Exegesis

Okay, given the demands of my schedule now, and the seemingly endless mountains of reading that is part and parcel of the first year of a PhD program, posting is going to be real, real light for a while. I just can't sustain my former media/writing diet.

So bear with me. And in the meantime, hopefully I will be bringing some new directions to the writing here in the coming weeks, months, years. Suggestions are welcome, as always.

Even though she has no paper trail, Harriet Miers sure can parrot the admistration's views when she needs to. This is Harriet Miers from an "Ask the White House" on-line forum:
------
James, from Mountain View, CA writes:
Are we better off now than we were four years ago?

Harriet Miers: "In response to the economic problems, the President acted immediately to implement tax relief to get the economy going again. He signed into law corporate governance reforms to address the wrongdoing that had been occurring, and those reforms were the most far-reaching since President Franklin Roosevelt’ s time. The President’s optimism and faith in the American people and our economy helped inspire a remarkable recovery. Just today, we saw new statistics showing that our economy continues to grow solidly and compensation for our workers continues steady growth. Working families now keep more of their paychecks, and we are growing faster than any other among major industrialized nations.

The President responded swiftly to the attacks on September 11th. He has our country on the offensive against terrorism. American is waging a global war on terrorism with the help of many friends and allies from around the globe. The President believed it important to confront regimes that harbored or supported terrorists as well as the terrorists. And he is also confronting outlaw regimes that pursue weapons of mass destruction, and he is committed to ensuring that the terrorists do not obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons. At the same time, the President led in the creation of the Homeland Security Department and strengthening our defenses here at home. Although I am sure the President would be the first to say more needs to be done, we are a safer Nation today than we were four years ago...

Julie, from New Hampshire writes:
Hi, I know that you are probably going to be bombarded with questions, so I will try to keep it short...Do you think that it would be possible to cut off oil imports from the Middle East and replace it with ANWR? Also, do you think that it would be a good idea to use ethanol as an additive? Thank you for your time.

Harriet Miers
Julie, that's a great question. As you probably know, the US Geological Survey estimated that there is between 5.7 million and 16 billion barrels of oil available in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which could be accessed from about 2,000 acres of the 19,000,000 acre refuge. At its peak, production from ANWR would account for more than 20% of total U.S. oil production.

Environmentally responsible development of the resources in ANWR is one part of the President's comprehensive energy plan, which calls for a responsible mix of increased domestic energy production (like ANWR and clean coal), alternative and renewable fuels (like ethanol and biodiesel), and conservation and efficiency to reduce the growth of American energy consumption. The President's plan is essential to increasing America's energy security.

Alba, from Texas writes:
Are schools receiving the necessary funding needed to meet standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act?

Harriet Miers
Alba -- Hello to a fellow Texan! Thanks for your question about funding for No Child Left Behind. I am glad to be able to address this important question because there is a great deal of misinformation out there about the funding for NCLB. The simple answer to your question is “yes.”

First, needless to say and as I said earlier in answer to another question, educational accountability is the cornerstone of NCLB, and the early results show that the law is working: student achievement is going up. With respect to funding, the President has supported substantial increases in funding under NCLB, and for K-12 education generally.

In his 2005 budget proposal, President Bush asked for a 49% increase in K-12 funding ($12.2 billion), which includes both funding for No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Looking just at NCLB, funding has increased 42.5% or $7.4 billion. In his first three years alone, the President sought and obtained more money for Title I (the NCLB program that serves schools with economically disadvantaged children) than the prior Administration sought in eight years.

But aside from these historic increases, the money provided more than exceeds the additional costs associated with NCLB. In the past three years, states have received $1.16 billion for student assessments (testing) that do not even need to be in place under NCLB until the 2005-06 school year. In light of recent studies about the cost of the assessment requirements being less than $6 per child, this is an impressive sum. I hope you agree! And I hope I have answered your question. Thanks for writing!
-----------

poor journalism is high on the list. This comes courtesy of Ann Kornblut of The New York Times:

"Whether the roaring anti-DeLay machine deserves even partial credit - or blame - for his tumble last week is up for debate. Mr. DeLay has painted the veteran Democratic prosecutor in the case, Ronnie Earle, as a partisan fanatic, while Mr. Earle's defenders claim he is an evenhanded seeker of justice. The grand jury Mr. Earle convened brought a count of conspiracy against Mr. DeLay alleging that he funneled illegal corporate contributions to Republican candidates for the Texas Legislature in 2002."

Is is too much to ask a journalist to actually find out whether Mr. Earle is an "evenhanded seeker of justice"? It's not rocket science, I just did a Google search on his prior prosecutions and came up with this list from the Austin-American Statesman:

"U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, 1994: Acquitted of official misconduct and records tampering after Earle dropped the case during the trial.

