[size=-1]3-16-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes curbs on Medicare appeals.[/size][size=-1]For someone who claims to dislike Washington bureaucrats, President Bush sure doesn't seem to mind them making medical decisions. The fact is, seniors sometimes don't get the coverage they need and deserve under Medicare, and rely on appeals to federal judges to ensure they have the coverage they need. More than half of the people who make those appeals win them. But Bush has proposed replacing the independent judges with arbitrators at the Department of Health and Human Services. Because HHS is the department that pays for Medicare, these arbitrators would have a vested interest in rejecting the appeals. More bureaucrats, fewer health benefits for seniors.[/size][size=-1]3-11-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush discontinues budget report to states.[/size][size=-1]States rely on an annual report from the federal government called "Budget Information for States" to see just how much money they're getting from the federal government. But the Bush administration, which has refused to make aid to states a part of its latest tax-cut-for-the-wealthy plan to help the economy (see 1-7-2003 below), has decided to discontinue the report beginning in 2004. Now states won't be able to hold Bush accountable for all the help he isn't giving them.[/size][size=-1]3-8-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush fakes evidence on Iraq.[/size][size=-1]President Bush and the administration have consistently insisted that Iraq is currently pursuing nuclear weapons. But every shred of evidence of that has failed to hold up. Taking this to the extreme, Secretary of State Colin Powell continues to cite false evidence about anodized aluminum tubes that he says are for nuclear weapons production. But the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency insists that this is untrue, and that the very evidence Powell cites actually shows that the tubes are unsuitable for the purpose the administration claims. It's a sad day for Colin Powell, who has bought into the administration's war-driven rhetoric at the expense of the truth.[/size][size=-1]3-8-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush exempts oil and gas industries from clean water regulations.[/size][size=-1]New clean water regulations require small construction sites to ensure that they have plans to handle storm water, preventing pollution from entering waterways. But the Bush administration is granting the oil and gas industries an exemption to the new rules, claiming that the issue needs "further evaluation." But according to six senators who have opposed the exemption, the issue has already received plenty of study. Could it be that Bush is simply doing a favor for old friends?[/size][size=-1]3-5-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes pushing seniors into private insurance plans for a Medicare prescription drug benefit.[/size][size=-1]Again letting his friends in the insurance industry write legislation (see 3-5-2003 below), President Bush proposes forcing seniors to join private health plans to receive a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. His plan would give private health plans enormous power over Medicare, allowing them to set the prices for prescription drugs, squeezing seniors for higher profits.[/size][size=-1]3-5-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes caps on malpractice lawsuits.[/size][size=-1]The rising cost of malpractice insurance is a serious problem affecting the medical industry. But President Bush's proposal to cap awards from malpractice suits at $250,000 is like using an axe for heart surgery. Instead of working to prevent frivolous lawsuits, Bush is essentially making the victims of genuine malpractice pay for reform. He also refuses to hold the insurance industry accountable, and in fact is letting them write the legislation. I wonder why.[/size][size=-1]3-1-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush opens Alaska forest to logging.[/size][size=-1]The Tongass National Forest contains 30 percent of the world's temperate coastal forests -- for now. The Bush administration rules that no more of the forest will be declared protected wilderness, opening up hundreds of thousands of acres for logging. If the administration succeeds in reversing the Clinton ban on new roads in national forests (see 5-4-2001 below), then millions of acres could be at risk.[/size][size=-1]2-27-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush lies about homeland security funding and blames his allies in Congress.[/size][size=-1]Since September 11, President Bush has consistently fought to block spending on homeland security, even opposing the creation of a Department of Homeland Security until he saw the political upside. Looking at the recently passed 2003 budget, the White House praised the Republican Congress for providing "critical funding for our nation's homeland security." He even urged them to block a Democratic proposal to provide an additional $5 billion for homeland security needs. But at least he's consistent about endangering the nation, right? Wrong. In a breathtaking act of hypocrisy, Bush turns around and blames the Republican Congress for not providing enough funds. This 180-degree flip-flop comes as an enormous surprise to his GOP allies, who predictably react with fury.[/size][size=-1]2-26-2003 Detroit Free Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush restricts family-planning programs from AIDS-prevention funds.[/size][size=-1]When President Bush announced increases for AIDS prevention funding in Africa, even his critics were pleased to see the additional funds (regardless of the political reasons behind the proposal). But anyone with common sense knows that family-planning advice is crucial to serious AIDS prevention. Under restrictions attached to the funding, doctors and nurses may not even be able to discuss basic contraception use with people as part of AIDS prevention. A State Department memo indicates that the administration is using the new AIDS funds as a tool to expand the gag rules it has put on foreign aid as a gift to the right-wing extremists who have Karl Rove's ear.