A New Strategy For A New Era

SECURITY

May 28, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Max Bergmann, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Yesterday, the White House unveiled a new National Security Strategy that will serve to guide America's approach to the world. It signals a sharp break from the previous administration whose unilateral, reckless, and ideologically-driven policies left America isolated, overstretched, and weaker. This strategy outlines a clear vision that reflects the the last decade of progressive thought; it demonstrates a comprehension of the geopolitical landscape and of the challenges confronting the United States and the world; and it firmly states that America remains a country at war and determined to eliminate al Qaeda. But importantly, this strategy does not conflate or confuse these threats. Like the national security strategy produced by the Center for American Progress in 2009, "Integrating Security," the strategy recognizes the complex nature of the challenges and the need to use all elements of our power, not just our military, but diplomatic, economic, and cultural tools as well to combat them. Ultimately, this is a strategy about maintaining and enhancing American power and influence. But maintaining America's global strength and position as global leader does not mean working to weaken or aggressively confront other rising powers, such as China, India, and Brazil, because global order is not a "zero sum game." The strategy stipulates that the U.S. is undeniably the world's global leader, but as such its objective must be to work to build a stronger rule-based international order to address global challenges, to get others to do more, and to further global prosperity. The strategy also firmly recognizes America's global strength stems from its strength at home and that the U.S. must always strive to live up to the values and principles that has made America so admired around the world. Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott said it is "the most comprehensive National Security Strategy ever." Yet, while the strategy lays out the path, the challenge will be to follow it. 

REJECTING WHAT FAILED: The new strategy "aims to draw contrasts with President Bush's 2006 version" that adopted a unilateralist bent, advocated preventive war, poorly defined or understood the America's terrorist enemies, and furthered a foreign policy approach that was overly reliant on the American military. The Bush administration's approach left America's military forces stretched, alliances frayed, and image tarnished around the world. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice noted that the new strategy "is a rather dramatic departure from the most recent prior national security strategy." On the use of military force, the strategy rejects the reckless approach of preventive war: "while the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction." And when it is necessary, the U.S. "will seek broad international support." While President Bush overstretched our armed forces and American tax payers, this new strategy as the New York Times notes, "describes a coming era in which the United States will have to learn to live within its limits -- a world in which two wars cannot be sustained for much longer and the rising powers inevitably begin to erode some elements of American influence around the globe." The new strategy also demonstrates a much clearer comprehension of the nature of 21st century threats, as Matt Duss explains, "[O]ne of the starkest differences between the Obama administration's new National Security Strategy and the Bush administration's is its tighter focus on Al Qaeda and affiliated extremists, and its recognition that responding to Al Qaeda with fear and overreaction is playing right into Al Qaeda's hands."

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: The strategy laid out by the Obama administration firmly recognizes that the United States is without a doubt the world's most powerful and influential country, but to maintain America's exceptional status, the U.S. needs a strategy designed to maintain and enhance America's power and influence. the Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman assesses that "every single focus outlined in the National Security Strategy is about the maintenance of American power on the international stage" in an era of rising powers and transnational threats. In this new more multipolar world, the United States must work to build "a rules-based international system that can advance our own interests by serving mutual interests. International institutions must be more effective and representative of the diffusion of influence in the 21st century. Nations must have incentives to behave responsibly, or be isolated when they do not." As Joe Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund notes, this approach on strengthening the international system and isolating outliers "offers a better chance of containing the Iranian nuclear program than the more unilateralist pursuits of the George W. Bush administration." One of the principle differences in the new strategy is the understanding that one of the central goals of U.S. foreign policy must be to shape "an international order capable of overcoming the challenges of the 21st century." Addressing transnational threats like terrorism, climate change, and nuclear proliferation require gaining the support and buy-in of others, as these challenges cannot be unilaterally solved. This approach clearly understands that the United States cannot do everything, making it critical to get others to do more to share the burden of maintaining the global order. As CAP's Brian Katulis and Nina Hachigian argue, "Today, conservatives talk about an outdated conception of power -- saying that to be safe, the United States must dominate the world. Stuck in a 19th-century mind-set, many conservatives view international rules and institutions as an entangling web of interdependence designed to constrain U.S. freedom of action. ... From this perspective, Washington must alone assume responsibility for global security. ... The new national security strategy will emphasize the importance of getting other countries -- especially emerging powers -- to pull their weight when it comes to these shared problems."

FOLLOW THROUGH: While the strategy lays out a decidedly progressive approach to national security, the real test will come in the months and years ahead. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the new strategy argues the U.S. cannot engage in these wars indefinitely, the administration will have to stick to its strategy to transfer authority to local forces and withdraw American troops. The strategy says that America will increasingly have to live within its means, but that will also mean more seriously confronting bloated defense spending at the Pentagon and rebalancing national security spending. In order to stay true to American values and the rule of law, as the strategy insists is vital for maintaining America's moral authority, the administration will have to actually close Guantanamo. On terrorism, the administration must take continue to take vigorous action to prevent global and homegrown terrorist threat, while at the same time pushing back against those calling for discrimination and racial-profiling. It must also resist approaches that enhance state power at the expense civil liberties. To confront the growing threat of climate change, the administration must continuously push for far reaching action. On Middle East peace, the administration must remain engaged, even-handedly pushing both sides toward a two-state solution. While progress has been achieved to eliminate the danger from nuclear weapons, the harder steps are yet to come. Finally, the administration must be ready to work multilaterally to solve global challenges even when it's difficult. As Obama said, "We will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union."

