Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts

January 30, 2008

Think you know the God Squad??


By William Fisher

OK, we liberals are spooked by ‘Jesus Freaks’. We don’t want them passing a Constitutional amendment telling us who we can marry. We don’t want them teaching our kids Creationism. We don’t want them mandating that we just have to have that baby.

In short, we don’t want to have anything to do with these fringy lunatics of the religious right.

Well, no so fast. Hang on a minute.

Would you be surprised to discover that you have a lot more samenesses than differences with Christian evangelicals?

Well, so was I. Until I covered a telephone news conference last week sponsored by an evangelist group called Faith in Public Life.

The purpose of the conference call was to challenge President Bush to use his State of the Union speech to salvage his legacy by “changing course on the most pressing moral issues of our time.”

They must be talking about abortion, stem cell research, school prayer, gay marriage – those so-called ‘values issues’, I thought.

Not so.

Here’s some of what we reporters heard:

First, the participants – some of the best-known names in the evangelical world – called George W. Bush “an explicitly evangelical president” with a “sadly truncated” moral vision.

Then these Protestant and Roman Catholic leaders challenged the president to use his speech to announce major changes in his administration’s policies on war, torture, climate change, and U.S. and international poverty.

They credited Bush for some of his efforts, including his programs to address the HIV-AIDS pandemic in Africa, increasing foreign aid, and his domestic Faith-based Initiative. But it was highly critical of many other Bush Administration policies, particularly the war in Iraq, providing insufficient resources to help millions of Iraqi refugees, seeming indifference to growing poverty in the U.S., the use of torture, and failure to take a leadership position on global climate change.

The group was particularly critical of the president and his team regarding the use of torture as a tool in the war on terrorism. Rev. David Gushee, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights – did you know there was one? -- said, “In his well-intentioned efforts to protect national security, President Bush and his team over-reached by authorizing and employing torture that certainly qualify and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Noting that “these decisions were made in secret” following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., Gushee said that once abuses such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal were revealed, the courts, the media and public opinion forced Bush into “a kind of tactical retreat.” But, he added, Bush

“still reserves the right to authorize the CIA to employ a

range of secret ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques,

including waterboarding.”



He criticized the president for threatening to veto pending legislation that would make these practices illegal, and urged him to abandon his objections to using the Army Field Manual as the standard for all interrogations, including those carried out by the CIA.

“It is hard to overstate the devastating effect of this policy on the moral standing of the U.S.,” Gushee said. He added that
“euphemizing torture as something else does not make it any less torture.”

He urged the president to tell the American people Monday evening, “On behalf of the U.S., I personally apologize for the use of torture by this nation.”

Fat chance!

The came Sister Anne Curtis of the Institute of the Sisters of Mercy, who recently returned from Iraq. She focused on the plight of the estimated four million Iraqis who have either fled to neighboring countries or who have been internally displaced by the war. She told us U.S. efforts to assist these refugees – many of whom have become targets for insurgents because they worked for American authorities – are under-funded and under-resourced.

Talking with refugee families, she said,
“I felt a great sense of shame and deep sorrow as a citizen of the U.S.,”
she told us reporters.
“President Bush needs to understand the reality”
of the refugee situation. He has
“a responsibility, a moral obligation, to end the war in Iraq, aid the refugee applicants, and provide for the necessary funding of refugee assistance,”
she said.

But aren’t these the same folks who have been so tight with Dubya, Cheney, and Karl Rove? Sure didn’t sound that way. One of the speakers, Dr. Ron Sider, opined that
“The evangelical world has been hurt by its identification with President Bush’s immoral choices.”
Sider is president of Evangelicals for Social Action – another outfit most of us have never heard of.

But how about former Gov. Mike Huckabee’s proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to bring it more in line with scripture? Sider said,
“I would not state it that way. This is not a Christian nation. We should not talk about making the Constitution in line with any religious text.”

In fact, the group had some harsh words for the religious right. “It’s just not enough to articulate opposition to abortion, gay marriage and judicial decisions we may not like,” said Rev. Gushee.