Former state Rep. Betty Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to six months probation and fined $2,000 for listing false loans and contributions on campaign finance reports.

Former state Rep. Lane Denton, D-Waco, 1995: Sentenced to 60 days in work-release program and six years probation, fined $6,000 and ordered to pay more than $67,000 restitution after being convicted of theft and misapplication of fiduciary property for funneling money from the Department of Public Safety Officers Association to a Denton company.

House Speaker Gib Lewis, D-Fort Worth, 1992: In plea bargain, Earle dropped more serious charges when Lewis pleaded no contest to failing to disclose a business investment. Lewis was fined $2,000, and the judge said he took into consideration that Lewis was retiring from public office.

Attorney General Jim Mattox, Democrat, 1985: Acquitted on felony bribery charges. Won re-election.

State Rep. Mike Martin, R-Longview, 1982: Pleaded guilty to perjury after lying about having himself shot to gain publicity. Did not run for re-election.

State Treasurer Warren Harding, Democrat, 1982: Pleaded no contest to official misconduct and dropped re-election bid.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough, Democrat, 1978: Sentenced to five years for lying to a grand jury and forgery. Gave up seat."

I am not a defender of Earle; I am just interested in journalist's writing their best interpretation of the truth. In this case, a five second Google search reveals that Earle is hardly a partisan prosecutor. It really shouldn't be that difficult to write that -- but then again, it is not surprising since the entire frame of this article is that the anti-Delay "cottage industry" had something to do with his recent legal woes. Hint: it doesn't. It's a legal campaign finance matter. Suggesting anything otherwise does a disservice to the truth The New York Times purports to seek.

In light of Laura Bush's upcoming appearance on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition in New Orleans, I wanted to reprint a post I did here in February. Mrs. Bush says she shares the "same principles" with the producers:

---
A Google search for Extreme Makeover: Home Edition reveals hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian-themed blogs, discussion sites, and articles extolling the show for its representation of Christian values. A sampling:

"Something I have really enjoyed observing on the show has been the power of grace. These companies give away what is needed for the home, and then over and over the individuals are caught up in the blessing of grace and buy the mortgage, or pay the utilities for a year, or whatever. The single act of kindness turns into many. Giving truly is a blessed thing."

"I have noticed that not one time has a family on this show rejected the host, Ty from coming into their home. Why? Because they know they are getting something good. Something new! A brand new home! There old home is going to be transformed. The old one is going to be done away with. Sounds like a promise I have when I let Christ in. Old things pass away and behold ALL things become brand new! It is time we let Christ in our homes! He is bringing something good: it is a new home."


"The best Christian ministry show on television today is not on a Christian network and does not star the head of a major media ministry. It will not be featured at the National Religious Broadcasters convention this February and it has no product sales, call for prayer or scripture references. No, for my money, the absolute best Christian ministry show on TV today is ABC's Extreme Makeover Home Edition."

It is easy to see why in terms of service. But it also goes further than that. The series is replete with religious imagery, from the wake-up call of Ty in the morning to the sheer number of families helped on the show that often gather in prayer or display crucifixes in their homes (not to mention the sly fact that these families often consist of three or more children.)

None of which is bad, and certainly it seems from the show's popularity that it cuts across a wide swath of the American public (and, in full disclosure, I am a huge fan.)

But what is striking is the extent to which the deeper political issues dealt with in the show are given short thrift on a lot of the sites that I excerpted above. Not to take anything away from these acts of Christian kindness (which, of course, are highly publicized) from corporations like ABC and Sears, among others, but isn't it distressing that the families on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition are in these dire situations in the first place? And shouldn't the fact that they have little to rely on in terms of government (which is, after all, the collective decisions of our country) support distress Christians?

Consider the families:

The Garay Family: The oldest son of a mother who was shot and killed by gang violence took in five siblings so that they would not be separated by Child Protective Services in South Central, Los Angeles.

The Mackey Family: Consuela Mackey started a nonprofit organization to help people living with disabilities. Aside from offering her home to her clients, she has also taken in many foster children and family members who needed help. She also runs a beauty salon for money.

The Ali Family: "When her boys, 12-year-olds Paul and Kuran, were infants, orphaned by a crack-addicted mother, Lucy Ali of Jamaica Queens, New York, adopted them. As the now-healthy boys approached adolescence, she wanted to add more space to her one-bedroom, one-bath house and was grateful when she was approved for a home improvement loan. She gave the contractor a large sum of money to begin the renovations, but the contractor never finished the job, leaving a gaping hole in her roof."


The Medeiros Family: "Dusty Medeiros, the mother of two boys -- DaShawn, eight, and Ivan, four -- had been working at a computer store for eight years. But her life began to unravel when she and her boyfriend broke up, and the financial challenge of raising two children on a single income was overwhelming. Without a second income, she could no longer afford her apartment, and she bounced from friend to friend with no permanent place for her or her two young children."

