No big surprise here, just more compassionate conservatism in action. From the AP:

After a $4 billion increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head, even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years. White House budget documents assume that the veterans’ medical services budget — up 83 percent since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush’s proposed 2008 budget — can absorb a 2 percent cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends, sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better, critics say.

And it sounds like there’s a lot of smoke-and-mirrors in the name of a balanced budget, as well:

“Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care,” said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA’s budget, “or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions.”

Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn’t seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don’t represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

Par for the course, I guess. As more and more young men and women come back from Bush’s little war of choice, unable to cope with the traumas they’ve had to deal with, this is the support they’re getting.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

No, it’s not Iran. George Bush’s latest war is another example of his “compassionate conservatism’. This time, it’s budget cuts and low-income housing programs.  In an article in the SF alt-weekly, BeyondCron:

The Bush budget plan for fiscal year 2008 announced on February 6 slashes key low-income housing programs, while increasing America’s mammoth defense budget by 11%—an increase that does not include funding for the Iraq war.

While the Bush Administration sends public relations staff like Phil Mangano around the country touting plans to end chronic homelessness, the President continues efforts to cut housing programs for the poor. The new Bush budget plan would reduce the vital Project Based Rental Assistance Program, which currently funds about 1.2 million project based subsidies, by $163 million. Public Housing funding would be cut by nearly $400 million.

A glance at the ‘Rundown of the FY 2008 Budget’ from the National Alliance to End Homelessness’ shows levels in a few programs staying in place, a few modest increases, and many substantial cuts. I guess the free market’s nipped that poverty problem in the bud, right?

A look at the  budget proposal shows among other things, an 18% decrease in LIHEAP heating assistance – I guess with the global warming those poor people won’t need it as much, right? The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), which funds job training and
other services in low-income communities, would be eliminated completely. Housing for the Elderly, cut $160 million. Housing for People with Disabilities cut $112 million. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention program ,eliminated. There are also cuts to the Emergency Food and Shelter Program and for Health Care for the Homeless.

Now, before the trolls accuse me of just pointing out the negative, yes, as I said before, there are a few modest increases, such as a 10% increase in Homeless Assistance Grants, and 4% increase in operating subsidies for public housing. Maybe they’ll hand out some cardboard refrigerator boxes as a gesture of good faith, perhaps? By and large, looking at the budget, there’s mostly huge cuts. Gotta pay for this stupid war right?

Some of us can remember a time when another president, although severely misguided like our current one in matters of foreign policy, declared a ‘War on Poverty’. That’s a war that I could actually support, as could most of us on here.

Now, where does Welch stand on this particular issue? His latest press release does address the recklessness of the newest budget, but with emphasis on the war.

“The budget released by the President today is both fiscally reckless and demonstrates upside-down priorities at odds with the needs of Vermonters.  Through rosy economic revenue projections and a failure to account properly for the war in Iraq, the President creates the mirage of a balanced budget.

“In November, voters in Vermont and across the country told the President that it was time for a new direction.  Yet the President’s budget contains nothing but more of the same.  The President continues to insist on the extension of trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.  He continues to incorporate into the budget his misguided plan to privatize Social Security.  And, instead of expanding access to health care, he cuts programs for the elderly and children and proposes increasing costs for veterans.

Welch’s positions on the war lately have been encouraging, as most of you know. But it is really important for him to take a bold stand and, apart from the war – important as it is, to speak out forcefully on the actual impact this reckless budget is going to have on our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

( – promoted by odum)

As most of you know, one of the best things about Vermont is that it’s not exactly an ideal place to live if one is a conservative. And often, as in other places, outspoken conservatives in their slavish devotion to free-market fundamentalism (and in VT, sometimes-but-thankfully-rarely Bible-based social conservatism), they tend to play a bit loose with the facts. Outspoken conservatives up here are so rare that it’s not hard to get attention by opening one’s mouth and letting the drivel fly – there’s not a lot of competition. Hence, the John McLaughry experience.

