Duty to Warn

AUSTIN, Texas -- Budgets are the guts of government. That's where you find the answer to the first of the three important questions about who runs a society: Who's getting screwed? Who's doing the screwing? And what the hell will they do to us next?

There was a time when reporters actually read budgets to find out what was going on, but the things are so humongous these days, we've given up on that. Consequently, there's usually a bit of a pause after a budget comes out, while we wait to hear from the various special interest groups that study their own section of a budget in minute detail. Then, the screaming from injured parties commences, and the press presumably sits up and takes note of who's screaming loudest.

With President Bush's proposed budget, may it die in committee, no pause is necessary. Read any overview of the proposal, and you can see exactly who's getting screwed: children.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Sometimes the ironic timing of events in our public life is so striking as to cause one to wonder if the Great Scriptwriter in the Sky isn't trying to make a point. Thus, the word that the U.S. Senate voted for tort deform last week came just a few days after the news that seven executives of W.R. Grace and Co. were indicted on criminal charges for knowingly putting their workers and the public in danger by exposing them to asbestos ore.

Hundreds of miners, their family members and townsfolk in Libby, Mont., have died, and at least 1,200 more are sick from breathing the air polluted by the mine. Since the ore was shipped all over the country and was used as insulation in millions of homes, the total health effects are incalculable. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer deserves credit for bringing Grace to public attention with a series back in 1999.

The executives and the company were indicted on 10 counts of conspiracy, knowing endangerment, obstruction of justice and wire fraud.

W.R. Grace & Co. "categorically denies any criminal wrongdoing," said a spokesman.

The National Association of Secretaries of State recently held its annual convention. In the wake of two disputatious presidential elections in a row, there was considerable sentiment at the meeting for a resolution barring state secretaries from simultaneously serving as partisan political officials. In the two states where the greatest controversies arose in 2000 and 2004, Florida and Ohio, this had been a glaring problem.

The convention did the opposite. It passed a resolution stipulating that it was O.K. for secretaries of state to proselytize for their parties’ candidates, indeed even to serve as party chairpersons during the campaign. By inference, the N.A.S.S. would allow such officials to suborn acts of voter disenfranchisement, make rulings contrary to state law, interfere with legally sanctioned recounts, even to later campaign for higher office on the basis of having “carried our state for (the incumbent).”

Deborah L. Markowitz, Vermont’s Secretary of State, attended the convention. She said later that she recognized the need for reform, but added, “It’s hard to change the system. I’m a Democrat. I don’t want to appear partisan.”

When conservatives talk of George W. Bush’s “transformational” role in American politics, they are referring to a fundamental change they seek in the U.S. system of government in which the Republican Party will dominate for years to come and power will not really be up for grabs in general elections…

Four years ago, some hopeful political analysts predicted that the rightward swing of the media pendulum, which so bedeviled Bill Clinton in the 1990s, would lurch back leftward once Bush took office in 2001…

But no self-correction ever occurred. Instead, as Bush enters the fifth year of his presidency, major news outlets are continuing to swing more to the right…

[W]hile commentators expect Democrats to praise Bush, the major news media acts as if Republican disdain for Democrats is the natural order of things. There was barely a peep of media objection on Jan. 20 when triumphant Republicans jeered John Kerry when he joined other senators at the Inaugural platform on Capitol Hill.

But it’s not only Democratic politicians who can expect rough treatment these days.

A system glorifies its winners. The mass media and the rest of corporate America are enthralled with professionals scaling career ladders to new heights. Meanwhile, the people hanging onto bottom rungs are scarcely blips on screens.

Far from the media spotlights are countless lives beset with financial scarcity, often in tandem with chronic illness, monotony, adversity and despair. The same institutions and attitudes that lavish outsized respect on high achievers (the wealthier the better) are apt to convey ongoing disrespect for low achievers.

The flip side of adulation for winners is often contempt for people with cumulative misfortune, who routinely slog through murky quasi-netherworlds and do their best to keep from going under. According to mass-media calculations, they just don’t rate. In a society overdosing on unmitigated capitalism, it’s not just a matter of scant disposable income. As a practical matter, the country treats many people as disposable.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. And Gallup is showing us that a leopard doesn’t change its spots.

On the heels of the Iraqi election, and with the White House needing a boost in Bush’s image and approval ratings as he tries to ram through a terrible budget and Social Security privatization plan to a wavering GOP, much was made yesterday about the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll done over the weekend. This poll, bull-horned through the media and rightwing blogosphere, showed an incredible jump in Bush’s approval rating to 57%, a five-point jump from the polls done in early January. Yet even those earlier January polls it turned out were suspect because, you guessed it, they were based on a sample that had more Republicans in it than Democrats (37.2% GOP, 35.6% Democrat, and 27% Independent).

So is this recent poll, showing Bush with a growing and mandate-building approval rating of 57% a clear sign of emerging Bush strength?

President Bush submitted a $2.57 trillion budget to Congress which eliminates or drastically cuts 150 governmental programs. The budget is an attempt to meet his goal of slashing the deficit in half by 2009, without giving up tax cuts for the wealthy which were implemented during his first term. When asked about the cuts, Bush said “Spending discipline requires difficult choices.” But much in Bush’s budget runs contrary to his administration’s rhetoric.

On Monday, George W. Bush launched an unprecedented attack on poor and working people in the U.S. His proposed a $2.57-trillion budget will cut domestic programs to seniors, veterans, children, and the poor by $20 billion dollars next year.

This budget proposal is an outright declaration of war on working people. It is part of a neoconservative effort to attack the welfare of working people and force working people in this country to accept third world working conditions – no health care, no pensions, no rights. These cuts are not necessary. They the intended result of tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending for a needless war. They are part of a neocon plan to “starve the beast”, to create artificial crises in order to justify slashing spending for the welfare of the people, while at the same time increasing spending for the welfare of the rich.

I attended the J20 inauguration protests in Washington DC. It was cold as hell that day. The sidewalks were filled with that black stuff that really isn’t snow but isn’t water either. Washington DC was a police state and made no attempts to conceal this.