[/size][size=-1]2-24-2003 Time [/size] [size=-1]Bush relaxes rules on ready-to-eat meat products.[/size][size=-1]In 2002, an outbreak of Listeria bacteria killed seven people, caused three miscarriages, and sickened dozens. In response, the Bush administration proposed tougher rules on plants that produce products at risk for Listeria, including ready-to-eat deli meats. The meat industry (which, big surprise, gave a bunch of money to the Bush campaign in 2000) cried foul and urged the White House to weaken the regulations they had proposed. And when campaign donors talk, Bush listens. So the strong regulations were shelved and replaced with ones the meat industry could live with. An industry newsletter crowed that "a number of key [USDA] personnel have bought into much of the industry proposal" and that the changes came thanks to "industry efforts made at the White House level."[/size][size=-1]2-24-2003 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes canceling tests for a missile defense system.[/size][size=-1]You can argue all you want about whether a national missile defense system will work or not, or whether it's a good idea in the first place. But one thing is for certain: if you're planning on building a NMD system, you should definitely test the thing to make sure it works. But even this seemingly obvious bit of logic is beyond the Bush administration, which tries to bypass testing requirements for major weapons programs so it can have the system up and running by 2004. Given the administration's reckless and incompetent handling of the North Korea crisis, it's understandable that it is in a rush to get NMD working. But shouldn't they make sure it works first?[/size][size=-1]2-23-2003 Newsday [/size] [size=-1]Bush lies about economists' support for his tax plan.[/size][size=-1]Serious, nonpartisan economists are fairly unanimous about President Bush's latest tax cut proposal: it won't do anything to help the economy. After all, most of the cuts come years later and most of the benefits go to those most likely to save rather than spend the money. (Boy, that sounds a lot like his last tax cut plan to help the economy. Which didn't.) So when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer claims that the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed his plan, it comes as quite a surprise. What isn't surprising is when the editor of the Blue Chip newsletter says that he had published no such endorsement, and that the White House was simply lying.[/size][size=-1]2-20-2003 Reuters [/size] [size=-1]Bush delays report on the dangers of mercury.[/size][size=-1]When the public faces danger from environmental hazards, the Bush administration doesn't rush to inform them. When the EPA recently put together a report on a dangerous form of asbestos, the administration kept it from the public for as long as possible. (See 12-27-2002 below.) Similarly, a report was due last May on the dangers posed by mercury. But the administration delayed it, forcing the report to go through an unprecedented review from other federal agencies. The EPA's report will be coming out soon. Who knows what's missing, thanks the administration's review?[/size][size=-1]2-20-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush explores creating new nuclear weapons.[/size][size=-1]You know what this world needs? More nuclear weapons. New kinds of nuclear weapons! Nuclear weapons that do less damage, making it more likely that we'll use them, especially given Bush's enthusiasm for preemptive strikes! (See 9-21-2002 below.) And now you'll get those new nukes, thanks to the ridiculously irresponsible Bush administration. How about this new rule: if the president can't pronounce "nuclear," then his administration doesn't get to create new nuclear weapons. Can we make this happen?[/size][size=-1]2-16-2003 San Diego Union-Tribune [/size] [size=-1]Bush cuts education for military dependents.[/size][size=-1]It is impossible to emphasize this point enough: just because Republican administrations are good for military contractors doesn't mean they're good for the men and women who serve in the military. Not only did Bush stop telling veterans about the health care benefits they're entitled to (see 8-1-2002 below), but now he's cutting funds that help pay for the education for the sons and daughters of the people he's about to send off to war. When will the military -- and everyone else for that matter -- realize just how bad President Bush treats them?[/size][size=-1]2-13-2003 BBC News [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes no aid for Afghanistan.[/size][size=-1]The reason the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s was that they had one thing to offer: law. It was a harsh and oppressive law, but the lawlessness that preceded the Taliban's rule set the stage for their ascendance. The worst possible thing the United States can do now that it has deposed the Taliban is allow Afghanistan to sink back into lawlessness, a country united only in name that is controlled by warlords. Such conditions would allow extremists to rise to power again, or at the very least, ensure there are always places friendly to terrorists in the country. But with the Taliban gone, the Bush administration apparently thinks the job is done. President Bush's 2003 budget includes no money to aid Afghanistan, despite the fact that Hamid Karzai's government has no power outside the capital. If this is the kind of commitment to democracy we are planning to show in Iraq, the Iraqi people should be very worried.[/size][size=-1]2-11-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush cuts federal housing subsidies.