Gulf Kill

OIL SPILL

May 27, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Brad Johnson, Zaid Jilani, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Thirty-eight days after BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and killed eleven workers, fifteen to 40 million gallons of toxic crude have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. Oil from the slick now equals the size of South Carolina and has soiled more than 100 miles of Louisiana's coastline. Fishermen working on the cleanup have "become ill after working long hours near waters fouled with oil and dispersant," reporting "nausea, dizziness, headaches and chest pains." The federal government is "going to bring every resource necessary to put a stop" to the catastrophe, President Obama said yesterday during a visit to a solar panel manufacturing facility in Fremont, CA. "We will not rest until this well is shut, the environment is repaired, and the cleanup is complete." There may be reason for hope on the first element. U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the top federal official overseeing the response, said this morning he is optimistic that the "top kill" -- the latest effort to shut down BP's blown out well -- is working.  Unfortunately, the toxic sludge in Louisiana's fragile wetlands, the slick on the open ocean, and the toxic plumes of dispersed oil underwater are continuing to kill marine wildlife and birds at a terrifying clip. The ongoing investigations into the causes of the disaster are revealing new evidence of decisions to ignore on-site workers and instead take safety risks in order to save costs, and a top BP worker who was aboard the Deepwater Horizon has invoked the Fifth Amendment. Recognizing the national importance of forestalling yet more disasters, Obama today will ban new deepwater wells for six months, cancel exploratory drilling in Alaska, and cancel a "proposed lease sale off the Virginia coast."

IS BP TOO BIG TO CARE?: BP's attitude toward the Gulf catastrophe resembles the shrugs of Wall Street firms who caused the near collapse of the global economy. BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles has expressed his optimism that both his company and the Gulf will "will fully recover," even though Prince William Sound has yet to "fully recover" 21 years after the Exxon Valdez spill. Likewise, BP CEO Tony Hayward -- who received a 40 percent pay raise last year to about $5.8 million -- said he believes the "environmental impact of this disaster is likely to be very, very modest" because the Gulf of Mexico is a "very big ocean." BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said his company is a "big and important company for the US" and expects that BP will be able to "move on," although its "reputation will be tarnished." Financial analyst Tom Nelson believes BP's stock drop "is a fantastic opportunity to buy a very high quality long-term business on a very cheap rating." Center for American Progress senior fellow Joseph Romm called BP "the Goldman Sachs of big oil" because of its spotty safety record, insistence on voluntary "trust me" self-regulation, and willingness to cut corners to "save a few bucks." The moral hazard created by privatized profit and socialized risk has allowed bankers to cripple our economy and energy companies to destroy our planet. Ten days ago, MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews lashed out at the consequences of "unbridled free enterprise," wondering why the President doesn't "nationalize that industry and get the job done."

RE-EMPOWERING GOVERNMENT:  "[T]he truth is that we have disempowered government and handed vast responsibilities over to a private sector that will never see protecting the public interest as its primary task," Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne worries. In addition to the efforts to stop the leaks, BP controls claims processing, environmental contractors on land and sea, volunteer assistance, access to the disaster site, and data collection. Over the past month, the federal government has let BP block attempts to monitor the gusher, study the undersea plumes, or learn about the dispersants being used. Democratic strategist and Louisiana resident James Carville told CNN on Wednesday that Obama "needs to tell BP 'I'm your daddy, I'm in charge, you're going to do what we say.'" Obama should make it clear that BP is no longer the final decision maker -- about anything," Huffington Post columnist Dan Froomkin writes. "He should also establish that nobody in government is taking anything BP says on face value anymore." The Center for American Progress' Tom Kenworthy and Brad Johnson recommend that the federal government explicitly take command authority away from BP and mobilize the full resources of the government. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to bar BP from new federal contracts -- including drilling in federally controlled oil fields -- because of its repeated environmental crimes. The federal government should require BP to use its first quarter 2010 profits -- $5 billion -- to establish the escrow account to pay for the disaster response.

FREEDOM FROM BIG OIL: "Even if you hadn't seen the catastrophe down in the Gulf, the reason that folks are now having to go down a mile deep into the ocean, and then another mile drilling into the ground below, that is because the easy oil fields and oil wells are gone, or they're starting to diminish," Obama said Tuesday. "That tells us we've got to have a long-term energy strategy in this country." Congress and the administration must take further steps to end our dependence on big oil. The administration should beef up federal research and development efforts into how to prevent oil spills and better contain them if they occur. The federal government should establish additional protection for continental shelf areas beyond just the three miles states can control. CAP and environmental organizations advocate establishing a significant oil savings reduction goal and empowering the president to achieve it. Obama and Congress should also adopt measures for cleaner vehicles and fuels, and more investment in transit -- as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce oil use. Congress should cut tax loopholes and other handouts to big oil companies, which would save $45 billion over 10 years -- money that can be spent on investing in a clean energy economy instead. And clean energy legislation that caps the oil and coal pollution that is destroying our atmosphere and oceans is long overdue. "We all know the price we pay as a country," Obama said. "With the increased risks and increased costs, it gives you a sense of where we're going. We're not going got be able to sustain this kind of fossil fuel use. This planet can't sustain it."

A DADT Repeal Compromise

JUSTICE

May 26, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Igor Volsky, and Alex Seitz-Wald

On Monday, advocates of ending the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy -- which prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military -- held two separate meetings (which the Center for American Progress attended) with congressional leaders and White House officials to find a way to meet President Obama's pledge of eliminating the ban before the end of the year. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen both endorsed the President's pledge in February, but remained cool to Democratic efforts to attach repeal legislation as an amendment to this year's defense authorization bill. Gates insisted that a Defense Department review of the policy should precede any Congressional efforts to repeal the ban. "I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change," Gates wrote in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) late last month. "I strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), along with chief repeal sponsor Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) -- an Iraq war veteran -- believed they could muster enough votes to pass repeal in the House, but the real challenge lies in the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) will need to sway enough  lawmakers to successfully attach repeal as an amendment. Advocacy groups like Servicemembers United, Human Rights Campaign, and CAP have been lobbying moderate members and the White House to support a strategy that would repeal the ban this year but delay implementation until after the Defense Department's review. The White House remained mum on the proposal until earlier this week. As the Advocate's Kerry Eleveld reports, "the White House and Gates seemingly didn't want a vote this year. Activists wouldn't let up. Murphy, Levin, and Lieberman put in a heroic effort to salvage repeal" as did Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and by Monday night, just days before the critical vote, the White House endorsed the strategy.