“I think we have yet to sort out the legacy of an explicitly evangelical president who sadly has had such a truncated vision of what moral leadership looks like. The limits of that vision have been painfully apparent over the last seven years,”
he declared.

While the group appeared to favor President Bush’s Faith-based Initiative, they criticized him for failing to adequately fund the program. One member noted that Bush mentioned it in his first year and last year, but between these two points has been silent on the subject.

Poverty in the U.S. was also high on the group’s agenda. Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, noted that in 2002 his organization provided 43 per cent of its services to the working poor; by 2006, the number had risen to 52 per cent.

“More than 36 million people living in poverty in the U.S. is simply unacceptable.
It is a moral and social crisis, because as a country we have the knowledge and the resources to significantly reduce this number,” he said. He criticized congress as well as the president for failing to pass legislation to address the long-term health care needs of poor children.

Global Warming was another major concern for the group. Rev. Paul deVries, a board member of the National Evangelical Association (NEA) and an original signer of an “Evangelical Climate Initiative” statement, urged Bush to use his Monday night speech to lay out his commitment to “take care of God’s creation.” He should
“praise the scientists, praise the congress, and lay out a program to set an example for the rest of the world.”

That puts Rev. deVries on a collision course with the likes of right-wingers like James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention.

But he’s been there before. These were the folks who led the NEA’s successful fight against any kind of statement supporting action to address climate change. They said it was not a “consensus” position.

The group also expressed concern about the current economic downturn triggered by the sub-prime mortgage market meltdown. Rev. deVries called attention to “the extraordinary levels of deceit” by banks and mortgage companies, and charged that “no one seems to have the guts to say so and conduct a thorough investigation.”

He added,
“The bank robbers have taken over the banks.”

On achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, Rev. Sider said President Bush could have a “huge impact” on current negotiations. But he added, “This is not going to happen unless he invests himself and his credibility” in the effort.

The moral of this story is:

All evangelicals aren’t loyal Bushies.

They aren’t even all Republicans. And they’re certainly not homogenous. On many, many issues, they’re pretty much like most of those who are reading this column.

Those readers won’t agree with a lot of their beliefs and positions. But there’s a lot more common ground than most of us would have guessed.

See also:

The World According to Bill Fisher
Frequent columns and reports on issues in public diplomacy.

THE PENTAGON'S REVOLVING DOOR
THE 2008 CAMPAIGN: CANDIDATES COMPETE TO BE "MORE CHRISTIAN"


January 29, 2008

This is excellent if you need a good smirk yourself.

My personal favorite "bit" in the speech is when he said North Americans pay too many taxes. True. But what business is it of the United States how much taxes Canadian pay?

Why is he draggin (minority) PM The Harper and the (minority) President of Mexico, Calderon done to New Orleans for a "do" ??

Under the Peter Principle, BuZh's maximum ability was reached as a baseball team owner, but he just had to become (incompetant) Governor of Texas.

The Presidency (rule of the the entire earthly empire) was WAY WAY WAY above his grasp,

And we will all have to pay the price for the mistakes of his Imperial Highness, the Smirking Chimp.

Smirk of the Union

By Rick Perlstein, TomPaine.com
Posted on January 29, 2008, Printed on January 29, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/75340/
A small and beaten man spoke to Congress and the nation last night, convinced in his own mind he's a hero. Snoopy battling the Red Baron. Walter Mitty, imagining himself dying bravely before a firing squad.

For those who missed it, here's the Big Con run-down. Let me start with the facial expressions. Because, more than any of the words, they told the sad story.

The entrance: He raises both eyebrows puckishly, like the frat boy he is. Introduced by Speaker Pelosi, he reacts curiously to the wave of applause: he blushes. He actually thinks this applause is for him--they love me!!--and not a perfunctory gesture of respect for the office. He still thinks he is a great man, and that others think he is a great man. He looks about a thousand years old. He begins: "Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum." Or that's what the transcript says he said. If you missed it live, what he actually said was, "...stood before yuh at this rostr'm...."

