From today's Wired News, "Bush Health Tax Credits Won't Aid Uninsured, Study Says":

Tax credits for the poor to buy health insurance such as those proposed by the Bush administration are unlikely to reduce the rolls of the estimated 43 million U.S. uninsured, a study released on Wednesday said.

The struggling economy and corporate layoffs have pushed record numbers of people off health insurance in recent years. Most Americans get health coverage through employers.

A remedy proposed by President Bush offers tax credits to the needy, who would be required to buy health insurance individually. Past Bush plans were projected to cost taxpayers $89 billion over 10 years.

But these people would have to spend significantly more if they took the tax credit option, according to an analysis of some 8,000 low-income Americans without health insurance.

That would lead few to opt for the credits and so would have little effect on health care coverage nationally, the study found. The grim choices facing the poor among food, shelter and health care are part of the reason for this, the report in the journal Health Affairs said.

"The bottom line is this raises real questions about the effectiveness of tax credits for individuals to increase coverage for uninsured people," said James Reschovsky, one of the report's authors. "Not very many low-income people are able to spend more than they do for health care."

The nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change conducted the study.

Researchers compared how much low-income uninsured people now spend on health care, versus how much they'd spend if they bought individual health plans and used the tax credits to offset the costs.

For example, an uninsured family that spent $463 out of pocket on health care in 2001 dollars would have to lay out $2,511 if it chose the tax credit option modeled on one proposed by Bush.

The Bush administration's enemies are everywhere. Unlike the communists of yesteryear, however, the enemies of the 21st Century come in two forms: haters of freedom and democracy or terrorists. Often they are one in the same.

Just yesterday, Education Secretary Rod Paige branded the National Education Association, the nation's largest teacher's union, a "terrorist organization".

No doubt Mr. Paige is unhappy with the NEA's vocal opposition to the administration's No Child Left Behind diktat. But to brand the union a terrorist organization is just plain silly. [Mr. Paige says it was an unfortunate joke.]

It is also another reminder of this administration's 'you're either with us or against us' mentality. All enemies, from North Korea to the domestic opposition, are branded as nothing short of evil. It is an organization with no room for nuance, hunkered down and ready to do battle with anyone who stands in its way.

We're all for good news. But this type of reporting makes you wonder if there's much the Bush administration doesn't misrepresent.

The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but it will soon publish the full, unexpurgated document.

"There was a mistake made," Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, told Congress last week. "It's going to be rectified."

Mr. Thompson said that "some individuals took it upon themselves" to make the report sound more positive than was justified by the data.

[...]

The theme of the original report was that members of minorities "tend to be in poorer health than other Americans" and that "disparities are pervasive in our health care system," contributing to higher rates of disease and disability.

By contrast, the final report has an upbeat tone, beginning, "The overall health of Americans has improved dramatically over the last century."

The report was prepared by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, led by Dr. Carolyn M. Clancy. Administration officials said that she and her researchers had fought hard, at some professional risk, to protect the integrity of the report, but eventually went along with the revisions.

"No data or statistics in the report were altered in any way whatsoever," Dr. Clancy said. But a close reading of the evolving report shows that some entries in statistical tables were deleted from the final version.

The final report acknowledges that "some socioeconomic, racial, ethnic and geographic differences exist." It says, "There is no implication that these differences result in adverse health outcomes or imply moral error or prejudice in any way."

But Dr. Alan R. Nelson, a former president of the American Medical Association, said a large body of evidence suggested that "unconscious biases and stereotypes among physicians and nurses may play a role in causing racial and ethnic disparities." Dr. Nelson led a study of the issue by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences.

Prof. M. Gregg Bloche of Georgetown University, a member of the committee, said: "The administration's report does not fabricate data, but misrepresents the findings. It submerges evidence of profound disparities in an optimistic message about the overall excellence of the health care system."

From an article by Bob Ray Sanders in last Sunday's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "Bush fund-raising letter seeks help of old 'friend'":

It is real easy to tell when the Republican presidential campaign begins to shift to high gear.

The fund-raising team, not satisfied with those hundreds of millions of dollars already in the coffers, begins to pull out that extra-long mailing list -- the one that has my name on it.