The Harper Family: "Several years ago, Patricia and Milton Harper lost their two-year-old son when he choked on his food. At the time, the family was living in the projects in Brooklyn, New York. Sadly, the paramedics couldn't get to the child in time to save his life." (as they explain on the show, but not the Web-site, this was due to paramedics needing a police escort to enter the projects.) "Life for them in the projects was tough enough, but the tragedy of their son's death prompted the couple to work even harder and get their family out of there. After putting in long hours and saving up every penny they had, the Harpers packed up their kids and bought their first home, a 1400 square-foot, four-bedroom ranch house just outside Atlanta."

Sense a trend?

Every one of these stories is about hardship. Some experiences are extraordinary (like brittle bone disease) and some are ordinary, (like Dusty Medeiros struggling to raise two children on a single income.) In every one of the cases the family received a new home, thousands of dollar's worth of merchandise to furnish it, and often college funds for the children.

But every one of these stories is also about the failure of our society to help these people, outside of some very extraordinary acts of generosity. If those extolling the "Christian values" of the show were to stop and think for a minute, they might realize that there are policy decisions, made by their elected representatives, that contributed to the fact that these individuals live in extreme poverty, dodge bullets on the way to the corner store, can't afford to send their children to college, have limited legal recourse to hold companies that make off with life savings liable, and have to work three jobs just to provide for their children.

So, the issue is: do we extol the show for its values, while turning away from the decisions we must make as citizens to offer our own Christian generosity to people in need of help?

Consider that question next time you think about the Bush "values" agenda.

There are millions of more families like these, just they are not so lucky.

Via the AP (hat tip, Blogenlust):

"Because of worries that the storm could cause disruptions in getting gasoline to market, Bush urged motorists to cut out any unnecessary travel. He also said that federal employees should carpool or take mass transit to work and promised government officials would not take any trips they don't have to." (italics mine)

My how quickly times change (see: failure of governing philosophy.) Here is an MSNBC article from February of this year:

"Bush's spending blueprint for fiscal 2006 would reduce Amtrak's federal subsidy to zero from $1.2 billion, probably sending the company into bankruptcy and possibly spelling the end of passenger service in many of the 46 states now served by the rail carrier."

Prior to his sudden change of heart, the President has proposed cutting Amtrak's budget, year after year, to levels where the federally-financed train would be inoperable. All because Amtrak does not fit the Republican scheme of public goods returning a healthy profit.

25 million people ride Amtrak every year. That is twenty-five million people who would be in their cars if the President had his way in 2005, 2004, 2003, or 2002.

For all the bluster of Operation Offset, seems like conservatives still enjoy their inflated, no bid contracts. From the NYTimes:

"The first detailed tally of commitments from federal agencies since Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast four weeks ago shows that more than 15 contracts exceed $100 million, including 5 of $500 million or more...

More than 80 percent of the $1.5 billion in contracts signed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency alone were awarded without bidding or with limited competition, government records show, provoking concerns among auditors and government officials about the potential for favoritism or abuse.

Already, questions have been raised about the political connections of two major contractors - the Shaw Group and Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton - that have been represented by the lobbyist Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former leader of FEMA...

Some industry and government officials questioned the costs of the debris-removal contracts, saying the Army Corps of Engineers had allowed a rate that was too high. And Congressional investigators are looking into the $568 million awarded to AshBritt, a Pompano Beach, Fla., company that was a client of the former lobbying firm of Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi...

The contracts also show considerable price disparities: travel trailers costing $15,000 to $23,000, housing inspection services that documents suggest could cost $15 to $81 per home, and ferries and ships being used for temporary housing that cost $13 million to $70 million for six months."

The list continues: Bechtel, Kellogg, Brown & Root, CH2M Hill and the Fluor Corporation.

It is so nice that the President's big concern was Davis-Bacon.

From the LA Times:

"Two days after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to issue emergency vouchers aimed at helping poor storm victims find new housing quickly by covering as much as $10,000 of their rent.

But the department suddenly backed away from the idea after White House aides met with senior HUD officials. Although emergency vouchers had been successfully used after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the administration focused instead on a plan for government-built trailer parks, an approach that even many Republicans say would concentrate poverty in the very fashion the government has long sought to avoid.

A similar struggle has occurred over how to provide healthcare to storm victims. White House officials are quietly working to derail a proposal by leading Republican and Democratic senators to temporarily expand Medicaid. Instead, the administration is pushing a narrower plan that would not commit the government to covering certain groups of evacuees."

This should tell you all you need to know about the sincerity of the President's promise to "rise above the "legacy of inequality". But what I find most interesting is how they are working to minimize government's role in the reconstruction effort, while simultaneously cloaking themselves in lofty rhetoric about addressing systemic poverty.