John Wayne taking on the desperadoes.

Then, the arrogant bastard, he makes a joke: "These issues"--he's named "peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens"--"deserve vigorous debate. And I think history will show we've answered the call." He gives the chamber that famous smirk, to let them know it's OK to laugh, even amid all the pomp: get it? These people keep insisting on debatin' with me. Washington! Bicker, bicker, bicker.

Then, he obliquely announces the speech's theme, also with a smirk: Bush's greatest hits. A golden trip down memory lane. He says, of public servants' job to "carry out the people's business," that "it remains our charge to keep." Dog whistle: this is the Methodist hymn that by which entitled his campaign book. Because remember: George Bush is a Christian Unleashing the "armies of compassion." Or it it this "army of compassion"?

Which brings up one of the creepiest features of the speech: "more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our Nation's Capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other non-public school. Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America's inner cities." I didn't know--and perhaps the Constitution has something to say on this--it was the job of the U.S. government to fret over the disappearance of "faith-based" institutions. Well, our president now proposes we shore them up with "Pell Grants for Kids." Senator Clayborn Pell, a great man, now unfortunately suffers from Parkinson's disease, and probably lacks the wherewithal to slap the president in the face for the insult to his great progressive legacy.

I suppose we should also attend to the words, because this pathetic washout happens to be the most powerful man in the world, so the words he uses are important.

He repeated the Great Republican Lie of 2007, implying that the Democrats in the 110th Congress is obstructionist--"Let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time," he piously intoned.--when it's really himself and the Republican minority who are willfully obstructing, with an aggressiveness unmatched in modern history. He still trumpets his own disastrous Ownership Society rhetoric (How disastrous? See here) and barely acknowledges the massive economic pain Americans are feeling and our about to feel -- and only then to issue one more obstructionist threat, on the stimulus package: "The temptation will be to load up the bill. That would delay it or derail it." Mafia words: my way, or else.

But back, again, to the facial expressions. The most fulsome smirk came, I think, winding up to his promise, "If any bill raising taxes reaches my desk, I will veto it." He said something interesting, perhaps referring to the remarkable poll results consistently showing a majority of Americans believe Bush's tax cuts were not worth it, or that they would be glad to pay higher taxes if it meant healthcare for all Americans. Such national maturity--indeed any occasion to call Americans to some higher sacrifice--can only but be mocked by the smug bastard running our country. He said this: "Others have said they'd be happier to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. The IRS accepts both checks and money owners."

Cheney joins his smirk.

What else? There was his promise of an executive order canceling earmarks not voted out in the open--because, of course, now that the Democrats run Congress, procedural irregularity and pork-barrel spending has suddenly become a national crisis.

There was some fairy dust about making "health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control." The Republicans' barks of approval at that one are guttural. He add that medical decisions must be "made in the privacy of your doctor's office, not in the halls of Congress."
About medical decisions made in callous insurance company cubicles, of course--which is to say, most medical decisions--he has nothing to say.

"Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results." No one can deny they suck. Read this.

"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow"? Only if those breakthroughs accord with conservative dogma. Read this.

Perhaps later, I'll give you more on the fairy tales he's propounding our nation on its place in the world. I'll leave you with this one peace of jargon: "protective overwatch mission." That's the new Bushism for "We're staying in Iraq for ever." You'll be hearing it much more in the days ahead.
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/75340/


“Uncontrolled words are consistently more dangerous to established authority than armed forces.”

—John Ralston Saul, Voltaire’s Bastards

Understatement of the Century

Bush leaves 'long list of challenges for successor'
January 29, 2008 - 4:00PM
Source: ABC Australian Broadcoasting Company

United States President George W Bush will leave a ''daunting'' array of challenges for the next US president, ranging from the Iraq war to the economy, political analysts say.

Mr Bush has insisted he has plenty of unfinished business for his last year in office but he will leave some serious challenges for his successor in January, 2009.

