Quick, guess which regime Condelezza Rice was referring to last Thursday:

"When you are dealing with secretive regimes that want to deceive, you’re never going to be able to be positive" about intelligence, Ms Rice told NBC. (via The Scotsman)

If you guessed the one that’s refusing to endorse an independent investigation of intelligence failures regarding WMD in Iraq, you’d be wrong.

Update, 02/01/2004:

In a reversal of his position, President George W. Bush will announce this week the establishment of a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate apparent flaws in intelligence used to justify the Iraq war, senior administration officials said on Sunday.

Bush, who had earlier opposed such a commission, was under strong pressure from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to support an independent probe into intelligence that said Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons when in fact none have been found.

Assertions that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction was the main reason cited by Bush for the war, in which more than 500 U.S. troops have died.

"The president wants a broad, bipartisan and independent review of our intelligence, particularly relating to weapons of mass destruction and counter-proliferation efforts," said a senior Bush administration official, who asked to remain unidentified.

The commission is expected to be given until next year to report back, instead of this year as Democrats demand. This represents an attempt to avoid having the probe's results emerge as a campaign issue, as Democratic challengers attempt to derail the president's re-election bid in November. (via Reuters)

From yesterday's New York Times, "George Bush, in Denial":

While Tony Blair was cooperating with a British investigation into his handling of the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion, the Bush White House continued to follow its strategy of spin and evade. Because Mr. Blair was compelled to take the risk that objective investigators would find that he had acted honorably and honestly, Britain is now able to move on to the next logical step — finding out why its intelligence was so completely wrong. Americans, however, are still stuck in stage one. President Bush needs to move things forward by starting — or allowing Congress to start — an independent investigation that goes beyond the British inquiry and looks into all aspects of the apparent intelligence failures on Iraq.

Mr. Bush, whose aides had been plotting a war against Iraq practically since Inauguration Day, has dodged questions about why the American intelligence about Iraq was just as wrong as Britain's intelligence. Vice President Dick Cheney continues to make outsized claims about Iraq's prewar weapons programs, and the administration's allies continue to grasp at straws. It was painful yesterday morning to watch John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, trying to drag some positive nuggets from David Kay, the former chief weapons inspector. After Dr. Kay said he had found no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and concluded that none would be found, Mr. Warner pounced on the idea that Dr. Kay said he had accounted for "only" 85 percent of Iraq's military programs. So that, Mr. Warner said triumphantly, leaves 15 percent. Yes, and in a few months it will be 10 percent, and months after that 5 percent, and the answers will almost certainly be the same: Iraq destroyed its weapons and weapons programs long ago under the pressure of the same United Nations inspectors that Mr. Bush and his aides vilified in the months leading up to the war. American intelligence was wrong in concluding that weapons existed, and that robust programs to develop more were continuing.

Dr. Kay has repeatedly told the administration just that. It has responded by trying to edit the rhetoric. Rather than addressing the alarming failures of American intelligence, Mr. Bush and his aides have gone from talking about weapons to talking about weapons programs, and then, in the State of the Union address, "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." It is time to stop refining the spin and make a serious attempt to find out where and how American intelligence went wrong. The public also needs to know, as authoritatively as possible, whether the administration made ambiguous intelligence seem certain for political reasons or, worse, whether analysts were pressured to exaggerate their intelligence.

It is easy to understand, tactically, why Mr. Bush is reluctant to do that in an election year. No matter how he and his aides try to change the subject to how tyrannical Saddam Hussein was, it was the presence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq that Mr. Bush gave as his justification for rushing into a war without real international backing. Dr. Kay said yesterday that he had seen no evidence of politically twisted intelligence reporting before the war. But he put it well when he said that "it's important to acknowledge failure." Only an independent panel can be trusted at this point to find out what went wrong in Iraq and give the public some hope that another big intelligence failure can be prevented in the future.

Via Reuters, "Bush Sees No Need for More Iraq Funds Before 2005"

The White House said on Friday it has no plans "at this point" to seek more money this year for military operations in Iraq, putting off any politically sensitive request until Congress convenes in 2005 after the U.S. presidential election.