The trick, as the LA Times reports, is to "create new, one-shot efforts that the administration apparently hopes will more easily disappear after the crisis passes." Thus, no $10,000 vouchers because of the administration's concern that Congress will be shamed into extending them in the future -- at cost to taxpayers. Instead, one-shot $16,000 trailer parks that ghettoize the poor (although, it looks like this administration can't even build trailer parks.)

Similarly, the administration does not want to even "temporarily extend" Medicaid, because, in the words of Grace-Marie Turner, a health policy analyst and president of the right-wing Galen Institute, "Once you begin to expand any entitlement, it's very hard to pull back."

So now, thanks to excellent reporting by the LATimes, we see how it works. And it puts decisions like the continual reliance on FEMA into a new light:

"The administration has been planning to give assistance almost exclusively through FEMA, which has the authority to distribute $26,200 per household in cash, rental assistance and home repairs. If even half of families displaced by the storm collect, the agency could end up paying out tens of billions of dollars. But once the amounts were paid, that would be the end of the government's obligation."

And handily, they also provide a contrast with the Clinton administration's response in 1994:

"In the case of housing, experts said that Washington could have relied on an existing model for how to house people after a disaster: its response to the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

The earthquake significantly damaged 55,000 residential structures and left 20,000 people homeless. But within days, Congress had approved more than $200 million in Section 8 emergency housing vouchers. HUD used these especially to help low-income displaced people pay market-rate rents for nearby apartments.

Within months, virtually all of those affected by the disaster had housing."

So the distinction between the Democratic approach and the Republican one is clear: are we to leverage the resources of government to provide people with an opportunity to take control of their own lives through necessities like housing and health coverage, or do we create a patchwork of initiatives designed merely for show, with no longer goal to address the "legacy of inequality" that the president says he is so concerned about?

"This is one of the most important moments in modern history, and in the next three to four weeks we will find out if the party is ready and able to govern."

Those are the enlightened words of Newt Gingrich, speaking about the response to hurricane Katrina and the historic opportunity to, in the president's words, "clear away the legacy of inequality."

It's telling that after five years in power, for most of which Republicans have controlled Congress, it is only now that they are asking whether they are "ready and able to govern."

I can spare the good former speaker the trouble and answer his question. The Republicans were never ready or able to govern in any way that served anyone but themselves, and it is Bush and his cronies in Congress that have perpetuated and worsened a "legacy of inequality."

As I wrote here last week, 1.4 million more families are living in poverty in 2005 than when Bush first took office, the extreme child poverty rate rose 20 percent since 2000, and 13 million children live in poverty in the United States.

And this legacy continues. In Bush's effort to respond to Katrina, he has repealed the Davis-Bacon Act, allowing federal contractors to underpay reconstruction workers (while seemingly not caring about the executives carrying their six figure paychecks.)

Which is fitting, because we also learn today that the President and Republican governor of Miss. are offering millions of dollars in tax breaks to national gaming companies to rebuild their hugely profitable casinos:

"Under the Gulf Opportunity Zone -- or GO Zone -- proposal, any company would be able to immediately deduct half the cost of investments in equipment or buildings. MGM Mirage owns an $800 million casino and hotel in Biloxi, Miss., the Beau Rivage. If, for example, uninsured damage reaches $100 million, the gambling giant could end up with a tax break as high as $50 million, congressional tax aides said.

Tax experts say national casino corporations such as MGM and Harrah's could use a GO Zone write-off to reduce taxable profit from their larger empires, whereas local Gulf Coast companies may have no outside profit from which to deduct their tax break."

Tighten the belts of the workers, but freely put insanely profitable industries on the dole. This is how we are addressing the "legacy of inequality."

Meanwhile, showing his concern for the millions who rely on their Social Security checks for their meager livlihoods, yesterday the president spent 45 minutes talking about privatizing it, which would dismantle a program that has provided insurance for old age and ill health for the last seventy years.

(Bush's remarks prompted this comment from an unnamed GOP lobbyist courtesy of the LA Times: "Why he spent 45 minutes on Social Security today floors me,"...expressing concern over what he called "a perception that no one is in charge.")

The record of the last five years shows that the Republican party is nowhere near "ready and able to govern" on issues of inequality, or anything for that matter. This comes from the Washington Post today:

"The Pentagon has no accurate knowledge of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or the fight against terrorism, limiting Congress's ability to oversee spending, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report released yesterday.

The Defense Department has reported spending $191 billion to fight terrorism from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks through May 2005, with the annual sum ballooning from $11 billion in fiscal 2002 to a projected $71 billion in fiscal 2005. But the GAO investigation found many inaccuracies totaling billions of dollars."

Operation Offset, try looking for your billions here.

And yet while everything crashes around them, conservatives continue to bumble along, promising everyone that things will turn out fine and that they are competent enough to investigate themselves.