The next president will need to chart a course for the Iraq war, navigate an increasingly tense relationship with Iran and grapple with political turbulence in countries such as Pakistan.

A worsening budget outlook, the expected lingering effects on the US economy of mortgage and credit crises as well as the rising cost of health care are just a few of the domestic issues that will immediately confront Mr Bush's successor.

William Galston, a scholar at the Brookings Institution think tank says the United States is facing an "arc of crises" extending from Lebanon and the Palestinian territories through Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

"The next president is going to face a daunting menu of issues both at home and abroad," he said.

In his final State of the Union address today, Mr Bush focused on passing an economic stimulus plan and cutting wasteful spending.

He barely touched on some parts of the world. North Korea, a member of his "axis of evil" in 2002, did not rate a mention.

Many critics of the Bush Administration feel a major priority of the next president will be restoring America's world image after a battering over the Iraq war and detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


"None of these problems are of the kind where you could snap your fingers and fix them,"
says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas.

Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates in the race to be Mr Bush's successor have blasted his State of the Union address, dismissing his "empty rhetoric" and "failed policies".

"Tonight, for the seventh long year, the American people heard a State of the Union that didn't reflect the America we see, and didn't address the challenges we face," Senator Barack Obama said.

"Tonight's State of the Union was full of the same empty rhetoric the American people have come to expect from this President,"

Senator Obama's leading rival for the White House, Senator Hillary Clinton, labelled Mr Bush's speech "more of the same - a frustrating commitment to the same failed policies that helped turn record surpluses into large deficits, and push a thriving 21st Century economy to the brink of recession."

- AFP/Reuters

Ah, does anyone in the world who hears Bush speak really think that Americans are really "getting it"?

Do United States citizens have any idea at all how other other people perceive how we view their entire system - with Bush and the presidential frontrunners as the mouthpieces = planet reels from US abuses?

That opposition leaders from the US Congress would stand up and applaud Bush's delusional rantings and his lack of accountability to the damage that has been done is beyond the understanding of the world that watched the "state of the union".

We learnt little of the US "state of the union" but we sure did learn alot about their obsession with what the rest of the world last night.

Most of us, those with a smidgen of understanding of reality, wonder when the United States is going to wake up from its coma and DO something about the worst abusers of all time.

Most of us wonder why anyone would want to be the next President of the United States after George Bush and Dick Cheney.

The world is truly waiting for the "shoe to drop" as the "car is plunging off the cliff."

Eventually the laughable proposition that what's been broken and destroyed forever can be fixed, will have to be obvious.

There seems to be no leadership to help Americans figure out what to do about it.

It's truly time for the Bush bashing to stop, and the American people to come up with a plan to just stabilize America for what is about to come.

But even with this great opportunity to do this last night, no one, no one did.

The state of the United States union was very apparent last night - a big illusion still garbed in the finest furs going to a party that no one in the world wants to attend.

It's too intellectually boring and emotionally upsetting to contemplate a social function where Bush attends when he so clearly hears no one but Richard Cheney and a few speechwriters obsessed with the word "empower".

America "empower" yourselves - get rid of this man now. Don't wait on your "leaders" - they have no intention of the truth emerging. It's military keynesian, pursued rigorously by all who hold the pursestrings continues unabated and you will all find out the consequences.

The rest of us on the planet feel very sorry for America's "state of the union" and we regret that we will have to continue dealing with the neocons and whoever suceeds them. And putting in John McCain and a new team of provokers he would bring with is going to create a whole new set of problems. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton seem to be without a clue how difficult it would be to "work with" the rest of the world.

Maybe its time to work diplomatically with Iran, stop creatinga fear of nuclear confligration as the major diplomatic tool kit, listening intently to what the rest of the world is saying and demanding be heard - we are all in this together and our planet must be saved while their is still time.

The United States' media does an incredibly bad job of alerting people to the coming dangers and appears incapable of asking the hard questions.

The only ones celebrating the US state of the union are the top 1% of America's elite and they have not played a very good game when the TRUTH finally emerges.