Budget analysts and congressional sources said President Bush may need $40 billion or more in emergency supplemental funding in fiscal year 2005 -- on top of the $400 billion military budget he will send to Congress next month.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not comment on any fiscal 2005 request, saying only that "there are no plans for a supplemental at this point in (calendar year) 2004 ... And we've told members of Congress this."

The 2005 fiscal year will start Oct. 1.

And unless we do something about it, Bush's requests for emergency supplemental funding will start Nov. 3.

From today's New York Times, "Bush Backs Away From His Claims About Iraq Arms":

President Bush declined Tuesday to repeat his claims that evidence that Saddam Hussein had illicit weapons would eventually be found in Iraq, but he insisted that the war was nonetheless justified because Mr. Hussein posed "a grave and gathering threat to America and the world."

Asked by reporters if he would repeat earlier expressions of confidence that the weapons would be found in light of recent statements by the former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David A. Kay, that Mr. Hussein had gotten rid of them well before the war, Mr. Bush did not answer directly.

"I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work, so we can find out the facts and compare the facts to what was thought," he said at an appearance with the visiting president of Poland.

From yesterday's AP wire, via the Boston Globe, "U.S. attorney general says Saddam's 'evil chemistry, biology' justified war":

''Weapons of mass destruction including evil chemistry and evil biology are all matters of great concern, not only to the United States but also to the world community. They were the subject of U.N. resolutions,'' Ashcroft said.

Up next: the deficit is just a product of evil math, and France only exists because of evil geography.

Notice what didn't get mentioned in last week's State of the Union address? The Bush administration's systematic overhaul of the country's environmental protection laws.

The Bush administration is moving to revamp a rule protecting streams that Appalachian environmentalists view as their best weapon for fighting the strip-mining technique of mountaintop removal.

Over the past six years, environmental groups have used the rule, which restricts mining within 100 feet of a stream, to block or slow the issuing of state permits for mountaintop removal.

[...]

The proposed rule change by the Office of Surface Mining would make clear that filling valleys and covering streams is permitted under federal law if companies show they are minimizing mining waste and the environmental damage caused by it.

Administration officials say the proposed changes to the rule, affecting the stream buffer zone, will clarify conflicting federal regulations and thereby reduce litigation. The rule could take effect as early as mid-March. ("Rule Change May Alter Strip-Mine Fight" in the New York Times)

Piece by piece, this administration is handing all that is pristine in the American outdoors to big business on a silver platter.

$97.6 billion is enough to fund 1,768,400 four year college scholarships at public universities, build nearly a million affordable housing units, send 9,857,000 children to a year of Head Start and provide 29,880,000 children with a year of health care.

And the numbers keep rising.

Economy Lessons at the Nothin' Fancy Cafe

Remarks by the President to the Press Pool
Nothin' Fancy Cafe
Roswell, New Mexico

January 22, 2004
11:25 A.M. MST

THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs.

Q Mr. President, how are you?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs.

Q What would you like?

THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like.

Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure.

THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch -- what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat?

Q Right behind you, whatever you order.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib?

Q But Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?

Q Ribs.

THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.

Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something?

Q An answer.

Q Can we buy some questions?

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people -- they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money.

Q Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally.

(via Wonkette)

President George W Bush is facing mounting anger from the conservative Right who accused him of letting government spending run out of control.

Forty Republican Congressmen have formed a rebel group committed to curbing federal spending.

The move followed an attack on Mr Bush and the Republican-dominated Congress by six conservative think-tanks and pressure groups in Washington over the surge in spending projects. (via the Telegraph)

The icon of compassionate conservatism is still trying to be all things to all people. All he's succeeded at is making just about everyone unhappy.

Another perspective on Bush's State of the Union, from yesterday's New York Times editorial page.

President Bill Clinton always pleased the public when he stuffed his State of the Union address with lots and lots of proposals, many small and symbolic. Mr. Bush, who devoted an entire paragraph to decrying the use of steroids in sports, stands second to nobody when it comes to tiny symbolic gestures. Many of his larger thoughts, meanwhile, were vague to the point of meaninglessness. (His references to energy and the environment took up less time than the anti-steroid agenda.) Among his proposals aimed at social conservatives, the bow to a constitutional amendment against gay marriage was the most disheartening.

It is actually a cruel hoax to pretend that Washington can afford to do anything new, even with the modest grab bag of small new initiatives and familiar retreads suggested by the president. In that context, his decision last night to re-endorse the Social Security overhaul plan from his last campaign was terrifying.

