to 170. Their deaths make the Iraq War the deadliest in history for journalists.

• As many as 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the war began, according to a mortality study prepared in October by medical teams in Iraq and epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins University. More than 650,000 Iraqis have fled the country as refugees.

• The approximate monetary cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq so far is $365 billion, and the Pentagon is getting ready to ask for an additional $100 billion for Iraq operations.

• There are still about 140,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq and, if the reports out of the White House are true, we'll see more, not less, troops in Iraq in the coming months.

An honest discussion of the war would involve talking about all these numbers and what they really mean.

It would involve talking about Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Haditha and other acts that have sullied our nation's name. It would acknowledge the total lack of security for the average Iraqi, who unlike the Americans, can't travel in armed convoys wearing body armor. It would acknowledge what isn't happening in Afghanistan, where the Taliban have regrouped and victory seems even more elusive.

We won't see that honest debate in Washington, even with the Democrats now in control of Congress, because it means acknowledging too many inconvenient truths and numbers that our leaders would rather not discuss.

There is no longer any question that the invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary and was totally based on lies. There is no longer any question that the U.S. occupation of Iraq has fueled a deadly, destructive insurgency that is killing Americans and Iraqis daily. The chaos and violence in Iraq is now an international crisis and needs an international response.

It's time to work up an honest timetable to internationalize the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq, a plan that will keep U.S. involvement to a bare minimum. If we don't, we can expect to see many more years of chaos and death in Iraq, with American troops bogged down in a bloody and unwinnable quagmire.

It's time to remind the President and Congress that there are faces behind those numbers. The costs of war, both human and financial, are real and that when people talk about this war, or any war, they should remember the butcher's bill.

opednews.com



To: jlallen who wrote (318939)1/6/2007 3:07:22 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576336
 
Are you really dumb enough to beleive this stuff....?

In a NY minute......