Don't expect anyone without a super large bank account to be applauding Mr. Bush or America anytime soon.









January 28, 2008

January 27, 2008

SPP leaders on the State of the Union Address ..

Comment on the State of the Union Address and Energy Productivity from Leaders of the Energy Security, Innovation & Sustainability Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (bio & pic) and Deborah Wince-Smith, president of the Council on Competitiveness and NASDAQ board member (bio & pic), are available to discuss energy, the economy, and global competitiveness in conjunction with the Presidents State of the Union address, and in the midst of the Presidential primary and debate season. Below are a few topics that they would include in the State of the Union address, if they were advising the Presidents speechwriters.

Dr. Jackson is co-chair -- along with James W. Owens, Chairman and CEO of Caterpillar, and D. Michael Langford, National President of the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO -- of a major initiative -- the Energy Security, Innovation & Sustainability Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness -- which is convening leaders in business, academe, and labor to craft an agenda to enhance U.S. competitiveness and global energy security. She will be co-chairing a meeting of this Initiative Monday in Washington, D.C., with some 25 other CEOs involved in the initiative, and interviews with Dr. Jackson and Ms. Wince-Smith may be scheduled in person or by telephone.

To arrange interviews, please contact Patricia Charles at (440) 506-9564 or patricia@kelleycampaigns.com. For more information, see www.compete.org/esis.

Positioning the U.S. for Economic Prosperity through Energy Productivity

Energy security presents extraordinary economic challenges, but also offers extraordinary economic opportunities that the United States must position itself to capitalize on. Other nations have committed to ambitious energy policies, innovation investments and energy use targets. The U.S. is a global laggard in energy productivity a measurement of the output and quality of goods and services created per unit of energy a trend that needs to be reversed if we are to maintain our economic competitiveness. Under the auspices of the Council on Competitiveness, a coalition of business, university and labor leaders have joined together to address U.S. energy security and competitiveness by developing an energy roadmap focusing on (1) economic gains through innovation, (2) economic gains through greater energy efficiencies, and (3) economic gains through workforce development.

Investing in Energy Innovation -- Reversing the Decline in R&D

The U.S. must begin to fund research and development at a greater level and dedicate resources to increasing our energy efficiency. For more than 25 years, there has been a steady decline in public investment in energy-related research and development in the United States. Between 1978 and 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy budget for energy R&D dropped by more than 85 percent. Budgetary support has fallen short in other ways, as well. For example, the America Competes Act -- designed to promote innovation -- was enacted and signed into law with strong bipartisan support, yet was underfunded in the current federal budget.

Meanwhile, worldwide investment capital flowing into sustainable energies increased from $28 billion in 2004 to $71 billion in 2006. We cannot continue to fall behind other nations in R&D investment, in the commercialization and manufacturing of new energy technologies, and in workforce development. These trends must be reversed.

Creating the Right Environment for Energy Innovation

The U.S. must strengthen its global economic competitiveness by adopting innovative solutions to our energy needs by creating the right environment to unleash market forces. However, many existing regulatory policies at the federal, state, and local levels actually create disincentives for businesses to increase energy efficiency and productivity. Federal inaction has prompted states and regions to devise regulations and policies to act as market drivers to stimulate energy investment. That is a good start, but signals from the federal government are essential for a coherent policy which allows businesses to do what they do best -- invest, drive innovation and create new jobs and industries.

ABOUT THE COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS -- The Council on Competitiveness is the only group of corporate CEOs, university presidents and labor leaders committed to the future prosperity of all Americans and enhanced U.S. competitiveness in the global economy through the creation of high-value economic activity in the United States.

Get prepared now for Monday's State of the Union!!

Just a few of the LIES and distortions from last year's SoU

and what we can expect on Monday ..