THE COMPROMISE: Under the proposal, Congress would repeal the statute this year, but the current military policy would remain in place until Obama, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that repeal is "consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention." As the text of the amendment states, "Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect [the DADT section] until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect." CAP Action Fund provided the draft certification language, and we are very pleased to see it adopted as part of the amendment that will be considered this week. The language would not be replaced by a nondiscrimination policy, however, as some repeal advocates had hoped. On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee will vote on an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, sponsored by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and supported by Levin to repeal DADT. Murphy has offered an identical amendment, which will likely come to the floor for a vote tomorrow. The real challenge rests in the Senate, where Levin has remained cautiously optimistic about the amendment's prospects in the Senate Armed Services Committee. While Susan Collins (R-ME), Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) have gone on record as supporting the measure, Scott Brown (R-MA) -- an early target of repeal advocates -- has signaled that he would vote against the measure. If the amendment passes in committee, it would require 60 votes to strip repeal from the bill during the floor debate. The Defense Authorization bill is expected to pass both Houses and be signed by the President by late summer or early fall.

ALL DEMANDS MET: Despite initially saying that he would re-consider the ban if military leaders suggested that it was ineffective, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked the proposed compromise. McCain told a local Arizona radio station that "he welcomed a review of the military's prohibition on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers," but said that Democrats are "going to try to jam that through without even trying to figure out what the impact on battle effectiveness would be." Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has said that "there is no question that a review of the policy is necessary and important. I see no reason for the political process to pre-empt it." Brown issued a similar statement, calling repeal "premature." "The Pentagon is still in the midst of its study of the matter, and its report is due in December," Brown said. "I am keeping an open mind, but I do not support moving ahead until I am able to finish my review, the Pentagon completes its study, and we can be assured that a new policy can be implemented without jeopardizing the mission of our military." But the Republican opposition is peculiar, since the compromise struck between the White House, Congress, and repeal advocates already meets their demands. The policy doesn't actually change before "the Pentagon completes its study," and officials are "assured that a new policy can be implemented without" jeopardizing military effectiveness. In fact, Gates and Mullen -- who shares these concerns -- has even issued a statement in support of the compromise. "Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the DOD review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell law," Gates' spokesman Geoff Morrell emailed journalists this morning. "With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the Secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment," he said. Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby also told Stars and Stripes said that "the chairman supports the agreement brokered Monday."

REPEAL IS POPULAR: Yesterday, just hours after the White House announced its support for the compromise, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey found that "78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, with one in five opposed." "Support is widespread, even among Republicans. Nearly six in ten Republicans favor allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "There is a gender gap, with 85 percent of women and 71 percent of men favoring the change, but support remains high among both groups." In fact, even service members have indicated that they have no problems serving alongside openly gay and lesbian soldiers. According to a recent Vet Voice Foundation poll, for instance, 73 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans said it is "personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military." Similarly, an earlier poll conducted by Zogby also concluded that 73 percent of military members are comfortable with lesbians and gays. Many former veterans who are now in Congress also support the measure. As Murphy said yesterday on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, "I like to point out the fact that of my class, the class of 2006 in the Congress, we had the highest ranking military officer ever to serve in a Congress, Admiral Joe Sestak, in favor of repeal; the highest ranking enlisted man ever to serve in the Congress, Command Sergeant Major Tim Walz, for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The View From Abroad

IMMIGRATION

May 25, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Andrea Nill, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Last week, before a joint session of Congress, Mexican President Felipe Calderón slammed Arizona's new immigration law, SB-1070. "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona," said Calderón. "It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduced a terrible idea using racial profiling for law enforcement." Following Calderón's address, conservative lawmakers have been blasting him for "meddling" in U.S. politics. "It's about us. It's about our citizenry," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "I just think that's a line I would prefer that he did not cross. He went farther than I'm comfortable with," stated Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). A statement released by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) read, "It's unfortunate and disappointing the president of Mexico chose to criticize the state of Arizona by weighing in on a U.S. domestic policy issue during a trip that was meant to reaffirm the unique relationship between our two countries." In defense of Calderón, ABC News veteran journalist Sam Donaldson pointed out this weekend that American presidents have frequently criticized the policies of foreign nations. "President Calderón represents Mexico, and he said what a lot of Americans are also saying, that that Arizona law is discriminatory and that it ought not to have been on the books," he said.

INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM: Calderón isn't the first international figure to voice his concerns over the law. In fact, he joins a loud chorus of global leaders who have criticized SB-1070. In Central America, the Guatemalan Foreign Ministry, the new government of Honduras, and officials from El Salvador and Nicaragua have all expressed grave concerns about the law. The Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS) also expressed "the concern of the OAS, its Secretary General, the countries of the hemisphere and the Latin American community with the passage of a law in a state of the United States that we consider to be discriminatory against immigrants, and in particular against a population of such origin that lives in this country." Heads of state and foreign ministers of the 12-member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) slammed SB-1070, stating that it encourages "discretional detention of people based on racial, ethnic, phenotypic, language and migratory status reasons under the questionable concept of 'reasonable doubt.'" South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu wrote in a blog post that a solution that "degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution." United Nations experts who reviewed the law stated that SB-1070 could violate international standards that are binding in the United States. Amnesty International agreed, identifying the law as being in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and calling it "cruel and misguided."