Bush's "us vs. them" policies were front and center in last night's State of the Union speech. This mentality (complete with smirks on cue) smacks of his moral certitude: you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us, well then, you're gonna go to hell.

Last night G.W. made it clear that the nonbelievers deserve ridicule:

Tonight, Members of Congress can take pride in the great works of compassion and reform that skeptics had thought impossible.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime -- a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments.

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare.

We also heard him point out the sinners:

Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq.

But the status quo always has defenders. Some want to undermine the No Child Left Behind Act by weakening standards and accountability.

And set up the opposition to reform or become even more sinful:

Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged 300 dollars more in Federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase.

I signed this measure proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors, or to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto.

If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

Never mind that tax cuts have slashed badly needed social programs, or that the prescription drug coverage plan benefits drug companies more than seniors, or that judges are put on the bench to force the Constitution's will upon the people, not the President's.

This administration is a regime that believes it holds all the answers and does not tolerate dissent. To disagree is to be unpatriotic. To reject is to be damned.

Ashley Pearson, we hope you will grow up still believing that you can help save our country. And we hope you will be willing to question your government to do it.

That's the current number of Americans who won't be coming back from Bush's war in Iraq.

It's the deadliest American war since Vietnam.

From today's Washington Post, "9/11 Panel Unlikely to Get Later Deadline"

President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, virtually guaranteeing that the panel will have to complete its work by the end of May, officials said last week.

A growing number of commission members had concluded that the panel needs more time to prepare a thorough and credible accounting of missteps leading to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But the White House and leading Republicans have informed the panel that they oppose any delay, which raises the possibility that Sept. 11-related controversies could emerge during the heat of the presidential campaign, sources said.

Say, let's celebrate National Sanctity of Human Life Day with a look at Bush's record on the death penalty:

The most controversial aspect of Bush's governorship, however, remains his support for the death penalty in the state that has executed more inmates than any other. Bush's appearance at the Conservative Party luncheon in New York was interrupted briefly by anti-death penalty protesters, who were quickly removed.

In an earlier event in Elizabeth, New Jersey, while proposing a $400 million effort to help fund after-school activities for needy youth, Bush was criticized by a Presbyterian minister who hosted the event.

In a pointed but polite exchange Friday, the Rev. Joseph Garlic told Bush at his campaign event that last month's execution of convicted murderer Gary Graham was "definitely not moral."

Graham was convicted of killing a man outside a Houston supermarket during a 1981 robbery spree based on the testimony of a single eyewitness. Anti-death penalty activists raised doubts about his guilt, and Graham proclaimed his innocence until his death.

"When you chose protocol and precedent in the case of one man's life -- the ultimate decision that could have made about a man's life -- you missed the opportunity to show compassion," Garlic said.

More than 135* convicts have been executed while Bush has been governor. He argued that the death penalty, when administered swiftly and fairly, saves lives. (CNN, 07/14/2000)

* Final total under Bush's governorship: a record 152.

From Bush's proclamation, National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2004:

As Americans, we are led by the power of our conscience and the history of our country to defend and promote the dignity and rights of all people. Each person, however frail or defenseless, has a place and a purpose in this world. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we celebrate the gift of life and our commitment to building a society of compassion and humanity.

Today, the principles of human dignity enshrined in the Declaration of Independence -- that all persons are created equal and possess the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- continue to guide us. In November, I signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, reaffirming our commitment to protecting innocent life and to a basic standard of humanity -- the duty of the strong to defend the weak. My Administration encourages adoption and supports abstinence education, crisis pregnancy programs, parental notification laws, and other measures to help us continue to build a culture of life. By working together, we will provide hope to the weakest among us and achieve a more compassionate and merciful world.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 18, 2004, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship and to reaffirm our commitment to respecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

AND, THEREFORE, WE, RHONDA & JANE, CITIZENS of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in us by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, November 2, 2004, as National Sanctity of Choice Day. We call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes with absentee ballots or in places of polling and to reaffirm our commitment to respecting the life and dignity of every human being.

President Bush traveled to the South on Thursday to court black voters and to emphasize his conviction -- disputed by Congress -- that the government should devote more federal money to religious groups that deliver social services.