Yes, I, one of the president's most ardent critics, am apparently on several fund-raising lists for the national Republican Party, and I often get nice mementos and notes thanking me for contributions in the past and my continued support.

No wonder there are doubts about this nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.. . . This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

– Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

Now that's enough to send us running straight to eBay for vintage "I Like Ike" buttons. And while we're embracing conservative icons:

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it."

– Gen. Douglas MacArthur, 1957

These, and other excellent quotes, over at BuzzFlash.

From Wednesday's AP wire, via Yahoo! News, via Helpful Reader E, "Bush Backs Off Forecast of 2.6M New Jobs":

President Bush distanced himself Wednesday from White House predictions that the economy will add 2.6 million jobs this year, the second embarrassing economic retreat in a week and new fuel for Democratic criticism.

[. . .]

[White House spokesman Scott] McClellan said the economic forecast was simply the work of "number crunchers." He said Bush — who bills himself as the first president with a Master of Business Administration degree — was not a statistician or predictor.

E's comment:

Well, at least now we know he's not a statistician. If we keep this up, eventually we may know so much about what President Bush isn't that we might start to understand what he actually excels at.

Oh, but we already know.

Top scientists and environmentalists on Wednesday accused the Bush administration of suppressing and distorting scientific findings that run counter to its own policies.

They backed a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that said the administration had suppressed research on global warming, air quality, sexual health, cancer and other issues.

The report said there had been a systematic effort to manipulate the government's supposedly independent scientific advisory system "to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda."

"We are not ... taking issue with the administration's policies. We are taking issue with the administration's distortion of the process with which science enters into its decisions," Dr. Kurt Gottfried, a professor of physics at Cornell University and chairman of the UCS, told reporters.

Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency under former Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, said that during his tenure "I do not recall ever receiving a suggestion, let alone an order, from the White House as to how I should make a regulatory decision."

"How times have changed," Train added. (via Reuters)

The Bush Administration was in the ‘hood yesterday, or in the state, at least. It seems the Northwest hasn’t benefited much from Bush’s grand economic plan of cutting taxes, increasing spending and waiting for the good times to roll.

Three members of President Bush's Cabinet yesterday rode a bus through some of the country's highest unemployment areas, saying better times are close at hand because of the president's tax cuts, job-training programs and economic policies.

"You have to go where the problems are," Commerce Secretary Don Evans said in Richland before the Northwest tour headed to Yakima. Evans and his colleagues started the day in Spokane and today will be in Portland and Eugene, Ore.

Evans, Treasury Secretary John Snow, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Small Business Administrator Hector Barreto took their "Jobs and Growth" bus tour through Washington state communities where economic recovery has been slow in agriculture and manufacturing.

[…]

Snow said the economy is working well in broad terms — for instance, in low interest rates and a strong housing market. "But what really counts is whether you see it," Snow said.

Washington and Oregon have been among the states hit hardest by unemployment. Washington has the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation and Oregon ranks second, according to December figures.

In Washington, Yakima and the Tri-Cities remain among the areas with the highest rate of unemployed workers.

But meeting with unemployed workers was not part of the agenda.

"We talk to them all the time," Chao said. (via the Seattle Times)

Ah, they talk to the unemployed all the time.

Maybe next time, they can forget the bus tour and send something a bit more tangible – extended unemployment benefits, say, or job training programs.

Because the excitement of seeing the Cabinet up close and personal only goes so far at the grocery store.

Speaking of somebody who rode to power on his father’s coattails…

Franklin Graham supported but did not endorse President Bush in saying his re-election was the only way to stem "garbage" like that seen in Super Bowl halftime show, the evangelist's spokesman said Monday.

Graham's comments to a gathering of Christian broadcasters were made in reference to a war against secular culture, spokesman Mark DeMoss said.

[…]

Graham said during a speech at the National Religious Broadcasters' convention in Charlotte on Sunday that the Super Bowl halftime show at which Janet Jackson exposed a breast is just the start of what secularists have in store for the nation.

"If this president is not re-elected, the floodgates of this garbage is going to be open because there won't be anyone to stand against it," he said. (from the Asheville, NC Citizen Times)

Ah, the floodgates of garbage. If Janet Jackson’s breast had not been exposed at the Super Bowl halftime show, whatever would we have talked about for the last two weeks? There’s something to be said for national titillation.