McLaughry heads the VT-based think tank called the Ethan Allen Institute:

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s independent, nonpartisan, free-market-oriented public policy think tank. The Institute offers “Ideas for Vermont’s Future” built upon a libertarian, decentralist, community-based philosophy. It is one of some 48 similar but independent state organizations associated with the State Policy Network. 

Mission Statement:

The Mission of the Ethan Allen Institute is to influence public policy in Vermont by helping its people to better understand and put into practice the fundamentals of a free society: individual liberty, private property, competitive free enterprise, limited and frugal government, strong local communities, personal responsibility, and expanded opportunity for human endeavor.

It’s your typical ‘let the markets decide the fate of the human race; it knows what’s best’ organization. McClaughry’s got that William-Buckley-wannabe vibe going on, and is the public face of the E.A. Institute. Come to think of it, he’s pretty much the only face I ever seem to see from the institute.  The board of directors includes such heavyweights(snicker) as Jack McMullen, the guy who ran against Senator Leahy a few years back and lost the primary to farmer Fred Tuttle.

McLaughry himself has a rather impressive resume, having worked in the Reagan administration, served on four presidential commissions, held office in the Vermont House and Senate, as well as has an unsuccessful run for governor under his belt. You can hear his commentaries on Vermont’s contirbution to the right-wing noise machine, True North Radio. And to his credit, McLaughry hasn’t ever framed his positions from the theocratic angle (he is an intellectual, after all).  So, all in all, he’s a pretty smart guy, and I say that sincerely. So you could imagine the cognitive dissonance I was having after reading his op-ed piece on global warming in the Times Argus a few weeks back entitled ‘Warming Hysteria is Out of Whack’ (subscription or payment required to view), that stated:

Virtually unnoticed by the news media, over 17,000 scientists and engineers – nearly 2,000 of them with degrees in meteorology and climatology – signed the 1997 Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Kyoto Petition. Its punch line read: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

“The post-1979 lower troposphere satellite microwave data corroborated by radiosonde balloons shows no alarming global warming trend.

See, there’s a problem here, folks. McLaughry, in his fetish-like obsession with free-market fundamentalism, knows that Americans, and particularly right-wingers, are kind of lazy with checking the facts. Many see something that confirms their preconceptions, see it coming from some blowhard the represents an ‘institute’ (giving it an air of credibility), and then accept the premises, case closed. Too bad he’s wrong, not to mention that quoting 30 year old studies on a modern, quickly-evolving problem is pretty friggin’ lazy. Might as well use the Bible for a reference.

In this last Sunday’s Times Argus, Dr. Alan K. Betts, a real scientist (unlike McLaughry, the political scientist) who is the president of Vermont Academy of Science and Engineering in Pittsford, contributed an article that completely demolished McLaughry’s wishful thinking piece. Here are the major points:

1. McClaughry quotes “evidence” that the lower tropospheric satellite microwave data do not show an “alarming global warming trend.” This is a dishonest fudge of the real scientific evidence. The data in question from Spencer and Christie (Science, 1990, and other papers that followed) were for many years inconsistent with the surface warming record, and this was widely repeated as “evidence” that warming was not occurring. A U.S. Climate Change Science Program panel was specifically set up and funded by the (skeptical) U.S. government to resolve the issue. They found the errors in the Spencer and Christie analyses, and now the data agree; and all show the warming that has occurred in the last 30 years (during which we have had satellite as well as surface data). Read their 2006 report at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf. Sadly, this definitive report is deliberately ignored by McClaughry, because of course the scientific evidence inconveniently disagrees with his political agenda. The repetition of false information is a well-known tool of propaganda, not science.

2. The argument that only a few percent of the greenhouse gases are from our industrial society is totally misleading. Water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect. Together all of the greenhouse gases warm the Earth to an average of 60 degrees Fahrenheit, which means the oceans don’t freeze Fahrenheit, making life as we know it on this planet possible. It is what we are doing to this balance that matters. Although carbon dioxide contributes a smaller amount than water vapor to the greenhouse warming, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising very rapidly (about 100 parts per million over the last century; and now rising at about 2 parts per million per year) driven by fossil fuel burning. The growth of other industrial gases in the atmosphere is also contributing to the greenhouse effect. The presence of water vapor, coupled with the earth’s temperature, amplifies the effects of these additional greenhouse gases. McClaughry is implying that a few more degrees of warming isn’t much to worry about (because he does not want carbon dioxide emissions to be regulated).