[/size][size=-1]Sometimes little changes are the most devious. The Bush administration proposes changing the phrase "not more than $50" to "at least $50" in the law setting the amount that those receiving federal housing subsidies pay in rent per month. Now the sky is the limit on the rent paid by America's poorest families, those for whom every dollar counts most.[/size][size=-1]2-8-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes national sales tax.[/size][size=-1]Sales taxes are by far the most regressive taxes. Unlike income taxes, where higher incomes are taxed at higher rates, sales taxes hit families harder the less they make, since they spend a bigger portion of their incomes on necessities. Thus it should come as no surprise that Bush is looking at the possibility of eliminating income taxes in favor of a national sales tax, given his earlier attempts to find ways to justify increasing the tax burden on the poor. (See 12-16-2002 below.) What's more, sales taxes are bad for the economy since they reduce consumption -- just what our country needs![/size][size=-1]2-8-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes more restrictions on civil liberties.[/size][size=-1]Call it "USA PATRIOT Act II: The Freedom Eliminator." (See 10-26-2001 below.) In what can only be described as an attempt to gauge just how much political capital the administration has left from the September 11 attacks, the Justice Department is proposing a new law to strengthen law enforcement powers even further. It would allow more wiretaps and more clandestine searches with even less judicial oversight. Once again, Bush is trying to stop the "freedom-hating terrorists" by eliminating our freedoms. A brilliant strategy.[/size][size=-1]2-6-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes retirement savings plan to benefit the wealthy.[/size][size=-1]Most retirement savings plans that offer tax benefits include provisions that ensure they don't bankrupt the Treasury. Income caps and deposit limits are the most common. So when President Bush proposes doing away with those restrictions, it is only people with higher incomes who will benefit. Best of all for Bush, the real costs of the plan are hidden because they don't appear until 15 or 20 years down the road.[/size][size=-1]2-4-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush cuts aid to the poor in his budget.[/size][size=-1]When President Bush declares a war on poverty, he means it. He'll do whatever it takes to make sure America's poor don't get the help they'll need. (What, you thought a war on poverty was supposed to help the poor?) His latest budget is an excellent example. While he creates enormous, record-breaking deficits with big tax cuts for the rich, he cuts programs to the poor, like rural redevelopment, vocational education, Medicaid, the earned income tax credit, and even school lunch programs! More money in the hands of the wealthy and fewer services for America's neediest. Bush's 2004 budget is an abomination.[/size][size=-1]2-2-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush weakens "dolphin-safe tuna" regulations.[/size][size=-1]The idea of "dolphin-safe" tuna was something of a revolution, one of the few times that activism on behalf of animals made an enormous mainstream impact. Regulations that require tuna fishermen to protect dolphins save tens of thousands of the marine mammals every year. But now President Bush wants to allow tuna caught by Mexican fisherman to carry the "dolphin safe" label, even though they don't follow the same recommendations. Not only will this result in the death of more dolphins, but it will squeeze out the responsible companies that actually make sure the tuna they sell is safe for dolphins.[/size][size=-1]1-31-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes changing labor laws.[/size][size=-1]When business bleats, President Bush answers. Such is the case when the administration calls for a revision to labor laws that could make millions of workers no longer eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay. The Labor Department is also looking into changing the Family and Medical Leave Act, adding new restrictions on the law that allows people to take care of new children and ailing relatives.[/size][size=-1]1-31-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush ignores his administration's own report on snowmobiles in Yellowstone.[/size][size=-1]Everyone knew President Bush was going to reverse the Clinton-era ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. (See 11-12-2002 and 6-24-2001 below.) But what he has not told the public is that his administration did so despite its own report saying that banning the snowmobiles was the only way to protect the park, its wildlife, and the rangers who work there. Bush has made a habit of saying that he makes decisions based on "sound science." When the science doesn't fit his politics -- and that happens a lot -- he tosses it aside.[/size][size=-1]1-26-2003 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes privatizing National Park Service jobs.[/size][size=-1]Free-market enthusiasts believe that competition is the solution to every problem, and that regulations can only hinder all that is right and good. But when put into practice, these idealistic laissez faire attitudes often lead to unfortunate circumstances, like environmental destruction. That's why the Bush administration's suggestion to privatize jobs in the department that protects national parks seems ill-advised. In what could turn out to be the quote of the year, a former Park Service employee who managed Joshua Tree and the Mojave Reserve says of the Bush proposal, "Ask Enron about the efficiency of the unregulated private marketplace."[/size][size=-1]1-21-2003 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes a tax break for the biggest SUVs.