Frankly, we’re frightened of what the National Religious Broadcasters might think of as a good time.

Vote for the unBush so we don’t ever have to find out.

From yesterday’s AP wire, via the Cleveland Plain Dealer, "Bush to meet only some members of 9/11 commission":

The White House said Saturday that President Bush plans to meet only with a limited number of representatives from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, despite a statement issued Friday that suggested he would meet with the whole panel.

The new details surprised some commission officials and members - who believed they had secured a promise from Bush for a private meeting with all 10 members - and could add to the tensions that have strained relations between the two sides.

"While details of the private sessions are still to be determined, the White House does not expect the president to meet with the entire commission," an administration official said Saturday.

The official added that the White House had not decided whether a meeting would include only the panel's chairman, former New Jersey Republican governor Thomas H. Kean, and vice chairman, former representative Lee Hamilton, Democrat of Indiana, or other members as well.

From Donnie Johnston's editorial in today's Fredericksburg Freelance-Star, "As conflict drags on, Americans lose interest in Iraq":

Last May, after I wrote a column comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I received an irate letter from one man who said, in effect, that I was crazy, that within a year our boys would be home.

Well, that year will be up in a few weeks and we seem no closer to getting out of Iraq. And our soldiers are still dying at the rate of more than one per day.

Those who don't see Iraq as another Vietnam are right in one respect. During Vietnam, America cared. Now it seems that only a handful of us even acknowledge there is still a war going on.

Every poll I have seen lately places the economy at the top of America's trouble list. In other words, we are more concerned with money than the lives of our soldiers.

I suppose that's understandable. It is our money, but, for most, it is someone else's son or daughter over there getting shot at.

The primary reason for this obvious distance between Americans and their soldiers is conscription--or the lack of it. During Vietnam, there was hardly a household that didn't worry that a son or a grandson would be drafted.

Now we know our kids will be safe, unless they choose to join the military.

The draft--at least the draft during the 1940s, '50s, and most of the '60s--did not discriminate between the rich and the poor. If you were fit, you got drafted. College graduates and high school dropouts bunked together in the same barracks.

Now, for the most part, the fighting element of the military is made up of less-affluent Americans. Let's face it, few recent graduates with master's degrees are going to trade a $50,000-a-year job for Army pay.

It is easy to talk about making war when you know that your son or daughter will not be forced to fight.

From today's Globe and Mail (UK), "Mud season starts early in U.S. campaign":

A garish parade of ravaged female interns, scandalized soldiers and communist-sympathizing starlets marched across the American political stage this week — a surprising spectacle, since both George W. Bush and his leading Democrat opponent claimed that they are only interested in campaigning on serious issues such as tax cuts and job losses.

The combination of dirt and denial is the result of a new, lower form of political campaigning, in which Republican Party affiliates leak damaging personal information about Democrat rivals to grassroots conservative news sources, while claiming the higher ground in statements to more respectable official outlets.

It has proved amazingly successful. With the presidential election more than eight months away and the Democrats still at least six weeks away from settling on a candidate, the U.S. media are already consumed with chasing down decades-old personal rumours about Mr. Bush and shady tales of sexual impropriety about John Kerry, the Boston senator who leads the Democrats' pack.

Yesterday, a nadir was reached as many of the major U.S. media outlets spent the day chasing a Clintonesque rumour, planted on websites of dubious journalistic merit, involving allegations that Mr. Kerry had a dalliance with a female intern.

While there was no evidence that it was true, or reason to believe it was important, the gossip on the Internet and on conservative talk-radio shows had reached such a heated pitch that respectable newspapers and TV networks felt obligated to expend major resources chasing it down.

The Justice Department is demanding that at least six hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia and elsewhere turn over hundreds of patient medical records on certain abortions performed there.

Lawyers for the department say they need the records to defend a new law that prohibits what opponents call partial-birth abortions. A group of doctors at hospitals nationwide have challenged the law, enacted last November, arguing that it bars them from performing medically needed abortions.

