Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
doc Page 1 of 4
Congressional Earmarks:
WHAT BUSH SAID
“And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore
any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth
funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.”
OUR RESPONSE
Call them earmarks, if you must, but they ain’t the “pork” of yesteryear. One major
component of the new lobbying and ethics legislation is earmark reform.
Earmarks today are far fewer in number and out in the open for all to see. Both the
number and dollar amount of earmarks reached an all-time high during the last
Congress (the 109th) with Republicans firmly in control of both chambers and the
White House – with 13,997 earmarks worth $27.3 billion in 2005 and 9,963 earmarks
worth $29 billion in 2006. But this year, under the new 110th Congress, earmarks
plummeted to only 2,658 earmarks worth $13.2 billion in 2007, and 11,043 earmarks
worth $14.1 billion in omnibus appropriations and related bills for 2008 – a reduction
in the amount of earmarks by half.
Just as importantly, earmarks are no longer secret. It used to be that pet spending
projects were quietly inserted into massive spending bills. Not any more. The new
reforms require each earmark to be clearly identified and assigned a sponsor – and
posted on the Internet 48 hours before a vote. Committee reports even put this
information in chart format.
The Bush administration and the 109th Congress loved the out-of-control system of
earmarks, hidden from the public. But now that the 110th Congress has reined in
earmark abuse and opened the books – “bridges to nowhere” earmarks are no more
to be found in the new budget bills – Bush feigns that he is at the head of the pack on
earmark reform.
Health Care:
WHAT BUSH SAID
53421654.doc Page 2 of 4
“To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make
medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options. We
share a common goal: 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. So I have proposed ending the bias in the tax code against those
who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would
put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass it
this year.
“The Congress must also expand health savings accounts, create Association Health
Plans for small businesses, promote health information technology, and confront the
epidemic of junk medical lawsuits. With all these steps, we will help ensure that
decisions about your medical care are made in the privacy of your doctor's office –
not in the halls of Congress.”
OUR RESPONSE
These are the same market-based health care solutions that Bush and his fellow
Republicans have been touting for ages. The only real way to make health care and
insurance affordable for all Americans is to create a universal health care
program coordinated by the federal government.
“These agreements also promote America’s strategic interests. The first agreement
that will come before you is with Colombia, a friend of America that is confronting
violence and terror, and fighting drug traffickers. If we fail to pass this agreement, we
will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. So we must come
together, pass this agreement, and show our neighbors in the region that democracy
leads to a better life.
“Trade brings better jobs and better choices and better prices. Yet for some
Americans, trade can mean losing a job, and the federal government has a
responsibility to help. I ask Congress to reauthorize and reform trade adjustment
assistance, so we can help these displaced workers learn new skills and find new
jobs.”
OUR RESPONSE
The Colombia free trade agreement is dead, but the Bush administration will keep
hyping it because that’s what GOP corporate campaign contributors want to hear,
given that this NAFTA expansion deal would grant U.S. corporations special rights to
control Colombia’s banking sector and Amazonian gas and timber riches.
Americans’ experience of the damage caused by our status quo trade policies means
the usual Bush administration claims about trade deals bring economic gains won’t
fly, so to try to revive a dead deal, Bush is resorting to the familiar foreign policy
boogie man scare tactics. In reality, the threat of U.S. security is not from failure to
pass this agreement but from passing it, given that it is projected to dislocate tens of
thousands of peasant farmers in Colombia’s war-wracked countryside, which then will
lead to increases in paramilitary activity, drug cultivation and immigration.
Colombia’s own Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs concluded that the
agreement’s agricultural terms would wipe out the livelihoods of one-third of the
country’s small farmers. The agency also concluded that the FTA would give small
farmers little choice but “migration to the cities or other countries (especially
the United States), working in drug cultivation zones, or affiliating with illegal armed
groups.” (“Colombian Agriculture Before the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S,”
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, July 2004.)
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted that the upheaval that
agreements such as the proposed free trade agreement will have on rural livelihoods
is a self-defeating course that will mean “there will be more violence and the U.S. will
have to spend more on coca eradication.”
The Washington Post’s editorial board warned in February 2006 that the “rural
dislocation that would follow from ending all protection for Colombian farmers could
undermine the government’s efforts to pacify the countryside. If farmers can’t grow
rice, they are more likely to grow coca.”
that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse
gases.
“This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major
economy and gives none a free ride. The United States is committed to strengthening
our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet
these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of
cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.”
OUR RESPONSE
President Bush's rhetoric and record on energy policy are worlds apart. His veto
threats just months ago stopped legislation that would have mandated that 15
percent of America’s electricity come from renewable energy by 2020 and prevented
the funding of needed clean energy and efficiency programs by repealing billions of
dollars in subsidies to Big Oil. And Bush’s insistence on billions of dollars for risky
technologies like carbon capture and storage and nuclear power takes needed
money away from proven and safe investments like wind, solar and energy
efficiency. Let us not forget that Bush’s representatives at the Bali climate change
conference blocked progress on establishing a global framework to combat global
warming. Bush’s record is clear: Continue rewarding the coal, oil and nuclear
industries while blocking progress on the clean energy solutions that Americans
need.
Fuel Economy:
WHAT BUSH SAID
“Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to
power the cars and trucks of the future.”
OUR RESPONSE
The energy bill does indeed call for an increase in fuel economy – a historic, but
ultimately weak, increase in the fuel economy of the combined car and truck fleets to
35 miles per gallon. And it does change the legal framework for fuel economy
standards to demand attribute-based (such as size-based) standards, like the
standards crafted behind closed doors by senior White House officials, including the
Office of the Vice President, for the 2005 light truck rule. This sliding scale approach
is the end of the fair, across-the-board CAFE standards that saved Detroit from itself
in the 1970s and 1980s. This new fuel economy scheme could have serious safety
consequences because it rewards the makers of big, dangerous gas-guzzlers with
lower fuel economy targets.