In visits to New Orleans in the morning and Atlanta in the afternoon, Bush portrayed himself as an heir to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., saying that he shared with the slain civil rights leader a belief in the transforming power of faith in American life. That self-depiction, however, was denounced by antiwar protesters in both cities. ("Bush Courts Black Voters" in the Washington Post)

Um, G.W.? You ain't no MLKJ. He stood up for the poor and oppressed. You, well, let's just say you do not.

The next big idea from the Bush administration? $1.5 billion for a "healthy marriage" initiative.

Apparently, in the midst of a jobless recovery, continued war in Iraq and a health care crisis, our government has decided that it needs to spend our money on encouraging Americans of legal age to get married.

In tough times like this, you'd think the Bush team could think of the good of the country and not spend valuable resources pandering to the conservatives. After all, it's not like they're gonna go awol and vote for Dean.

But it seems not.

While we're all in a tizzy over Iraq and other Bush misadventures, this is the type of slippery-slope agenda item that his administration is trying to sneak in behind our backs:

A federal appeals court Tuesday overturned a Bush administration decision to weaken energy-efficiency standards for new air conditioners, a move which could save American consumers $20 billion and avoid the need for 200 new electricity plants by 2030.

In 2001, 10 states including New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts sued the U.S. Department of Energy to block it from scaling back an increase in minimum air conditioner energy-efficiency standards.

The Bush administration wanted to require air conditioners and heat pumps manufactured after January 2006 to become 20 percent more efficient, not the stricter 30 percent improvement required under a previous Clinton-era rule.

[...]

The Bush administration withdrew the final rule in May 2002 and weakened it under pressure from some appliance makers.

Thank goodness for checks and balances.

From "Bush Disputes Ex-Official's Claim That War With Iraq Was Early Goal" in the New York Times:

President Bush on Monday disputed a suggestion by Paul H. O'Neill, the former Treasury secretary, that the White House was looking for a reason to go to war with Iraq from the very beginning of his administration.

Responding to an account provided by Mr. O'Neill in a book to be published on Tuesday, "The Price of Loyalty," by Ron Suskind, Mr. Bush said he was working from his first days in office on how to carry out an existing national policy of promoting a change of government in Iraq. But the president said his focus at the time was on re-evaluating the ways in which the United States and Britain were enforcing the "no flight" zones in northern and southern Iraq.

"And no, the stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear," Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, when asked whether he had begun planning within days of his inauguration for an invasion of Iraq. "Like the previous administration, we were for regime change."

"And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with desert badger or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines," Mr. Bush continued, apparently referring to confrontations with Iraq over the no-flight zones. "And then all of a sudden September the 11th hit."

From his first days in office, the President did what Dick Cheney told him to. Starting with the nomination of one Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense - the same Rumsfeld who had been plotting throughout the 90s, along with his friends Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, among others, to create a scenario to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.

And notice how Bush doesn't even refute O'Neill's other claim - that he sleepwalks through cabinet meetings, like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

What's next on the agenda, Dick?

Dick?

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by visiting professor Jeffrey Record, who is on the faculty of the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point."

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration.

His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the director of the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

And it's still not improving, at least for those searching for work:

Job growth came to an unexpected halt in December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported yesterday, and rather than hunt for scarce work, tens of thousands of people disappeared from the labor force.

Most forecasters had said they thought December would be a breakthrough month for job creation, given the strengthening economy. But instead of the 150,000 new jobs they had expected, there were a minuscule 1,000. The unemployment rate dropped to 5.7 percent from 5.9 percent in November, but that was mainly because so many people chose not to look for work, a requirement to be counted as unemployed.

[...]

President Bush, speaking in Washington before a group of small-business owners, focused on the drop in the unemployment rate, which he called "a positive sign that the economy is getting better."

Note to GW: when people give up on their job searches, that's NOT a positive sign that the economy is getting better. It's a sign of hopelessness.

With his head in the clouds, Bush hopes we'll all focus on the stars instead of his domestic agenda.

President Bush will announce plans next week to establish a permanent human settlement on the moon and to set a goal of eventually sending Americans to Mars, administration sources said last night.