The department wants to examine the medical histories for what could amount to dozens of the doctors' patients in the last three years to determine, in part, whether the procedure, known medically as intact dilation and extraction, was in fact medically necessary, government lawyers said.

But hospital administrators are balking because they say the highly unusual demand would violate the privacy rights of their patients, and the standoff has resulted in clashing interpretations from federal judges in recent days about whether the Justice Department has a right to see the files. (via the New York Times)

Isn’t the Justice Department supposed to be out catching bad guys and gals?

Clearly, the definition of a “criminal” has changed during Bush II. (And we’re not talking only about people who aren’t white.)

Americans’ civil liberties continue to be attacked by an overzealous Justice Department – even in the red states:

To hear the antiwar protesters describe it, their forum at a local university last fall was like so many others they had held over the years. They talked about the nonviolent philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they said, and how best to convey their feelings about Iraq into acts of civil disobedience.

But last week, subpoenas began arriving seeking details about the forum's sponsor — its leadership list, its annual reports, its office location — and the event itself.

[…]

Late on Monday, prosecutors in the United States attorney's office for the southern district of Iowa took the unusual step of issuing a confirmation of the investigation, stressing that its scope was limited to learning more about one person who had tried to scale a security fence at an Iowa National Guard base in a protest a day after the forum.

"The United States attorney's office does not prosecute persons peacefully and lawfully engaged in rallies which are conducted under the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," a written statement issued by the prosecutor here, Stephen Patrick O'Meara, said.

[...]

"I've heard of such a thing, but not since the 1950's, the McCarthy era," said David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor. "It sends a very troubling message about government officials' attitudes toward basic liberties." (“An Antiwar Forum in Iowa Brings Federal Subpoenas,” the New York Times)

On Tuesday, Justice realized its mistake:

Facing growing public pressure from civil liberties advocates, federal prosecutors on Tuesday dropped subpoenas that they issued last week ordering antiwar protesters to appear before a grand jury and ordering a university to turn over information about the protesters.

The protesters, who had said they feared that the unusual federal inquiry was intended to silence and scare people who disagreed with government positions, declared victory. (“Subpoenas on Antiwar Protest Are Dropped,” the New York Times)

We need a President who will stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough.’

We need a President who would not nominate an Attorney General like John Ashcroft in the first place.

Treasury Secretary John Snow spent last weekend kvetching with the Group of 7 finance ministers in Boca Raton, Florida.

The Europeans are beginning to panic over the sinking value of the U.S. dollar, which is jacking up the price of European exports and slapping around economies across the Continent. Of particular concern is the practice by some Asian countries (notably China) of linking their currencies to the dollar and, because of its current low value, selling off dollars while bidding up the Euro – all of which has increased the dollar’s instability. The Europeans wanted a sharply worded statement from Florida discouraging such “flexibility” in currency trading.

Mr. Snow, however, insisted at the meeting that economic growth is more important than stability, and the result was a watered-down warning maintaining the undesirability of "excess volatility" and "disorderly movements" in exchange rates. [Apparently, this is an economist’s version of Justin Timberlake saying, “Wouldn’t it be better if we just took off this little sequin here.”] Predictably, the boost provided to the value of the dollar by this watered-down statement was short-lived when the markets opened on Monday.

Why would the Treasury Department wimp out on a stronger-worded statement given the current volatility of currency markets?

Three words – Election Year Economics:

In so doing, the Bush administration has made a calculated economic and political choice. By condoning and even encouraging a cheap dollar, the administration is providing a big push to American exporters by making their products less expensive in foreign markets.

That should encourage more hiring and lower unemployment leading up to the election. The only immediate losers are exporters in Europe and Asia who have to choose between cutting prices or losing market share in the United States.

But the long-term risks are substantial. At some point, a weaker dollar will inevitably lead to higher prices for imported goods — almost all consumer electronics bought by Americans, most of their clothing, many of their cars and much of the oil that provides the fuel to drive them.

A much bigger risk is that a plunging dollar could contribute to a rise in interest rates, as foreign investors demand fatter risk premiums before agreeing to buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Treasury securities to finance America's high levels of indebtedness.