3. McClaughry points out that in 1997 thousands of scientists signed an anti-Kyoto petition (starting “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto”) as part of a successful campaign by business-funded interests to stop the United States from agreeing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Ten years have passed and it is now clear that we need reductions in greenhouse gases far greater than those of the Kyoto agreement, if we are to avoid huge economic costs, as recently outlined in the Stern Review by the British government.

Ouch. Perhaps McLaughry really believes those words of his anointed savior, Ronald Reagan: ‘Facts are stupid things.’ But it doesn’t even take a scientist to see how McLaughry is piling on the bull, it just takes a little fact-checking, as evidenced by these letters to the editor in response to McLaughry’s diatribe. R.D. Eno from Cabot:

Snarling and foaming, McClaughry as much as calls any climatologist who contends that manmade emissions are tilting the climate toward rapid and unnatural warming a liar. But the only evidence McClaughry cites in his surly little scree is a “petition” circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicin that disputes the evidence for global warming, signed, says McClaughry, by 17,000 scientists, of whom 2,000 were meteriologists or climatologists. This “petition” is a hoary old hoax.

OISM is a one-man operation, much like the Ethan Allen Institute, run by Arthur Robinson, a biochemist with a sideline in books about how to survive a nuclear war.The study that the “petition” supposedly supports was written by Robinson, his son and a couple of astrophysicists, none of them climatologists. (One of the authors, Sallie L. Baliunas, is affiliated with nine ExxonMobil-funded groups, according to New Scientist.)Robinson formatted the study to mimic a National Academy of Science article and then flooded university mailboxes with copies and a card to be signed as an endorsement. But the study was never peer reviewed and has been discredited by the academy. The number of legitimate endorsements of Robinson’s “petition” cannot be determined because credentials were not listed, but Scientific American, randomly sampling the signatories, estimated that “petition” supporters included only about 200 climate researchers. The OISM paper and “petition” represent flat-earth science at its worst. Trying to pass off this baloney as filet mignon might be called, to paraphrase McClaughry’s bluster, ethically repellent dishonesty, but that would dignify it.

Ya’ know, it takes more than the word ‘institute’ to have some credibility, John. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when your cherry-picked sources are about as reliable as Dick Cheney’s were for Iraq? If McLaughry’s sloppily researched op-eds are the best the conservatives of Vermont have to offer, it’s no wonder they’re an endangered species in Vermont. But I’m not complaining.

crossposted at five before chaos and DailyKos.

(Note from J.D. — I’ve posted this account of last week’s Washington protests from two of my friends (Lee Light and Robin Taylor) who were there. Hope you enjoy.)

These are some observations of two 60+ year old women, veterans of civil rights, women’s rights and anti-Vietnam movements returning to the demonstration circuit. Because the actions of this administration are so disastrous, we decided that we needed to  participate in the anti-war rally and march in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, January 27. Many friends and community members that we told thanked us for taking the trip and said that they were with us in spirit. It was a very cold night on Friday at 10pm when we  boarded one of six buses that Peace and Justice Center had chartered to take folks down to Washington. We got on the Montpelier bus and knew only four people out of the 55. Some of the others seemed to be new to the anti-war movement.  There were some families and also a church group. Everyone was eager and proud to be representing the anti-war voice in Vermont.  We heard of estimates of 500-750 Vermonters in total that went to Washington. We were a proud bunch wearing our “Vermont Says No to War” banners and stickers.

On Saturday under a bright sun and temperatures in the 50’s we listened first to church leaders, then politicians, political activists, ex-soldiers, and celebrities. For about two hours we listened and cheered. The main themes of the speakers were to bring the troops home now and not fund the escalation and the occupation. The bounty of caring for the troops, their safety, and care when they returned home came through loud and clear, as well as concern for the suffering of their families. Speakers also mourned the lost lives of  Iraqis and their children who have been caught up in a useless and unending war. But there was an underlying message coming through loud and clear through signs and chants that these Americans wanted Bush and Cheney impeached. Several signs read Pelosi in 2007!