[/size][size=-1]If the administration isn't going to raise fuel-economy standards for SUVs, the least it could do is not make it more profitable to own one. But that's just what the administration is proposing when it suggests increasing the tax deductions for small businesses when they purchase vehicles over 6,000 pounds. Originally designed to help farm and blue-collar businesses that needed heavy trucks or tractors, this law now helps doctors, accountants, and other professionals who feel like buying a behemoth SUV even though they don't need it for their work. Bush's proposal would only further encourage people to buy a gas-guzzling vehicle, increasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and the profit of Bush's friends in the energy industry.[/size][size=-1]1-21-2003 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush opens federal lands for road building.[/size][size=-1]In a policy change meant to please a plethora of campaign donors -- ranging from energy companies to timber companies to mining companies and more -- the Interior Department makes it easier for states and counties to build roads across federal lands, endangering the wildlife and natural splendor of places like Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and the Mojave National Preserve. Once again, given a choice between priceless natural treasures and big corporate profits, the administration picks the profits.[/size][size=-1]1-16-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush joins court fight against affirmative action.[/size][size=-1]It's easy to mischaracterize and attack affirmative action. President Bush did it plenty when he was campaigning. Just equate it with "quotas" (which the Supreme Court declared illegal years ago), and strongly imply that it favors less qualified applicants. But affirmative action isn't about giving jobs or educations to less qualified people. It's about making sure those who are qualified don't miss opportunities because of their minority status. Racism is not dead in America, as much as we wish it were so. Bush's decision to intervene in a Supreme Court case against the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies proves his ignorance of the problems minorities still face in this country.[/size][size=-1]1-15-2003 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush declares "National Sanctity of Human Life Day."[/size][size=-1]Never one to shy away from using public declarations as political tools (see 6-12-2002 and 6-1-2001 below), President Bush appeases the far right extremists of the Republican party by declaring a day for the sanctity of human life. In a clear (if mild) attack on women's reproductive rights, Bush calls on Americans to "reaffirm the value of human life and renew our dedication to ensuring that every American has access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In other words, "please don't be angry that I haven't declared abortion illegal yet. Just wait until there's an opening on the Supreme Court."[/size][size=-1]1-7-2003 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes yet more tax cuts for the rich.[/size][size=-1]Paul Krugman put it best (as usual) when he said, "Faced with a real problem ... the Bush administration's response has nothing to do with solving that problem. Instead it exploits the issue to advance its political agenda." That's just what President Bush does when he proposes a new round of tax cuts that will help the richest Americans. They include a speeding up of the last cut, which means the richest Americans will get the cuts promised in 2001 even sooner. They also include a $300 billion ending of taxes on dividends. If you have an enormous income and huge stock holdings, this is pretty good news. If you're, say, the American economy, it won't do much to help you.[/size][size=-1]1-3-2003 San Francisco Chronicle [/size] [size=-1]Bush kills Labor Department report on mass layoffs.[/size][size=-1]The Bush administration loves reversing Clinton administration policies, especially if they involve informing the public. So when Bush's Labor Department ends a program that reports the numbers of mass layoffs (more than 50 workers fired) -- a program killed by his father and revived by President Clinton -- it's hardly a shock. It's also the first shot fired by the Bush camp for the election in 2004. Layoffs certainly don't make a president look good, especially if unemployment is on the rise. According to the axed program, there were more than 2 million layoffs between January and November of last year. By ending this report, Bush hides one more bit of bad news for his administration from the public.[/size][size=-1]1-3-2003 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush grants taxpayer funds to religious organizations to promote marriage.[/size][size=-1]Everyone knows that staying married is always the best option, no matter what the circumstances. Well, anyone who follows President Bush's religion knows that, anyway. After ignoring Congress and implementing his faith-based initiative by fiat (see 12-13-2002 below), Bush takes the first step of implementing it by granting money to religious groups who will help the poor by teaching them that marriage is really, really great. A spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said it best: "Whether a person gets married or stays married is none of the government's business."[/size][size=-1]12-27-2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch [/size] [size=-1]Bush blocks the EPA from issuing a warning about asbestos.[/size][size=-1]The EPA planned for months to warn Americans that millions of homes could contain an especially lethal form of asbestos. This would have been an unprecedented move for a public agency, declaring a health emergency that would have ensured those who had been affected by the lethal asbestos got the care they need. But at the last minute, the White House overruled the EPA and kept the agency from making the announcement. The White House decision puts millions of Americans at risk for cancer, all to save a few bucks. Well, we have to pay for those big tax cuts somehow.