The United States needs to attract $1.5 billion a day in net capital inflows from abroad — $500 billion a year more than it sends out — which means that the world is being flooded by American I.O.U.'s at levels never seen before. The administration's huge budget deficits could increase that need for foreign capital even more, and higher interest rates would add billions of dollars to those deficits.

But hey, we’re at war, right? Tough times call for blowing the economy.

More sounding off from Sunday's Meet the Press interview on NBC.

Russert: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation's auditors

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: have done a study of our finances.

President Bush: Um hmm.

Russert: And this is what your legacy will be to the next generation. It says that our “current fiscal policy is unsustainable.” They did a computer simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could require either cutting total Federal spending in half or doubling Federal taxes.

President Bush: Um hmm.

Russert: How why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?

President Bush: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years.

Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that if Congress is wise with the people's money, we can cut the deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will be relatively low.

I agree with the assessment that we've got some long term financial issues we must look at, and that's one reason I asked Congress to deal with Medicare. I strongly felt that if we didn't have an element of competition, that if we weren't modern with the Medicare program, if we didn't incorporate what's called "health savings accounts" to encourage Americans to take more control over their healthcare decisions, we would have even a worse financial picture in the long run.

[...]

Russert: But your base conservatives and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they're all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.

President Bush: Well, they're wrong.

Russert: Mr. President

President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.

And the other thing that I think it's important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we are at war, Tim, and any time you commit your troops into harm's way, they must have the best equipment, the best training, and the best possible pay. That's where we owe it to their loved ones.

Russert: That's a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?

President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you will slow down economic growth. You will make it harder.

More incredulousness:

1. "The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years." Translation: My talking points say 'deflect all deficit questions. Remind the public that we're halving the deficit - making it much less, not more.'

2. "Now, I don't know what the assumptions are in the GAO report...." Translation: I just do what they tell me to do.

3. "I agree with the assessment that we've got some long term financial issues we must look at, and that's one reason I asked Congress to deal with Medicare." Translation: My talking points say 'deflect all deficit questions. Talk about Medicare. Americans care about health care, not fuzzy economic numbers.'

4. "Well, they're wrong." Translation: Rush, Heritage and CATO are not lovers of freedom and democracy.

5. "If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined." Ahem: "With Bush's budget plan for FY2004, real non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18.0 percent in his first three years in office (FY2002-FY2004). That growth far exceeds the first three years of any recent presidential term, including Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), George H. Bush's term (11.6 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent)." (Cato Institute) [Note: this source does not love freedom and democracy.]

6. "Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money." Translation: Poor people need to work harder. My friends are rich, and they work hard. So I'm giving them their money back. Plus, Dick says it will work.

The President sounds off on this week's Meet the Press on NBC:

Russert: On Iraq, the vice president said, “we would be greeted as liberators.”

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?

President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure, given the tone of your questions, we're not. We are welcomed in Iraq.

Russert: Are you surprised by the level and intensity of resistance?

President Bush: No, I'm not. And the reason I'm not surprised is because there are people in that part of the world who recognize what a free Iraq will mean in the war on terror. In other words, there are people who desperately want to stop the advance of freedom and democracy because freedom and democracy will be a powerful long term deterrent to terrorist activities.

See, free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror and don't blackmail the world.

If I could share some stories with you about some of the people I have seen from Iraq, the leaders from Iraq, there is no question in my mind that people that I have seen at least are thrilled with the activities we've taken.

Rhonda & Jane are forced by sheer incredulousness to comment:

1. "Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq." ??? The man either lives in a bubble, is lying, or he's crazy.

2. "I'm not exactly sure, given the tone of your questions, we're not." Translation: the liberal media do not love freedom and democracy.

3. "If I could share some stories with you about some of the people I have seen from Iraq, the leaders from Iraq, there is no question in my mind that people that I have seen at least are thrilled with the activities we've taken." The man either lives in a bubble, is lying, or he's crazy.

4. "In other words, there are people who desperately want to stop the advance of freedom and democracy because freedom and democracy will be a powerful long term deterrent to terrorist activities." Oh god, not this again. Somebody please get rid of this talking point. Democracy is not a deterrent to terrorist activities - look at Israel. Terrorist activities happen because somebody hates you, and terrorists see an America that acts like the world is its fiefdom. Change the way we interact with the world, and the hatred will change.