But we would like to mention some of what the media didn’t cover in reporting this event.  There were people from all over the country:  Washington, Oregon, California, Iowa, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, to name a few.  The AP story in the Sunday Times-Argus implied that the organizers, United for Peace and Justice, hoped for 100,000 people and were disappointed. We strongly disagree. At the rally and march we believe we were about 500,000.  The park police on orders from the White House no longer give estimates of the size of protest marches and rallies.  There was also no mention in the AP story of the `Impeach Bush/Cheney’ signs that were everywhere.

After the rally, demonstrators expected to march down Pennsylvania Ave.  As folks were moving forward to start the march, people were being corralled  through a passage way to the parade route that funneled the 6 lane boulevard down to three, creating a tremendous bottleneck.  People slowly edged forward to get in line.  Once we were on Pennsylvania Ave. we were allowed to march 2-3 blocks up toward the Capitol and then the crowd was dispersed because we were blocked from going further. This action of police manipulation of the crowd successfully defused the momentum of the marchers. It was virtually impossible to see how great a number of people there were. While we weren’t herded into corrals like protestors in other demonstrations in New York City, our effort to send our message to the rest of the United States and the world was definitely thwarted.

Eventually the “march” which really wasn’t a march was over.  We wondered why we didn’t parade down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the White House. We believe we had been allowed to demonstrate under the control of a government that had absolutely no intention of listening to the people. If Congress allows the Bush/Cheney administration to continue to ignore the vote of the American people then we are only living under the illusion of a democracy.

Did the media minimize the rally by underestimating the crowd?  Did they forget to mention the outcry for impeachment?  Was the coverage of the rally and march downplayed by only minimally reporting the event in the press?  Looks that way to us! 

Lee Light farms with her husband in Marshfield.
Robin Taylor is also a farmer in Marshfield.

(Looks like this is the bill if Welch is going to rise to the occasion as Leahy has. Don’t know where Sanders is on the issue. Anyone…? – promoted by odum)

I’ve finally gotten some time to actually read the ‘Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007′(H.R. 508) by Congresswoman Woolsey. As I see it, this is the ONLY bill that House Dems should be talking about, no more of this ‘nonbinding resolution’ crap, which are basically methods of acting like you’re doing something while doing nothing. You can read the entire text of the bill here. Some things in the bill worth noting:

“The occupation of Iraq has made the United States economically and militarily weaker, has made the United States less safe because it has enhanced the recruitment of terrorists, and has diminished America’s prestige and influence in the world.

The civilian leadership at the Department of Defense has failed to adequately support United States Armed Forces in Iraq, which were not trained to carry out an occupation and did not receive the proper equipment to achieve their stated mission.

Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States-
(1) to end the occupation of Iraq on the basis of the findings specified in section 101;
(2) to accelerate the training and equipping ofthe military and security forces of the  Governmentof Iraq;
(3) to pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy;
(4) to help preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq as a nation state;
(5) to take all appropriate measures to account for any missing members of the United States
Armed Forces or United States citizens in Iraq; and
(6) to turn over all internal security activities and military operations in Iraq to the elected Government of Iraq not later than the end of the six month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act”

And I love this one here…

SEC. 109. PROHIBITION ON PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENTS FOR IRAQI PETROLEUM RESOURCES.
(a) PROHIBITION.-On or after the date of the enactment of this Act, no department, agency, or other entity of the Government of the United States and no national of the United States may enter into a contract for the development, production, or marketing of petroleum resources in Iraq.

Kinda defeats the purpose of why we went in there, huh? Now, maybe I’m repeating myself here, but it’s time for Vermonters to take Peter Welch to the mat on this, especially considering that he based a good portion of his campaign on ending the war and bringing the troops home. The nonbinding resolutions Welch supports do nothing.  Zip. Nada. So, once again, nicely call his VT office at 888-605-7270 or his Washington office at 202-225-4115, and ask Welch’s office why he hasn’t signed on as cosponsor to the Woolsey bill, if he is really serious about ending the war in Iraq. And remember, be nice.