[/size][size=-1]12-21-2002 BBC News [/size] [size=-1]Bush blocks agreement that would provide cheap drugs to the world's poor.[/size][size=-1]Sure, this World Trade Organization agreement would provide desperately needed low-cost drugs to the world's poorest and sickest people. But it would also cut into drug company profits! Which will the Bush administration choose? Yeah, it's the drug company profits. With the Bush administration, it's always the big corporate profits, even when the lives of the world's poorest people are at stake.[/size][size=-1]12-19-2002 Salon.com [/size] [size=-1]Bush attacks reproductive rights at an international conference.[/size][size=-1]The Bush administration has made an international attack on women's reproductive rights one of its top priorities from its first day. (See 1-21-2001 below.) It has eliminated millions of dollars in funding for programs that provide essential health care services to the world's poorest women. But just in case anyone wasn't sure about the administration's position, Assistant Secretary of State Arthur E. Dewey made it clear at a United Nations population conference when he said, "The United States supports the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. There has been a concerted effort to create a gulf by pushing the United States to violate its principles and accept language that promotes abortion." This means that the U.S. won't support any programs that condone abortion by, say, providing medical services to women. Or any programs that condone underage sex by, say, providing information about contraception. So while third-world populations explode and poor women suffer and die, the Bush administration sits back in self-righteous smugness.[/size][size=-1]12-18-2002 The New Republic [/size] [size=-1]Bush blocks respected scientists from commission on lead standards and stacks it with nominees approved by the lead industry.[/size][size=-1]The Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention advises the Centers for Disease Control on federal standards for lead poisoning -- essentially, how much lead is in your system before you're considered poisoned. Just before the Commission met, the Bush administration filled the panel with appointments recommended by the lead industry, taking the unprecedented step of rejecting nominees suggested by the CDC. When it comes to choosing between respected scientists and corporate benefactors, the Bush administration chooses big business every time.[/size][size=-1]12-16-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush supports new methods for calculating tax burdens on the wealthy to garner public sympathy for them.[/size][size=-1]Pity the folks earning hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Sure, they never worry about how to pay for things like housing, health care, education, food, transportation, or any of the other day-to-day necessities average Americans sometimes struggle over. But they pay more taxes than the poor, unless you count payroll taxes and sales taxes! Why, the situation is so bad the Wall Street Journal editorial page even called America's poor "lucky duckies!" Bush clearly feels sorry for his compatriots among America's wealthiest, so he instructs the Treasury Department to come up with a new way of calculating the tax burden to make it look as though they pay too much. That way he can justify increasing the burden on the poor, which will make them want tax cuts, which will make them vote for Republicans. Now that's compassionate conservatism![/size][size=-1]12-13-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush implements faith-based initiative without Congressional approval.[/size][size=-1]Putting public funds in the hands of private religious charities is a two-edged sword. It sets a dangerous precedent that leads down the road to state-sponsored religion. For the charities themselves, it can create a dependence on those public funds that can have a chilling effect on their ability to practice in freedom. When Bush circumvents Congress and implements his faith-based plan by executive fiat, he avoids the most controversial portions of his original plan -- more tax cuts and enabling anti-gay discrimination, for example. But it's a step in the wrong direction, and he ignores the proper legislative process to do it.[/size][size=-1]12-11-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush signals an increased willingness to use nuclear weapons.[/size][size=-1]Is "nuclear war bad" not a clear enough proposition for President Bush? Shouldn't it be one of the top priorities of U.S. presidents to avoid nuclear conflict at all costs? But Bush keeps inching closer to the big red button, as he does when his administration issues a new military strategy emphasizing its willingness to strike first against enemies and an enthusiasm toward nuclear retaliation that any American -- or citizen of any other country -- should find frightening.[/size][size=-1]12-10-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush makes it easier for companies to screw older workers.[/size][size=-1]"Cash-balance" pension plans are cheaper for companies. But these savings come at a price, and that price is paid by workers -- in this case, older workers. This type of pension plan is so disadvantageous for older workers that they're subject to age-discrimination suits. Well, they used to be, anyway. Bush's Treasury Department issues new rules that chart a path for companies to implement cash-balance pension plans while avoiding the age-discrimination suits they engender. Big corporations save a few bucks, and older workers pay the price. That's Bush administration policy in a nutshell.