5. "...[F]ree societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror...." Well, the U.S. led the world in developing nuclear weapons. We're the only ones to use them, not once but twice. And we're willing to bet that most reasonable people (i.e., those outside of the Bush administration) would count nukes among weapons of mass terror.

From Friday's People's Daily (China), "Beijing man wants to sell 'Bushi' diapers":

A Beijing businessman wants to trademark the Chinese name of US President George W. Bush to market his disposable diapers.

The applicant, surnamed Guo, filed an application with the General Administration for Industry and Commerce of China, stating he wants to use the two-character phrase "Bushi" as a trademark, the Beijing News reported.

"I hit upon the idea by chance," said Guo, who became a Beijing resident three years ago.

"Back in my hometown in Henan Province, the pronunciation of 'Bushi' sounds exactly like 'not wet'."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

- George Bush, March 17, 2003

"In the intelligence business, you are almost never completely wrong or completely right. That applies in full to the question of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction."

- George Tenet, February 5, 2004

Remarks by the President and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
The Oval Office
February 3, 2004

THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome the Secretary General here to the Oval Office. We've just had a really constructive dialogue about a lot of issues. And the world is changing for the better and the United Nations is playing a vital role in that change. And we talked about Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the Middle East, the continent of Africa. And I'll let the Secretary General speak for himself, but I'm upbeat and optimistic about the future of the world.

Isn't it grand to hear the President so upbeat and optimistic? Perhaps no one's told him that the best hope for the "future of the world" is one where his performance as Unlikely World Leader has ended due to bad reviews.

From Reuters, via Forbes.com, "Senior Republican leader says Bush gets bad advice":

A senior Republican congressional leader told President George W. Bush on Wednesday that he was getting bad advice on highway legislation and should reconsider a veto threat.

"I am extremely disappointed with the 'take it or leave it' approach taken by your advisers," Don Young of Alaska, the chairman of the House of Representatives Transportation Committee, wrote in a letter to Bush.

"Solutions to these problems cannot be found by issuing edicts or veto threats," Young said of a letter sent by senior administration officials to House and Senate leaders on Tuesday that spelled out White House objections to pending highway legislation.

"It is my view, and I believe the view of most of my colleagues in Congress, that you are not receiving the best advice on the issue of how to reauthorize our nation's surface transportation programs for the coming six years," Young said in unusually frank public criticism of a Republican White House by a Republican congressional leader.

Bush has threatened to veto a number of bills during his term in office but has never rejected any legislation once approved by Congress. But the highway bill is viewed as an important early test for Bush on his drive this year to cut spending and impart new fiscal discipline.

Young told Bush that a range of funding scenarios to pay for the two leading highway construction proposals in Congress that each top $300 billion should be considered. "No option should be placed off limits," Young said.

While he did not specifically propose it to Bush, Young and other key members of his committee favor an increase in the federal gasoline tax by 8 cents over six years.

Treasury Secretary John Snow and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said the White House would recommend that Bush veto the highway bill if Congress included any tax increase.

Bush proposed a $256 billion highway bill for six years earlier this week in his federal budget. Bush included no tax increase to fund highway programs.

Highway legislation is one of the biggest election-year priorities for members of Congress who covet the billions of dollars in construction projects that create jobs and stimulate business.

From yesterday's Wired News, via Helpful Reader E, "Stacking the Deck Against Science":

Under the guise of promoting sound science, the Bush administration is advancing a policy that could make it more difficult for federal agencies to protect health and the environment, U.S. scientists say.

A White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, bulletin (PDF) drafted in August 2003 would allow the government to hand-pick scientists to second-guess scientific research, opponents say. The text of the bulletin says its purpose would be to ensure that all research affecting federal regulations, such as environmental or health advisories, would be thoroughly peer reviewed by unbiased researchers.

But scientists feel the government is commandeering a term that is near and dear to their hearts.

Peer review is the backbone of all serious science. It's a process by which top experts in a given field examine research for flaws, and often send it back to researchers for more work before it's disseminated to the public. But scientists say the White House version of peer review would allow the government to stack review committees in favor of the government and industry.