LESSONS FROM MEXICO: Before Calderón's visit, the Washington Times erroneously reported that "under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison." The Washington Times then quoted Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) calling Calderón "arrogant and hypocritical" -- a right-wing talking point repeated throughout the week. However, during his visit, Calderón pointed out that Mexico overturned the provisions cited by the Washington Times. A couple years ago, "[s]ome Mexican officials acknowledged that the current harsh penalties weakened Mexico's position in arguing for better treatment of its own migrants in the United States." In 2008, the Mexican Congress voted unanimously with 393 votes to decriminalize undocumented immigration to Mexico and make it a minor offense. However, it's worth noting that Mexican immigration reform is still a work in progress. Amnesty International recently issued a report calling the "widespread abuse of migrants in Mexico" a "human rights crisis." Tens of thousands of Central American migrants face "alarming levels" of abuse ranging from abduction to robbery and rape. One of the central issues, according to Amnesty, is that migrants still fear they will be deported if they complain to Mexican authorities about abuses. Article 67 of Mexico's immigration law requires law enforcement to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country. The Mexican Interior Department is reportedly working to repeal Article 67 "so that no one can deny or restrict foreigners' access to justice and human rights, whatever their migratory status." In the meantime, the U.S. would be wise to look at Mexico's immigration problems not as a source of hypocrisy, but rather, an extreme but telling lesson on what can happen when the law turns police into immigration agents and immigrants into criminals.

A CALL FOR REFORM: Standing before Congress, Calderón stated, "I am convinced that a comprehensive immigration reform is also crucial to securing our common border." "The time has come to reduce the causes of migration and to turn this phenomenon into a legal, order and secure flows of workers and visitors," stated Calderón. In a less controversial visit, Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom also recently came to the U.S. with "the need to implement an integrated federal immigration reform" high on his list of priorities. Despite the criticisms hurled, it turns out that the majority of the American people agree with Calderón and Colom. Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress wrote yesterday that the "public's continued support for comprehensive immigration reform is being shunted to the side amid all the fuss about Arizona's draconian new law." Granted, polls show that the majority of Arizonans and Americans as a whole support SB-1070. Yet, support for Arizona's immigration law is a manifestation of the public's widespread frustration with the federal government's inaction on the issue. More polling shows that 57 percent of all Americans believe immigration laws should be set by the federal government and 64 percent support some sort of legal status for undocumented immigrants already living in the country. In a joint press conference with Calderón, President Obama made clear that the "political challenge" that's standing in the way of wanted federal action is the lack of Republican support for immigration reform. "I don't have 60 votes in the Senate. I've got to have some support from Republicans." Just a couple hours earlier, while visiting a local elementary school with Mexico's First Lady Margarita Zavala, First Lady Michelle Obama put the issue in poignantly simpler terms: When pressed by a brave second-grader on whether the President was going to deport her mother for not having papers, Obama replied, "Well, we have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody's got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens."