[/size][size=-1]12-4-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush kills rule allowing new parents to collect unemployment.[/size][size=-1]Conservative Republicans are the ones voters can depend on when it comes to helping mothers stay home from work and take care of children, right? Not if it gets in the way of making money. The Clinton administration created a rule that would allow new parents to collect unemployment benefits after their children were born, giving the parents a chance to stay home from work without worrying about losing an income. But President Bush kills the rule before any states put it into effect because business groups opposed it, proving once and for all that conservative Republicans will never let their social agenda get in the way of helping business at the expense of families.[/size][size=-1]12-4-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush restores cash bonuses to political appointees.[/size][size=-1]Just days after President Bush says the war on terror means the government can't afford tax cuts for the rich -- no wait, that's not right. Just days after President Bush says the war on terror means the government can't afford a full pay raise for government workers (see 11-30-2002 below), the New York Times reveals that the administration had secretly restored a policy of awarding cash bonuses to political appointees. The policy had been discontinued under the Clinton administration for the obvious reason that the bonuses could be given just as much for political loyalty and corruption as for genuine merit. Wait, which is the ethically challenged administration again?[/size][size=-1]11-30-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush cuts pay raises of federal workers and blames it on the terror war.[/size][size=-1]Let's get this straight. There's enough money in the federal budget to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But the war on terror is so expensive that the federal government has to cut raises for its employees to pay for it? The very people who are on the front lines of protecting us from terrorism are expected to pay for the war on terrorism now? Bush cuts a pay raise passed by Congress from 4.1 percent to 3.1 percent, enough to save the government a billion dollars. Bush says the full raise "would interfere with our nation's ability to pursue the war on terrorism." That'll show Osama bin Laden![/size][size=-1]11-28-2002 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush makes it easier for timber companies to plunder national forests.[/size][size=-1]The last two decades have seen a marked improvement in the way we treat our national forests, as we realized the danger human activity represented to the ecosystems within. But President Bush continues to roll back this record, changing rules to make it easier for timber companies to get at the trees within while making it more difficult for employees of the U.S. Forest Service to object, reducing public comment periods and moving wildlife protection down the priority ladder.[/size][size=-1]11-27-2002 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush names Henry Kissinger to lead probe into the causes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[/size][size=-1]You've got to give it to President Bush: if nothing else, he's got a wicked sense of irony. Henry Kissinger has done as much as anyone in the 20th century to encourage secretive, covert, unaccountable, and just plain nasty behavior by the U.S. government. Kissinger has interfered with the peacemaking process -- and lied about it. He's bombed innocents -- and lied about it. He's overthrown governments -- and lied about it. He's wanted by courts all over the world for war crimes, and for good reason. He may very well be the least trustworthy person ever to hold office in the federal government, even beating out his old boss, Richard Nixon. If you want someone to subvert the work of a fact-finding commission, you absolutely, positively, could not pick a better man.[/size][size=-1]11-26-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush removes medical information from HHS website in order to promote abstinence.[/size][size=-1]The gifts to the far right, holier-than-thou extremists of the Republican party continue. In the last year, the Bush administration has removed information on using condoms to prevent AIDS, abortion not causing breast cancer, and running effective programs to reduce teenage sexual activity from websites belonging to the Department of Health and Human Services. These efforts -- supposedly done to "update" the information -- are clear efforts to push an ineffective, religion-based moral philosophy in place of sound science proven to reduce sexual activity and protect health. As long as Bush is in office, the ridiculously short sight of conservative social policy might be the number one danger to American teenagers.[/size][size=-1]11-26-2002 Reuters [/size] [size=-1]Bush asks court to seal records on vaccines and autism.[/size][size=-1]The connection between childhood vaccinations and autism is not yet clear. But the possibility is strong enough that there are several lawsuits in the works, where parents are suing the manufacturers of vaccines. After making sure the drug companies had protection from these suits built into the homeland security bill (see 11-19-2002 below), President Bush undermines those lawsuits again by fighting to make sure that important information connecting vaccinations to autism never sees the light of day. Again and again, we see that Bush considers an uninformed public to be his greatest asset.[/size][size=-1]11-25-2002 Environment News Service [/size] [size=-1]Bush backs out of another treaty on the environment.