It's easy to make ethical/moral attacks on the Bushistas, but alot can be done to expose the lies and distortions, too

Think: Lies, damned lies and the liars that tell them as you listen

you can watch it on on
brave new films.org

and while your doing it with out the MSM messing it up

you can post comments, too!

at the bottom, Your Imperial Presidents' radio remarks yesterday

bear in mind that prior to 9/11, the US government had

already intercepted information re terrorism

Dah. So we need to EXPAND a failing program?

RIGHT


Bush selects his facts carefully to dress up the State of the Union address.

Summary

We found some puffery in President Bush's State of the Union address. He proposed a 20 percent cut in gasoline use, which turns out to be only an 11 percent decrease from current levels. The President claimed to have cut the federal deficit in half, which hasn't quite happened yet. He trumpeted the 7.2 million jobs created since the worst of the 2003 job slump, ignoring the 2.7 million jobs lost during the first part of his tenure. And once again Bush spoke of "energy independence," though the nation's dependence on imported oil has grown steadily since Bush took office despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.

Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, in a nine-minute response from the Democrats, also chose his data selectively. Trying to put a gloomy cast on a generally upbeat economy, he claimed that worker wages "are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth." Webb would have been more accurate had he said "national income" rather than "wealth," but it's true that real wages (after inflation) are rising nicely after a long stagnation.

Analysis

Bush delivered his State of the Union address Jan. 23, concluding that "the State of our Union is strong [and] our cause in the world is right." That broad judgment we'll leave to others to evaluate. Some of the specific facts the President cited, however, we found to be selective, and one we found to be incorrect.

Gasoline Cut

Bush overstated matters when he proposed to slash the nation's use of gasoline by one-fifth over the next decade:

Bush: Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years.

But, compared to what? In reality, Bush's stated goal is not so grand as he made it sound. A White House "fact sheet" says in the fine print that he's talking about a 20 percent from projected levels, not from what motorists are using today.

There's a big difference. The Energy Information Administration predicts that if current trends continue American motorists will consume 12 percent more gasoline than they do currently by the year 2017. Cutting that projected consumption by 20 percent works out to a level that is just 11 percent less than current consumption. That would still be a historic reversal and a major accomplishment, but roughly half of what Bush's words seemed to promise.

Foreign Oil

Bush – once again – spoke of lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil and imported oil generally:

Bush: For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.

He didn't mention that the nation has become significantly more dependent on foreign oil during his time in office. According to the Energy Information Administration, the US imported 60.2 percent of the oil it consumed in 2006, up from 52.9 percent in Bill Clinton's last year in office. Dependency has grown in each year of the Bush presidency save one, despite all the talk and enactment of his energy legislation.

Federal Deficit and Fiscal Discipline

Bush called for fiscal restraint and claimed credit for cutting the federal deficit in half:

Bush: What we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.

Actually, Bush inherited a budget with a comfortable surplus, and then ran up enormous deficits that continue to the present. Under Bush, the national debt (debt held by the public) has increased by more than $1.5 trillion. The annual deficits peaked at $413 billion in fiscal year 2004, and has declined since then. But in fiscal year 2006 (which ended last Oct. 31) the deficit was still $248 billion. The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office project a further reduction in the current fiscal year, to $172 billion. That would indeed be less than half the worst of Bush's deficits, but it would be only two years prior to fiscal 2009, not three.

As for spending restraint, Bush has shown little if any to date. He allowed spending to soar 42 percent during his presidency, and didn't veto a single spending bill. (His only veto was of a bill to loosen restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research.) He did sign massive tax cuts, and revenues increased only 21 percent during the same period.

Education

The President called for reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, saying:

Bush: Students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap...the No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children.

According to the government's own National Center on Education Statistics, the overall achievement gap between minority students and white students has decreased between 2002, when Bush signed the law, and 2005. But the act's impact on math and reading scores is debatable. Students in 4th and 8th grades performed at historic high levels in math in 2005. However, scores had been on the rise since before the law passed. In reading, there was no difference between 4th graders' scores in 2002 and 2005, and the scores of 8th graders actually dropped two points in that interval. The reading scores in 2005 were barely different from those in 1992.