The Minerals Mismanagement Service

ENERGY

May 24, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Andrea Nill, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will visit Louisiana today to inspect the government's response to the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, following calls from the Center for American Progress, the Obama administration has announced it will establish an independent commission to investigate the disaster. The probe will investigate "industry practices" and potential negligence on the part of BP and the other companies involved, but it will also investigate the Minerals and Management Service (MMS), a deeply troubled federal agency that for years was the "handmaiden of industry." Housed in the Department of the Interior, MMS is tasked with collecting $13 billion a year from energy companies, while also policing them to ensure safety and environmental rules are followed. These conflicting functions have created a "cozy" relationship between industry and regulator and led to an explosive scandal under President Bush, in which regulators used drugs and had sex with industry representatives while flouting federal law. Salazar vowed to clean up the agency, saying in February, "There's a new sheriff in town." Nevertheless, the institutional culture created under the Bush administration has proved difficult to change. The New York Times reports today that despite President Obama's moratorium on permits for offshore drilling following the BP spill, "at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records." Interior Department officials said that "the moratorium was meant only to halt permits for the drilling of new wells" and "not meant to stop permits for new work on existing drilling projects." Obama acknowledged the unhealthy relationship between industry and regulator, saying, "It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies. That cannot and will not happen anymore." Salazar has now proposed splitting MMS into three agencies with separate functions in order to eliminate this dangerous conflict of interest that may have contributed to the BP disaster.
'CONFLICTING MISSIONS': Under Salazar's plan, announced last week, one new division of MMS will oversee leasing and land management, another safety, and the third revenue collection. The three functions "are conflicting missions and must be separated," Salazar explained, before signing a secretarial order to enact the change. Leasing will be handled by the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which "will be responsible for the sustainable development of the Outer Continental Shelf's conventional and renewable energy resources, including resource evaluation, planning, and other activities related to leasing." The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, also new, "will be responsible for ensuring comprehensive oversight, safety, and environmental protection in all offshore energy activities." "This will be the police of offshore oil and gas operations," Salazar said. "We will make sure that we are holding energy companies accountable for their responsibilities," he added. The third new division will be the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, which will be "responsible for the royalty and revenue management function including the collection and distribution of revenue, auditing and compliance, and asset management." The first two divisions will be overseen by the assistant secretary for land and minerals management, while the third will be supervised by the assistant secretary for policy, management, and budget -- a separation that will help maintain a clear division between the revenue collection and other functions. President Reagan's controversial Interior Secretary James Watt created MMS by secretarial order in 1982, so Salazar has significant leeway in its reorganization, but he said he will work with Congress to draft legislation that would establish the agencies by law in the coming month. House Natural Resources Chair Nick Rahall (D-WV) called Salazar's plan a "bold initiative to shake up a badly troubled agency," and said his committee will explore the matter this week. Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said her subcommittee will hold a hearing on the plan in the next few weeks, adding, "I've always looked at MMS as a relatively weak agency."
'SUPPRESSING SCIENCE': Early efforts to stop the Gulf spill focused on the blowout preventer, which would have almost certainly stopped the oil gusher had it functioned properly. It did not. MMS was warned in a 2004 study that a "vital piece" of blowout preventers -- the shear rams, which use hydrolic pressure to cut and seal a pipe in order to stop the flow of oil -- may not function under the extreme water pressure of deepwater operations, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month. "This grim snapshot illustrates the lack of preparedness in the industry to shear and seal a well with the last line of defense against a blowout," the authors of the MMS-commissioned study concluded. Nevertheless, MMS did not issue any new regulations on blowout preventers, nor did it mandate that blowout preventers contain two sets of redundant shear rams, as is common in other countries. Moreover, MMS "gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species -- and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf," a New York Times investigation found. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), tasked with safeguarding endangered species, warned on multiple occasions that drilling in the gulf could harm such animals and told MMS that it was granting permits in violation of federal law. A spokesperson for Interior said, "Under the previous administration, there was a pattern of suppressing science in decisions, and we are working very hard to change the culture and empower scientists in the Department of the Interior." The White House and Interior Department have now announced "an accelerated review of all actions taken by the minerals agency" under relevant environmental law.
SEX, DRUGS, AND OIL: As Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman noted earlier this month, "Given [its] history, it's not surprising that the Minerals Management Service became subservient to the oil industry -- although what actually happened is almost too lurid to believe." Indeed, under Bush, the agency was, "to a large degree, run by and for the extractive industries." A two-year investigation by the Interior Department's Inspector General (IG) released in late 2008 found that workers at MMS' royalty collection office were "partying, having sex, using drugs and accepting gifts and ski trips and golf outings from energy company representatives with whom they did government business." The IG report detailed  unethical relationships between government officials and the oil industry, calling it "a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." Royalty in Kind (RIK) officials also attempted to rewrite the ethics rules to cover up their misdoings. Two employees engaged in "brief sexual relationships" with oil and gas representatives, yet they did not recuse themselves from work with those companies and officials. Since their disastrous tenure at Interior, many Bush officials "have since gone on to work directly for the companies they were supposed to be policing," the Project on Government Oversight noted. Former MMS director Randall Luthi is now president of the National Oceans Industries Association, whose mission is to secure a "favorable regulatory and economic environment for the companies that develop the nation's valuable offshore energy resources." Former Interior Secretary Gale Norton became Shell's general counsel, and "J. Steven Griles, a deputy secretary of Interior, lobbied for numerous oil and gas industries -- including BP -- before he went to jail for obstructing a Senate investigation" for his involvement in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Tackling Obesity

HEALTH CARE

May 19, 2010

by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, Andrea Nill, and Alex Seitz-Wald

Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama and several administration officials unveiled Solving The Problem of Childhood Obesity Within A Generation, a report produced by the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. The goal, first articulated by the First Lady's Let's Move! campaign, is bold: "Solve the problem of childhood obesity in a generation." But the goal is so ambitious only because the crisis of childhood obesity is so grave -- with the current generation of Americans is "on track to have a shorter lifespan than their parents." Obesity "is estimated to cause 112,000 deaths per year in the United States, and one third of all children born in the year 2000 are expected to develop diabetes during their lifetime." Each year, obese adults incur "an estimated $1,429 more in medical expenses than their normal-weight peers," and overall, the nation spent up to $147 billion on obesity-related costs in 2008. At last week's unveiling, the First Lady seemed humbled by the magnitude of the problem but also confident that the Task Force's recommendations, if fully implemented, could begin reducing the nation's obesity rates. "For the first time -- this is the key -- we're setting really clear goals and benchmarks and measurable outcomes that will help tackle this challenge one step, one family and one child at a time," she said.

A MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH: The administration's report provides a comprehensive approach that seeks to tackle the obesity epidemic from all angles and with a broad coalition of stakeholders (an approach the Center for American Progress has stressed as necessary for effective implementation of the obesity initiative). The report focuses on ways government, together with the private sector, can work to create a healthy start on life for children, empower parents with the ability to make healthier food choices, upgrade the nutritional quality of school lunches, eliminate so-called "food deserts" in urban and rural America, and encourage children to get more physically active in their schools and communities. For instance, noting that "approximately one in five children are overweight or obese by the time they reach their 6th birthday," the report recommends informing women about the importance of conceiving at a healthy weight and encouraging breast feeding, which could lower the risk of becoming overweight by as much as 22 percent. The Task Force tackles the multi-billion business of food marketing to children and provides ways in which the food industry can use market as "a powerful tool to drive the purchase of healthy products and to communicate important information about healthy eating choices." The use of licensed characters "to market foods to children is particularly effective and pervasive," the report notes. "When preschoolers were asked if they would rather eat broccoli or a Hershey's chocolate bar, 78% of the children chose the chocolate bar and only 22% chose broccoli. When an Elmo sticker was placed on the broccoli, however, 50% of the children chose broccoli." The report commends the industry for taking steps to reduce advertising of poor quality foods to children, but warns that voluntary industry efforts "had not substantially shifted advertising for children towards healthier products" and argues that "the FCC could consider revisiting and modernizing rules on commercial time during children's programming." Moreover, citing the growing problem of limited access to healthy food choices that forces millions of low-income Americans to live in "food deserts" that "lack convenient access to affordable and healthy food," the report recommends that the federal government provide grants to community development financial institutions, "nonprofits, public agencies and businesses to promote interventions that expand access to nutritious foods," and "support regional planning systems that ensure greater access to healthy food in underserved areas." Providing economic incentives to farmers to "increase production of healthy foods" and taxing unhealthy foods like soda may also impact consumption, the report notes.