[/size][size=-1]Reporting pollutants and their sources are one area where the United States outstrips Europe and other regions of the world in environmental responsibility. Thus environmentalists hoped we would take the lead in setting the terms of the Aarhus Convention, which would set international reporting standards. When the Europeans pushed for weaker standards, the U.S. delegation didn't fight for stronger language. Instead, it just took its ball and went home. Could it be the Bush administration doesn't actually want stronger language? Nah...[/size][size=-1]11-25-2002 Daily Mirror [/size] [size=-1]Bush undermines U.N. weapons inspectors as they begin their work in Iraq.[/size][size=-1]It was a significant victory for the few cautious members of the Bush administration, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, when President Bush reversed course and decided to seek a U.N. resolution calling for weapons inspections in Iraq instead of pursuing an immediate and meaningless war. But administration superhawk Richard Perle made it clear yesterday that this strategy was nothing more than misdirection, telling stunned members of the British Parliament that the United States would attack Iraq no matter what the outcome of the inspections. That's right. To Bush and his cronies, the weapons inspections are nothing more than a charade to drum up international support for an inevitable war.[/size][size=-1]11-22-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush leaves unemployed workers with no benefits.[/size][size=-1]For decades, it has been a simple matter: in times of recession, Congress passed extensions to unemployment benefits without question. It was a given. With a difficult job market, Congress saw it as a duty to make sure those hit by layoffs could still feed their families. No more. Democrats have been pushing for such an extension and passed one in the Senate, but the Republicans have refused to pass one in the House of Representatives. With just one word to GOP leaders, Bush could have made an unemployment benefits extension into law. But with his silence, Bush ensures that more than 800,000 Americans will lose their benefits on December 28, with 95,000 losing benefits each week after that. Merry Christmas.[/size][size=-1]11-22-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush finally implements weakening of Clean Air Act.[/size][size=-1]After taking slow but steady steps toward an inevitable conclusion (see 6-14-2002, 4-25-2002, 12-20-2001, and 8-8-2001 below), President Bush finally implements rules that will weaken the Clean Air Act. He allows coal-fired power plants to make significant upgrades and expansions to their operations without any new pollution-control technology, ensuring that the increased production of these plants is accompanied by increased pollution.[/size][size=-1]11-19-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush pushes special interest provisions in homeland security bill.[/size][size=-1]It's an old story: members of Congress insert special provisions into bills that have nothing to do with the intent of the bill itself. It's a great way to sneak gifts to campaign donors and special interests by the American public. But when Democrats in the Senate try to strip out some of these provisions in the homeland security bill -- including one that lets tax cheats do business with the new Homeland Security Department and one forbidding people from suing pharmaceutical companies when they're injured by vaccines -- President Bush calls wavering Republicans and demands that they vote to support those provisions. Three Senators who are wavering, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, eventually vote the way their president asks them to, ensuring that those provisions stay in the bill.[/size][size=-1]11-12-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush creates military database of information on every American.[/size][size=-1]It's finally clear what Bush meant during the presidential debates when he said he trusted the people rather than the government. It meant he wanted to hire someone who was convicted of lying to Congress about selling weapons to Iran to set up an enormous database in the Pentagon that would track every bit of data available about every American: financial, travel, medical, and much more. Thank goodness we have a president with such a healthy distrust of big, intrusive government![/size][size=-1]11-12-2002 Mother Jones [/size] [size=-1]Bush gives the military access to students' private records.[/size][size=-1]The military certainly should have the right to recruit in high schools, just as colleges do. But should the military have unrestricted access to the private records of students, access that no one else has? President Bush obviously thinks so, since he ensured that his "No Child Left Behind Act" gave the Pentagon full access to the school records of every public high school student in America.[/size][size=-1]11-12-2002 Chicago Tribune [/size] [size=-1]Bush reverses snowmobile ban in Yellowstone Park.[/size][size=-1]After much public hand-wringing on the issue (see 6-24-2001 below), President Bush finally makes the decision everyone knew was inevitable. Rather than implementing the ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park put in place by the Clinton administration, Bush decides to increase the number of snowmobiles in the park, and pretends that he's come up with a compromise.[/size][size=-1]11-2-2002 San Jose Mercury News [/size] [size=-1]Bush backs off population treaty.[/size][size=-1]Imagine being so enslaved to an ideology that avoiding the slightest offense to your beliefs is more important to you than the health of poor women all over the world. If you can imagine what that's like, then you have an insight into the mind of President Bush, who has removed U.S. support for an international agreement to curb population growth, because the agreement's support for reproductive services for women implies that some of them might get abortions. Because the phrase "reproductive services" reminds Bush of "abortion," poor women worldwide won't have access to the kinds of services that actually prevent abortions, like adequate health care and birth control.