The sources said Bush will announce a new "human exploration" agenda in Washington on Wednesday, six days ahead of the final State of the Union address of his term and just as his reelection campaign moves from the planning stage to its public phase.

[...]

Officials were unwilling to provide cost figures or details and would say only that Bush will direct the government to immediately begin research and development to establish a human presence or base on the moon, with the goal of having that lead to a manned mission to Mars. That endeavor could be a decade or more away, the officials said.

[...]

Even advocates within the administration said the new project is sure to be a difficult sell on Capitol Hill because of the huge costs at a time when the administration is projecting mammoth deficits for years to come, and had promised to cut the shortfall in half over the next five years.

Yes, there's something to be said for aiming high. But Bush is no Kennedy, and we are not at the height of the cold war. We have real problems here at home - problems the Bush administration has ignored in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. Mars is a distraction that we just don't have the time or money for.

From today's New York Times, "Financial Firms Are Bush's Biggest Donors, Study Reports":

A new study released Thursday shows that employees and political action committees of brokerages, banks and credit companies make up 6 of President Bush's top 10 career contributors, a clear indicator of his increasing support from the financial sector.

In a similar study during the 2000 election, no major financial services firms were among the top 10.

The study was conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity and published as a book, "The Buying of the President 2004." It looks at top contributors to Republican and Democratic presidential candidates over the course of their public careers.

"This money is not coming from backyard bake sales and barbecues," said Charles Lewis, the center's executive director. "It's coming from powerful special interests who want something."

Mr. Bush's top financial sponsor was the Enron Corporation, the bankrupt energy trader that collapsed amid an accounting scandal. The company and its employees gave almost $603,000 to Mr. Bush, said the study, which examined contributions to his campaigns for Congress, Texas governor and the presidency through the third quarter of this year.

[. . .]

"The bottom line is that people vote their pocketbook," said Van B. Poole, a six-figure Bush fund-raiser from Florida. "The people on Wall Street feel like they know what direction the country is going and they feel like there's a good captain at the helm, who will keep the ship on a steady course."

From today's Guardian (UK), "US 'endangering world economy'":

The International Monetary Fund last night warned that the gaping US budget deficit, ballooning trade imbalance and falling dollar were posing a serious threat to the health of the global economy.
It sounded the alarm in a critical report on US fiscal policy, which rounds on the Bush administration's crowd-pleasing tax cuts last year. The US is facing a record-breaking budget deficit, expected to exceed $400bn (£222bn) this year and the IMF urged Washington to get its house in order by raising taxes and cutting spending.

Debt is expected to reach 40% of the US economy, which the report described as "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country" that would push up global interest rates and slow growth.

The US appetite for borrowing would cause the weakened dollar to plunge further hurting other economies still trying to get back on their feet. The dollar has lost 20% of its value against the euro in the past 18 months. It said there was a diminishing appetite among foreign investors to hold US assets.

A proposed Labor Department rule suggests ways employers can avoid paying overtime to some of the 1.3 million low-income workers who would become eligible this year.

The department's advice comes even as it touts the $895 million in increased wages that it says those workers would be guaranteed from the reforms.

Among the options for employers: cut workers' hourly wages and add the overtime to equal the original salary, or raise salaries to the new $22,100 annual threshold, making them ineligible.

The department says it is merely listing well-known choices available to employers, even under current law.

"We're not saying anybody should do any of this," said Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank. (AP, via the Seattle Times)

We caught the proposed changes to overtime rules back here, but thanks to Helpful Reader Eric for bringing the handy suggestions to our attention:

The Labor Department is suggesting ways employers can avoid paying overtime to newly eligible workers in its proposal. It offered this example of a "payroll adjustment":

• A worker earning $400 per week for 40 hours becomes eligible for overtime pay, which would average five hours a week.

• The employer can convert the worker to an hourly pay rate. But instead of paying him $10 an hour plus overtime, the employer can cut the worker's pay to $8.42 an hour, or $336.80, for a 40-hour week.

• The five hours of overtime pay at time-and-a-half — totaling $63.15 — get added to the reduced pay.

• The new pay with overtime equals $399.95 per week, compared with the old salary of $400 per week with no overtime.
This "payroll adjustment option ... could offset the impact of the proposed rule," the department said.

Source: Labor Department's proposal to revise overtime pay rules, published March 31, 2003, in the Federal Register