HOW HEALTH REFORM WILL HELP: The new health care law makes significant inroads in addressing the obesity epidemic. As Ellen-Marie Whelan, Lesley Russell, and Sonia Sekhar point out in a recent report released by the Center for American Progress, the newly enacted comprehensive health reform law "contains a number of provisions to address childhood obesity in the context of health care and public health." Several studies have indicated that, when presented with calorie information and recommendations, people on average consumed meals with almost 100 fewer calories. The law improves nutrition labeling in fast food restaurants by requiring all chain restaurants "to provide clear labeling of the calorie counts by March 2011." By that date, restaurants must "display a succinct statement on the recommended number of calories individuals should consume each day as well as provide written nutrition information when requested." Vending machines will soon have to meet a similar requirement. The law also promotes breastfeeding by mandating that "employers with more than 50 employees must provide break time and place for breastfeeding mothers to express milk," gives grants to community based obesity intervention programs, invests in broader population-level obesity intervention efforts, and promotes primary care and coordination efforts that emphasize prevention. Still, none of this alone can significantly lower obesity rates. For that, policymakers must do much more to enact the Task Force's recommendations and look beyond health care into the nutrition of food in school cafeterias, the physical education programs, America's agricultural policies, and the food options in lower-income neighborhoods.

CONSERVATIVES ON THE ATTACK: Unfortunately, some in the conservative media are using the Task Force to further the meme that the administration is undermining personal freedoms and liberties. Last week, for instance, Matt Drudge ran a headline saying, "White House seeks controls on food marketing." On the May 11 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said: "An Obama government obesity task force." "Does every American family need a dietitian appointed by the government to tell them that this food is going to make you fat and this food is not?" he asked. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin also turned the Task Force into a hit, saying that her "problem with the Obama administration is that it's more concerned with policing grocery aisles and our refrigerators than it is with our borders." "And we'd be heck a lot better off if they got their priorities in order." Only former Governor Mike Huckabee, who himself has struggled with obesity, warned conservatives against mischaracterizing the report. During a discussion in February about Obama's campaign to fight childhood obesity, Huckabee explained that the initiative is not a "nanny-state solution" or a "leftist position" and warned that conservatives would engage in reactionary attacks against the program. Speaking of Obama, he concluded, "She does not believe that it is a government solution and that government should dictate what size cheeseburger you eat." 

Poll: Debt still stressing Americans, even as economy picks up

By Jeannine Aversa
The Associated Press

Posted: 05/31/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

WASHINGTON — The economy trudges ahead, yet debt dogs many Americans, stressing them out even as they firm up their financial foundations.
There are new jobs being produced, but old worries persist for people despite belt-tightening and boosted savings, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.
About 46 percent of those surveyed say they're suffering from debt-related stress, and half of that group described the amount of stress as "a great deal" or "quite a bit." On the other hand, about 53 percent say they feel little or no stress at all.
That is in line with findings from last year, even though times seem better today: The economy is growing and generating jobs, and households have made progress in repairing their financial footing, trimming debt, watching spending and saving more.
It's a big turnaround from a year ago — a shrinking economy and jobs jettisoned as businesses struggled to survive the worst recession since the 1930s.
So why aren't the stressed — and the not-so-stressed — feeling better? For starters, it just doesn't feel much like a recovery to many people. Unemployment is stubbornly high — 9.9 percent. The jobless face fierce competition for work. Those with a job are watching their paychecks shrink.
A growing number of people are at risk of falling into foreclosure, and only those with the most stellar credit probably can get a new loan. The AP-GfK polls show that only 20 percent say the economy is good, compared with 15 percent last year.
Ken Goldstein, economist at the Conference Board, a research group that keeps close tabs on consumers, says it is individual circumstances — more so than sentiment about the economy — that shapes people's confidence and their stress over debt.
"It's about what happens to me — my house, my car, my job," he said.