[/size][size=-1]10-19-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush breaks his promise on SEC enforcement funding.[/size][size=-1]Remember Corporate Reform Action Bush with CEO-Crushing Grip? Well, you'll have to go on to eBay if you want to find one, because apparently that model has been discontinued. With corrupt companies out of the headlines, President Bush's newfound dedication to cleaning up boardrooms proves to be -- surprise, surprise -- short-lived. Part of Bush's tough package (actually passed by Democrats and reluctantly signed by him) was to increase funding for the enforcement division of the Securities and Exchange Commission, well-known to be understaffed. But less than three months after making the promise, Bush breaks it, urging Congress to give the agency 27 percent less money than authorized by the law Bush signed.[/size][size=-1]10-17-2002 New York Daily News [/size] [size=-1]Bush opposes gun fingerprinting.[/size][size=-1]While there is certainly a legitimate debate over the public's right to own firearms, one thing shouldn't be a matter of debate: owning and using a gun shouldn't entitle anyone to more privacy than owning or using a car. If you use a gun against another human being, no matter how legitimate a use, you have absolutely no right to privacy about the matter. That's why opposition to gun "fingerprinting," which would make it easy for law enforcement to identify what gun shoots what bullets, is limited to the worst gun extremists. But those extremists have the president's ear, and he quickly falls in line behind them.[/size][size=-1]10-10-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush tries to keep California from keeping its air clean.[/size][size=-1]Proving yet again that his devotion to states' rights is nothing compared to his adoration of corporate campaign donors, President Bush joins with auto makers to oppose a California law requiring that 10 percent of all vehicles be zero-emissions. With a chief of staff who used to be the head spokesperson for the auto industry and a bunch of campaign contributions from the same folks, it's hardly surprising to see Bush going to bat against California, against the environment, and for the profits of the car manufacturers.[/size][size=-1]9-27-2002 Washington Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush lies about the threat of nuclear weapons in Iraq.[/size][size=-1]Iraq was just six months away from creating nuclear weapons in 1998, according to a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Wait, no. It was a report from the IAEA in 1991. No, that's not right, either. The White House has resorted to simply making up facts in order to justify an imminent attack on Iraq. The Bush administration claimed a 1998 IAEA report said that Iraq was just six months away from developing nuclear weapons. When the IAEA said the report didn't exist, the White House said (is this the first time ever?) that it had made a mistake: it was a 1991 report. But the IAEA said that didn't exist, either. In fact, in 1998 the IAEA said, "There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." The White House is now telling lies so it can wage a war so it can win an election. Honor and dignity, indeed.[/size][size=-1]9-22-2002 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush proposes a reduction in Medicare payments.[/size][size=-1]The costs of the Bush tax cut for the rich keep pouring in. Once again, the Bush administration is shifting the burdens to society's neediest people, the ill, the old, and the uninsured. By cutting Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, Bush will force medical providers to raise rates on the uninsured, making adequate medical care even harder to get. But hey, the really big parts of the Bush tax cuts (the parts that don't affect you) are just around the corner, and we have to pay for them somehow.[/size][size=-1]9-21-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush changes U.S. foreign policy strategy from deterrence to preemptive strikes and military dominance.[/size][size=-1]It used to be our enormous military was justified as a defensive measure. As long as we were unrivaled in military power, no one would be so foolish to attack us. No more. President Bush is using the attacks of September 11--carried out by criminal terrorists rather than another country's military--to justify a complete overhaul of our foreign policy. No longer does the United States wait for an act of aggression before taking military action. Now we can send our troops in where we feel like it, when we feel like it.[/size][size=-1]9-17-2002 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush eliminates scientific advisory boards whose conclusions don't match his ideology.[/size][size=-1]One of President Bush's favorite catchphrases is "sound science." He claims to use sound science when considering everything from stem-cell research to environmental policy. In reality, science is one of his biggest hurdles. The problem with science is that the truth tends to get in the way of conservative ideology. Stem cells might actually prove extremely useful. The planet really is getting warmer. But those are just the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg. So Bush is cleaning house at the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating or restaffing several advisory boards that have come to conclusions at odds with his ideology. One committee found that certain chemicals may be harmful to your health, so Bush is replacing the staff with scientists friendlier to the chemical industry--including one who defended Pacific Gas & Electric against Erin Brockovich.[/size] [size=-1]Evil[/size] [size=-1]Very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very, very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very, very, very evil[/size]