"It wouldn't be peer review as we're used to," said William Schlesinger, president of the Ecological Society of America, which represents 8,000 scientists in academia, government and industry.

The OMB bulletin would require that peer reviewers be "independent of the agency" involved when it comes to "significant regulatory information." Experts receiving funding from the agency involved, who have performed multiple peer reviews for that agency in recent years or just one review on the same topic, would be eliminated as potential reviewers.

That would eliminate the top experts in a given field, scientists said in letters responding to the bulletin.

"Anyone really good has done some science and made a conclusion," Schlesinger said. "If you eliminate those people, probably the researchers did multiple reviews because they were recognized as being good at it. (Also,) anybody any good on an issue is always looking for research funding."

Many also complain that the bulletin does not address ways to combat conflict of interest when it comes to researchers working in the private sector.

[. . .]

Respondents to the bulletin are divided between industry and scientific or environmental groups. For example, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association and the Industrial Minerals Association favor the proposal. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences and the Natural Resources Defense Council oppose it.

Opponents also say the measure is trying to fix something that's not broken.

"There's nothing wrong with the system," said Georges Benjamin, president of the American Public Health Association. "People might not like the way the good science comes out, so they want to look for an opposition to second-guess it. I don't know what OMB's motives are, but I think they've got a solution looking for a problem."

"It is really amazing that OMB has not pointed out a single instance of bad rule-making or decision-making based on (scientific) information," DePalma said.

Yesterday the President presented his $2.4 trillion budget for fiscal year 2005 - "a plan to help make America a more secure, more prosperous, and more hopeful country" (the White House's words, not ours).

Heavy on national security expenditures and promises to cut domestic spending, the President's budget has a number of goals (again, according to the White House):

#1 Winning the War on Terror by Defeating Terrorists and Their Supporters

Yes, GW's budget includes more than $400 billion for the Defense Department. But that isn't necessarily going to help us win the war on terror. That's a war that was started in large part because of American troops in the Middle East, and the invasion of Iraq only made things worse. Unless that $400 billion is going to help get our troops out of Iraq or address the root causes of extremism (poverty, hopelessness, hopelessness, poverty), then we are only going to add fuel to the fire of Terrorists and their Supporters.

#2 Protecting America by Securing Our Homeland

America is not more secure because of the war on terror, escalated Orange Alerts or no. Americans are hurting because we can't find jobs, afford health insurance or pay for childcare. We don't need more scare tactics. We need real solutions.

#3 Strengthening Our Economy

The President's budget projects a $521 billion deficit for fiscal year 2004, a result of economic downturn and an unbelievably shortsighted tax policy that has slashed taxes for the richest Americans at a time when the country is bleeding defense dollars and cutting social services. Bush wants to make those tax cuts permanent. Oh, and it turns out that the White House can't do math. Now it says the Medicare bill it pushed through Congress will cost $134 billion more than projected - not exactly giving us confidence in this Administration's economic stewardship.

#4 Supporting Key Priorities Like Education, Health Care, and Helping Americans Most in Need

Let's be clear. When the White House claims that it is "keeping non-defense, non-homeland security Federal spending growth to less than 1%," that means that Americans Most in Need won't be getting a lot of help from the federal government. Meanwhile, the Bush education policy is leaving schools behind, branded as failures, and the kids who fail the tests won't be far, well, behind.

It's an odd budget for an election year, according to Elisabeth Bumiller in the New York Times:

Mr. Bush's calculation is that voters will care far more about protecting the nation from another terrorist attack than about cuts to popular programs, or, for that matter, the record-high deficit.

To that end, Mr. Bush's $2.4 trillion budget provides the back-up material to the re-election theme that the president first set forth in his State of the Union address: He is the national security candidate to take care of America's fears.

Hear that America? Mr. Bush is going to take care of our deepest fears.

We're feeling more hopeful already.

