What Am I Missing Here?

The Left Shue

OK, I'm sure I don't have all the information on this, but it seems to me like this story surfaced briefly and was squashed very quickly.

The Bush Administration (doesn't it always start that way??) in its infinite wisdom, and continuing its spotless track record with the Energy people thus far (laughs please) is going to force the Bonneville Power Administration, which sells power to most of the local power stations in the Western Hemisphere by my reckoning, to charge local distributors (like Snohomish PUD) somewhere from 30% to 50% more for power. There is some financial fanaegling (sp?) that boils down to getting the BPA to be less of a government subsidized operation and more of a private operation - in layman's terms (because that's about the only thing I understand right now) the BPA's overhead will come less from federal, state, and local subsidies and more from the pockets of the consumers. The end result (naturally) is that you and I will be paying higher energy rates - rates that our tax dollars were keeping low(er). This isn't going to break the bank for the average consumer - numbers that I've seen say this will result in an average household increase of about $8 a month in energy costs. Of course, something like this means much more to low and fixed income folks, but apparently the hardest hit will be local businesses, for which energy increases will result in much higher bills, and - say economists - will result in the loss of anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 jobs in the Northwest. Businesses will be forced to trim labor or default on energy bills. Stellar plan - I guess this is where the Bush job plan kicks in - good paying jobs decrease, minimum wage jobs increase. More of the same.

Now here's my wish (other than somebody shedding more light on this situation for me):

Those jobs that are lost as a result of this forced privatization (which is really what it is concerning the BPA) are all jobs of people who voted for Bush. Not in a mean-spirited way. Just in a way that secures the Maria Cantwell's Senate seat in 2006 (not necessarily for her, but for some worthy Democrat - they are in short supply lately.)

SR

The Off-Budget War

The Bush Administration has recently submitted yet another "Emergency" supplemental spending request to continue funding the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. This request will bring the total "Off-Budget" cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to over $200 BILLION. According the a study by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan research group who provide analysis for members of Congress, "The emergency request exceeds the president's combined 2006 funding request for the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development, and it is nearly five times the savings Bush is seeking next year in cuts to discretionary spending. "

There are so many levels of deception here that it is hard to know where to begin. One might wonder how, in the 2nd year of an ongoing project, the planners and managers STILL have no idea of the projected cost so as to be able to include it in a budget which already has a section marked "Department Of Defense". I mean, is this deceit or just down-right incompetence at the highest levels? In the run-up to the invasion (or the bait and switch period) Whitehouse officials derided anyone who suggested that the cost might reach as high as $100 BILLION. Then there is the question of how the money is being spent. $200 BILLION and our troops are still writing home for body armor? At a recent presentation I attended, independent journalist, Dahr Jamail, showed slide after slide of buildings that have not been touched since the bombings of the earliest days of the invasion. He showed slides and told us of interviews with doctors in hospitals that still have only minimal equipment and medicine and are forced to operate on less than 8 hours of electricity per day. Yet he was able to describe the 4 new permanent military bases and the construction of 10 others (with the contracts being awarded to Brown and Root, the Haliburton subsidiary). Why would we need permanent military bases in a country that we are only planning to "liberate" and leave?

Why would the administration want to keep this spending off budget? Perhaps it is because having the money on budget would subject it to congressional oversight. By simply asking for and receiving a blank check from the congress and not having it rolled into the Pentagon budget, Bush and Co. are able to spend the money anyway they see fit with no strings attached. This part even has some republicans complaining about the overuse of the "supplemental" request. Of course that will not keep them for voting for the request. From a recent AP story on this subject, "There appears to be little doubt Bush will get his request. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said the panel will take up the measure in early March, with a House vote shortly thereafter. "It is my hope that we can have this important bill on the president's desk in early April," he said in a statement."

It is my hope that we will have a strong challenge from members of all parties in both houses who will stand up and say "Enough"! Two years is too long to wait for the truth and some accountability. Contact your members of Congress and tell them to vote "No" on this supplemental request. Tell them to do their jobs and require any further spending requests for Iraq be placed "on budget" where they belong. Demand congressional oversight of your tax dollars.

The Unholy Budget

As a public educator, I make the following statement without reserve: Anyone who works within the public education system that voted for Bush’s reelection should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. Why? Because you knew what this president would do to public education, and he has done it. We are supposed to be the front line of advocacy for America’s children, especially the underprivileged and disadvantaged. The 2006 Federal budget is anything but that. Over 10 billion dollars is cut from student loan programs – but the president increases the defense budget by 20 billion, and that doesn’t even include the 80 billion more he wants for the war in Iraq. The president claims he is cutting inefficient and wasteful government programs, offices, and agencies, but I noticed the Office of the Presidency was not on the list. Of course, nothing would be cut that would directly affect him or his cronies. He can let slide that 8 billion dollars disappeared in Iraq, he’ll just take it out of the Medicaid and State Children’s Health Proposals (44 billion cut), or perhaps the transportation budget – because only the working poor need public transportation, and who cares about them?
Of the 150 odd programs that were either cut or extinguished in the 2006 budget, almost a full third of them were directly related to education – and primarily subsidy benefits that were for poor and otherwise disadvantaged children. Meanwhile, the number of people living in poverty has increased 14% under Bush. Other slashed programs will affect the elderly, such as reduced emergency home heating aid. I guess frozen corpses are easier to carry. But we can double the budget for abstinence education. All this and he asks for more tax cuts for the wealthy.
I do, however, understand the president’s plan for the public education system. Slash the budget and ask teachers (again) to do more with less. Good teachers with other options will move to the private sector, perhaps choosing to teach in a private school that has resources through the wealth of the constituency. Poor and minority students will continue to see the military as their best (perhaps only) option, and others will abandon the public system for religious schools, in which children are taught not to question their faith or their government. It’s really pretty ingenious, and if you don’t see that’s it’s gradually happening, well…shame on you.
And a note for those of you who voted on the basis of faith – you had better pray hard that your God is merciful, because there is nothing Christian about this budget. What happened to Matthew 25:40 or Mark 10:25? What happened to “Blessed are the peacemakers”? If your church is pushing you towards the right, it’s time to stop listening to your pastor and start reading your Bible.