Another thing… if Welch does sign on, let’s give him props for actually doing what he was elected to do. But if he doesn’t, it’s time to start calling for his head.I’ve already got the spike ready.

A new leaked Congressional Budget Office report has shown that Bush may be sending as many as 48,000 troops in this surge, double what was originally proposed. From DefenseTech.org, the CBO report states:

  Over the past few years , DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 personnel per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops.

  DoD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved. Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate. CBO expects that, even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel.

  To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops-a total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario that would include a smaller number of support personnel-about 3,000 per combat brigade-totaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the total additional forces to about 35,000.

As you’ve read here recently, Sen. Russ Feingold has introduced legislation that will essentially cut off funding for the war after 6 months and call for a redeployment of troops from Iraq. This is not some mushy non-binding symbolic resolution, it is the real deal. Leahy has already signed on as a co-sponsor, and I’m sure Bernie will too, if he hasn’t already. Here’s the fact sheet for the bill, be sure to read it: http://feingold.sena…

Anyways, as we hear all the talk of Welch not going far enough, etc. , here’s how to put him to the test. Call his VT office at 888-605-7270 or his Washington office at (202) 225-4115 and tell them that you want Welch to publicly express support of Feingold’s resolution bill, and that ‘symbolic resolutions’ are meaningless, and don’t go far enough. And remember, be nice.

UPDATE: Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey  is sponsoring a bill on the house side (Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007) that is similar to Feingold’s. Here are the cosponsors:Barbara Lee (CA), Maxine Waters (CA), Diane Watson (CA), James McGovern (MA), Barney Frank (MA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Chaka Fattah (PA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), John Conyers Jr. (MI), Wm. Lacy Clay (MO), Steve Cohen (TN), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Bob Filner (CA), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Donald Payne (NJ) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX).

You can read about it here:http://woolsey.house…
Call Welch and demand him to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Please post your experiences in the comments section.

( – promoted by odum)

Right-wing hate groups that lie and are deliberately making it harder for the U.S Capitol Police to do their jobs?? Say it isn’t so.Who would Jesus harass? Americablog has the scoop on the latest round of idiocy from the right.

Why Bill O’Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone (Vermont Boycott Edition), in which the Rude Pundit brings us his unique perspective on doughy pantload Bill O’Reilly’s VT boycott.

Robert Parry warns us as to why we must move quickly to stop George Bush, and that an attack on Iran is much closer than you think.

And finally, Kos diarist Brooklyn Raider takes us into the sleazy belly of the beast with I Was a Mole at the Conservative Summit: They’re Not Dead Yet.

Happy Thursday, and remember, if it weren’t for the daily dose of right-wing idiocy, we’d all be bored!

Good little mini-documentary form Robert Greenwald documenting the many times John McCain’s ‘Straight Talk’ was anything but… It’s really fun to watch this principle-free hack politically self-destruct right before our eyes, a little more every time he opens his mouth. He’s gonna have that Bush anchor around his neck like a noose come ’08. Good. Now if we could just do something about Lieberman…

Good, straightforward article by Stephen Fleischmann on Smirking Chimp today, ‘Who’s Afraid of Single Payer?’ :

Who’s afraid of the single payer health plan, otherwise known as National Health Insurance? Big Pharma and the medical establishment, that’s who-because “single payer” is the big bad wolf that’s huffing and puffing and is about to blow their house down. And it’s a big house, bloated by excess profits, government subsidies and sheer theft of the people’s money.

More below the fold…

Now, I understand the philosophical conservative viewpoint against single-payer healthcare. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. This article isn’t so much about philosophy, it’s about practicality. As I think of our nation, I see certain things that are detrimental to society that are kept  in place because it protects an industry. Healthcare is one of those things. When are the tables going to turn? When is someone going to ask what is more important in the grand scheme of things, protection of an industry or the health of a nation?