First thoughts on President Obama's oil spill press conference

Posted at 2:08 PM ET, 05/27/2010

President Barack Obama spent nearly an hour answering questions on the policy and the politics of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf Coast -- among other topics -- as his Administration sought to seize back control of the politics of the disaster.
We tweeted the entire thing -- you can check it all out at " The Hyper Fix".
Below are our first thoughts on what the takeaway from the press conference will be as the President heads to the Gulf tomorrow.
* The government=boss: From his opening statement to his answers to just about every oil spill-related question, President Obama made clear that BP was working under orders from the federal government, not the other way around. "Make no mistake," he said. "BP is operating at our direction." The repeated emphasis on that point is designed to rebut criticism that the Obama Administration deferred to BP in the clean-up effort. It's a complicated argument to make. Why? Because BP has been leading on the technological side -- as the President noted, the company is far better equipped than the government to figure out how to fix the problem -- but not on the overall strategy and direction of the effort. It's a nuanced argument to make and a distinction that Obama has to hope average Americans understand.
* Urgent!: It was clear from the very start of the press conference that Obama understood that he and his team were back on their heels politically when it came to the situation in the Gulf. And so, he methodically set out to emphasize that from the minute the oil rig accident occurred that he and his Administration have understood the gravity of the situation and the need to act quickly. "This is what I wake up to in the morning and this is what I go to be tonight thinking about," Obama said about the spill. He added that his Administration is operating under a "constant sense of urgency" about the matter and noted that he convened a meeting of his top advisers in the Oval Office on the same day he learned of the accident. "This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred," he said. While Obama rejected the comparisons to how the Bush Administration handled Hurricane Katrina -- "I will leave it to you guys to make those comparisons," he said -- it's clear that the perceived detachment from President George W. Bush during that crisis is deeply impacting how Obama and his White House are seeking to handle this one.
* I feel your pain: Obama is not the most naturally empathetic politician -- that would be Bill Clinton -- but he does understand the need, in moments like this one, to make clear to people that he feels this stuff in his gut. Obama repeatedly used the word "frustrated" to explain his feelings; "I am angry and frustrated as well," he said in the early moments of the presser. He also sought to make clear to those in the affected area that he would not -- again the ghost of Katrina lingered -- forget about them. "We are not going to abandon our fellow citizens," said Obama. But Obama, ever the political realist, acknowledged that the only way to change how people feel about the spill is to end it; "People are going to be frustrated until it stops," he said.
* Tough visuals: The difficulty of Obama's political positioning on the oil spill was made plain when MSNBC and CNN went to a two-shot -- showing both the President as well as the punctured pipe continuing to spew into the Gulf Coast. On the one hand, Obama was asserting that he and his government were doing absolutely everything to solve the problem; on the other, the picture of the pipe served as a stirring reminder that the problem still isn't fixed.
Have thoughts of your own after watching the press conference? Offer them in the comments section below.

How long has BP been in business? BP is drilling in international waters like a startup company without knowledge that it is possible to drill into pockets of high pressure that could cause an incident like this. They were not, and are not, capable of shutting down the flow of petroleum and until it is shut down there is essentially nothing the administration can do to stop it from befowling our shores.
The oil permeates every level of the Gulf from the sea bed to the surface and the technology does not exist to deal with a disaster of this magnitude. It cannot be burnt off, it cannot be blocked from reaching the coast and dispersants are inadequate to reach the sea bed.
If men were placed shoulder to shoulder on the coast they could not prevent this disaster from reaching our shores.
The only thing that can be done is to clean up as quickly as possible to minimize the damage as much as possible.
Those of you who complain that the administration is not doing anything should share your ideas as to how to stop this disaster or heist your sorry behinds down to the Gulf Coast to lend a hand.
You complain about to much government and now you complain that there is too little. You can't have it both ways.



BB,
I respect your opinion, but I do not think Margret was yanking anyone’s chain since I have seen other comments by her on other topics. She is nice but fairly partisan as well. On a side note, someone from EPA called me and asked about some analytical methodology I had worked on (they were interested in applying it to measure dispersant in the water). I downloaded all my information to my EPA contact in a matter of seconds (I didn’t say I had a lot of experience) and this included salutations. After the phone call, I was initially honored than I thought those guys are really in trouble if they are calling me for advise, but then again maybe they wanted to know how not to approach an issue. Ooooh they are good.
I personally do see this event similar to Bush’s Hurricane Katrina. I did not fault either president since in both cases the events overwhelmed the system. Who can be prepared for a Category 5 Hurricane hitting the coast with a city that is basically underwater from the start or be prepared for deep ocean blow out of an oil rig. Or for that matter and election that is decided by only a few votes. Our systems work when we have large margins. I would note there was a lot of good findings following Katrina especially simple ones like evacuating pets as well as people (simple but profound in its impact). I am sure following this disaster there will be a lot of new key findings that will make us better prepared for such an event and preventing such an event. However, I heard a lot from the left about incompetent government during Katrina and Obama used Katrina often as a metaphor for change during his campaign. The same people (government workers) who served Clinton efficiently also served Bush ineffectively (Katrina) and these are the same ones serving Obama. You can not fault one president without faulting the other president, but that is what people on the left and right do all the time and both do it equally.  

How the Sestak job offer became a big deal

Updated: 5:23 p.m.
Party leaders and campaign operatives -- on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else.
And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak -- allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.
That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week's Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level Democratic strategists.
"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."
Another senior party official said that the White House "has a lot of egg on their face" and described the events as a "PR nightmare".
The unfolding of events since Sestak told a local television host -- albeit obliquely -- in February that he had received a job offer from the White House speaks to one of the oldest political adages about the presidency: stonewalling almost never works. (The full White House report on the matter is  here.)
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked in the intervening months about Sestak's allegation but deflected comment. As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak's primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque -- as Gibbs insisted over the weekend that "nothing inappropriate happened" but refusing to engage in the more basic "what happened question."
The matter reached a head during President Obama's press conference yesterday when, asked by Fox News Channel's Major Garrett about the details of the Sestak job offer, the President said only: "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."
Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter, using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability.
"This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability," Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye told the Fix earlier this week.
Allies of the White House argue that the Sestak situation was less PR blunder than conscious choice to accept some short term pain for long term gain (or at least less long term pain).
Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.
Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on.
Regardless of the reasoning (or lack therefor, according to their critics) behind the White House's approach to the issue, their extended silence on the matter has created -- at least in the near term -- a major PR problem.
It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington. While Obama and his senior aides decry that fishbowl effect, it has come back to bite them this time around.

The Sestak story continued ....
How Bill Clinton has become the roving fixer for the Obama administration.
The cover up is worse than the non-crime.
Joe Sestak released a statement on the conversation.
Republicans had a quick response.
The White House released a  memo on the matter.
Sestak's brother has talked with the White House.
Obama himself said that "nothing improper" took place.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 28, 2010; 11:28 AM ET

Comment:

"Change you can believe in?"- Sure Nixon, Reagan, and Bush might have done the same with Sestak- AND Bill Maher and Michael Moore would be SCREAMING- where are they now?
For that matter IMAGINE how Maher/Moore would be screaming about the inept "What Me Worry" job President Obama is doing to curb the flow of oil in the gulf- what would they be saying if a Bush was in office- HYPOCRITES! (Do we still have a Navy? With submarines?)
NY Times 5/28/10
Representative Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the interactions described by the White House “represent an illegal quid pro quo,” even if the position was unpaid. “It is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”
Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.
!@!!!!!!