First, some background about the Presidential Records Act and EO 13233 from "Executive Order Undermines Democracy", an article by Ira Berlin in the Organization of American Historians Newsletter, May 2002:

A product of the Watergate Crisis, the Presidential Records Act had its origins in Richard Nixon's attempt to privatize and presumably destroy the records of his presidency. Congress intervened and enacted legislation that placed Nixon's records in the hands of the General Services Administration, the parent organization of the National Archives. Subsequently, Nixon sued and, in the Supreme Court, lost. In a footnote, the Court's majority declared that the ownership of the president's papers was a yet unsettled question.

In 1978, Congress seemingly settled that matter with the passage of the Presidential Records Act, which declared that "the United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control" of the president's records. While the act had its origins in post-Watergate concerns about executive usurpation, it also reflected the demands of the American people for political transparency and openness in government. Specifically, the legislation provided that when the president and vice-president leave office, their papers would be transferred to the National Archives. After five years, during which the records would be processed, access would be subject to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, and after twelve years they would be open to the public. Some exceptions were made for records that address questions of national security, trade, and other matters relating to advice given to the president in confidence. The legislation was signed by Jimmy Carter and went into effect under his successor, Ronald Reagan. By law, the records of the Reagan presidency were to be opened in 2001.

Last November [2001], just as the National Archives was preparing to release a small portion of the records of the Reagan administration, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233. The order challenges both the spirit and, I believe, the letter of the Presidential Records Act, reversing the commitment to open access. It gives former presidents and their assignees--seemingly in perpetuity--the right to prevent the release of presidential papers. It also allows a sitting president to block the release of a former president's records, even after that former president has signaled his approval. It requires that those who challenge the action of either a former president or the sitting president seek redress in court.

Now, we’d love to send you to the Executive Orders page of www.whitehouse.gov to take a look at the text EO 13233 for yourself, but as of today, you won’t find it there.*

You’ll find the Executive Order for the Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. You’ll find the Executive Order Establishing the Bob Hope American Patriot Award. You’ll find over 100 Executive Orders, listed by the date they were signed. EO 13233 was signed November 1, 2001. The White House site shows Executive Orders signed October 22, 2001 and November 9, 2001 – as of today, you won’t find anything in between.

Not only does the current Bush administration want to conceal the presidential papers of the previous Bush and Reagan administrations -- they’re not willing to expose the Executive Order George W. Bush signed to make it happen.

Anybody else got a problem with that?

* Fortunately, the Federation of American Scientists has it posted here.

From Reuters, " IRS: Tax Cuts Would Expand Minimum Tax Bite"

Unless Congress acts, millions of U.S. taxpayers will be shocked in April 2006 as they do their taxes and discover they owe the government much more than thought, according to the Internal Revenue Service's taxpayer watchdog.

"These are compliant taxpayers who are trying to file their returns and they're getting hit with this and I have a concern about it," said Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, in a recent interview with Reuters.

The reason will be the Alternative Minimum Tax, which requires some middle and upper-income taxpayers to calculate their taxes in two ways and pay the higher bill. The AMT, created in 1969 to catch rich folks who managed to avoid income taxes, is increasingly dipping into the middle class. Olson says the problem will get worse unless Congress acts soon.

That is because exemptions to the AMT approved in earlier tax cut bills expire in 2005. In the spring of 2006, when filers do their 2005 taxes, they may find that even if President Bush gets past income tax cuts made permanent, about 12 million taxpayers may fall under the AMT. Olson said Congress has to deal with the AMT if it is to deal with the issue of making tax cuts permanent.

"They're going to have to deal with the AMT somehow, because otherwise the tax cuts are just going to draw more people into the AMT," Olson said.

Because of one of the perverse characteristics of the AMT -- its calculations include the difference between what one would pay under the "normal" tax system and what one would pay under the AMT -- the more filers there are in tax brackets below the AMT's 26 percent rate, the more become potentially eligible for the AMT.

But paying to get rid of the AMT would be expensive as the White House and Congress mull a budget expected to hit a record deficit of about $500 billion this year.

According to a paper by the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, repealing the AMT would cut revenues by $660 billion through 2014 if the Bush tax cuts expire as currently planned. The cost would be a higher $1.090 trillion if the cuts are made permanent, as the administration has said it wants.

The Congressional Budget Office, in its newest budget estimates on Jan. 26, said, "With each passing year, the AMT plays a bigger role in revenue projections."