The Economy

When it came to describing the economy, Bush was pretty much on the mark:

Bush: Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising.

In fact, the 4.5 percent unemployment rate for December was well below the historical average. For all months since 1948, when the BLS started publishing its current statistical series, the average rate has been 5.6 percent. The current rate is not far above the 4.2 percent rate that prevailed when Clinton left office.

Inflation remains reasonably low. The Consumer Price Index rose 2.5 percent during 2006, less than the 3.4 percent rise of 2005.

And it's also true that wages are rising, and finally rising faster than inflation. According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings for rank-and-file workers rose 2.1 percent last year even after adjustment for inflation. But last year's rise came after many years of stagnation. In December workers were earning only 2.9 percent more per week than when Bush took office, taking inflation into account.

Job Gain

The President puffed up his description of the economy using an apparently bogus number. And in fact, when we dug into this we found that the White House has been using inflated numbers for job gains for more than four months.

Bush: We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs -- so far.

The 7.2 million figure is correct according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, counting an unusually large upward adjustment in the figures for total non-farm employment that the BLS announced in October. However, as in the past, Bush concentrated only on the period since August 2003, which was the low point of the prolonged job slump that plagued the first 2-1/2 years of his presidency. Since 2.7 million jobs were lost that time, the net gain from the time he took office has been 4.6 million jobs, a respectable number but still not so large as the one Bush highlighted.

Democratic Response

In contrast to the President's upbeat description of the economy, Democratic Sen. James Webb of Virginia painted a rather bleak picture:

Webb: Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world.

As previously mentioned, real wages (after inflation) are actually rising, and certainly not at "an all-time low." When we asked what Webb was talking about, his aides cited a recent article by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, that cited "unprecedented income inequality." Another liberal-leaning think tank, The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, found that wages and salaries as a share of all national income was at an all time low. In other words, income from such things as stock, bonds and rents is rising faster than paychecks.

- by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank and Emi Kolawole

Sources

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National),"Total Nonfarm Employment , Seasonally Adjusted"

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National, "Average Weekly Earnings, 1982 Dollars"

Energy Information Administration, "Table 2. Energy Consumption by Sector and Source," Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 (Early Release).

Energy Information Administration, "Table 1.7 Overview of U.S. Petroleum Trade."

Aron-Dine, Aviva and Isaac Shapiro. "Share of National income Going to Wages and Salaries Remains At Record Low," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 16 January 2007.

Mishel, Lawrence and Jared Bernstein. "New data reveal unprecedented income inequality," Economic Policy Institute. 17 Jan 2007.

Related Articles
From a prediction of wars to come in 2008 ..


Lebanon:
Recent incursions by the Israelis over Lebanese airspace could prefigure another Israeli invasion, this time to prevent Hezbollah and its Christian allies from displacing the increasingly unpopular and beleaguered "pro-Western" government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. All factions are arming themselves, and the country looks ready to slide into yet another civil war, which would almost certainly provoke intervention by several outside interests, including the U.S. and/or Israel. Lebanon is the Balkans of the Middle East: a spark struck there could ignite the whole region.

and this just ran in Voice of America news

Lebanon Delays Presidential Vote for 13th Time

20 January 2008


Lebanon's parliament has again delayed holding a session to elect a new president, postponing the vote for the 13th time.

Speaker Nabih Berri announced Sunday the poll, originally scheduled for Monday, now will be held February 11.

Parliament's ruling pro-Western majority and pro-Syrian opposition factions have agreed on an Arab League-supported plan to install army chief Michel Suleiman as president. But the factions remain divided over a power-sharing deal in the new government.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.


Why? Because the White House is determined to undermine democracy in Lebanon!!

- Reminder to truth tellers -

Letter to George W. Bush

Gulf News

Published: January 11, 2008

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/08/01/11/10180995.html

I went hunting for the Voice of America item I posted and ran

about the US wishing to despose the Lebanese President

but I am damned if I can locate it!!

The VOA archive is of short duration.

ShareThis