JPRS
Wow are you stretching it now.
This may come as news, but...the English language allows for more than one meaning to a word and I realize that the left is programmed to always be on the defensive, however, when a statement is made and then taken out of context.
Oh yes, Folks here we are to number 5 of Alinsky's model, take everything out of context and blow it out of proportion so that the opponent will spend his time trying to defend your attack and will have little or no time to make his point.
Anyway, Just open your mind for a moment and consider this. When the statement is made such as "If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms."
The word "just" is used to supplant the word "only".
OK so you made your point and it was rebuked.
Your turn.
And that should have been a hookah rather than hooter.
It really takes so little to rattle the left..... you are only proving my points with regards to you and "your" kind.
Wow now that I left myself wide open, either JPRS or another leftie may attempt to take that out of context and play the race-bait card...shhh, don't tell anyone, they may never notice on their own....
Lefties are the craziest peoples.....

ProCounsel,
What you're describing is a method of police work that usually results in
A. Bad police work.
B. The prosecution of innocent people
e.g. rather than following the evidence to where it leads and narrowing the pool of suspects based ON THE EVIDENCE, the police plant evidence and shape testimonies in order to gain a conviction of a pre-selected defendant.
Based on your approach, it would have been impossible for the investigators to have located the suspect in the recent failed Times Square attack, because the person was just one anonymous guy out of several million people. They did not know in advance who committed the crime, and there was no way that they could have known.
Unless you're dealing with a small community where everyone knows each another, then the "presumption of guilt" standard is likely to steer you wrong more often than not.
icsjp2003,
"No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent."
That statement literally makes no sense. The prosecutor makes no "assumption of precedent". The prosecutor will look to precedent for guidance on how to apply and interpret a law.
"The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent."
Only if a prosecutor finds cause and files suit.
"There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?"
Not only have there only been "a few" prosecutions -- the one prosecution brought under the law has no bearing on the facts involved in this case. This means that a new prosecution would involve a novel application of the law. After 70 years, it is at best, HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that the law would be used on this basis.
In the end, does this mean that anyone knows absolutely how this will play out?
Of course not.
What it does mean is that the legal foundation for any case would be built on a shaky foundation from the outset. It would quite literally create a new standard of illegal political action. Of course, time will tell how things play out.

JPRS
Just can't get through the discussion without insults eh? Well, I'll take that in view of the source then.
No, the prosecutor only makes an assumption of precedent. The judge and court decides if the case has merit or in this case precedent. For a 70 year old law that has been tested so few times, I venture to guess there are many interpretations the courts could make of it.
There has been, by your own admission, very few prosecutions under this law, then who are you to say that it has no merit, or no precedent? It is a very broad law and who is to say what the courts will decide? You?
Who are you to determine what the interpretation of the court will be based upon ALL the evidence.
What did we forget about evidence? Yes, there must be evidence as well and if the evidence is worthy, then you would be surprised what the courts deem as relevant. All he evidence has yet to come out.
I guess that book-lernin of yorn, might git ya pretty fer some day.
Now, it appears that we are boring our "so gracious" host here at the Washington Post.
Both of us have experienced "too many post" messages, and the newer cross posts are probably directed at breaking up the discussion anyway. Do ya think?
While we agree to disagree, I hold no malice, and you.... well... I pray you find your "Hope and Change".
I have enjoyed the exchange, and believe me, the pleasure was all mine.
Adieu


Look, final thoughts on this.
If the law were specific with regards to just compensation or no compensation, it would only address those terms.
However, the law specificly states:
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. AMENDMENTS 1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $10,000". 1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum allowable fine. 1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,", inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office" for "in any election". EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later, see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.
Last modified: April 13, 2006
I see alot more than just an offer of compensation there.
Once again regardless of what happened in the Bush admin, or the Regan admin or what happened in Californica, none of it is applicable to the case at hand. Just because one or more persons got away with it does not mean that the law is invalid or un-applicable.
That is for the courts to decide.
Nuff said

icsjp2003,
The defense is that politics in itself is not a crime. Horse-trading, earning chits, dispensing chits, are part of the nature of any political system.
"Material consideration" usually means an exchange of money.
In this case, the party leadership was trying to use its influence to shape the primary field. We still don't know what was offered -- if it was a non-paying seat on some board, then this is moot. Even if it was a position within the executive branch, I don't see the issue.
I'm much more concerned about the fact that we don't enforce clear cut cases of abuse.
e.g. Political staff shouldn't be telling the DOJ which US Attorneys to retain or fire mid-term. In the beginning of the term they might have some input, but they shouldn't be allowed to punish U.S. Attorneys for the failure to push purely politically motivated prosecutions. We should be closing down the revolving door between Congressional staff and executive agencies and the private sector; members of Congress themselves should be barred from federal lobbying for a LONG-TIME; spouses should not be allowed to earn a second income by cashing in on a husband or wife's political office.
All of these are much more problematic cases.
The thing that gets me about this case is the fact that Rahm tried to push a stronger candidate out of the Democratic Senate race in an attempt to mollify Specter and in order to retain Sestak's hard-won district in the House. I think he exercised poor political judgment. As far as legal questions go there's no issue. As far as ethical questions go, this one does get close to the line on Rahm's part. Sestak should actually be applauded for saying no.