Progress Report: Did Ashcroft Break the Law?

[Guest guest]

> Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:29:46 -0700

> Progress Report: Did Ashcroft Break the

> Law?

> " American Progress Action Fund "

> <progress

>

 

 

 

#160;#160;DON'T MISS

DAILY TALKING POINTS: Conservative Propaganda on

Health Care.

 

NATIONAL SECURITY: Putin's Strong Hand Is Failing

Russia (and his Allies in the West)

 

HEALTH CARE: Federal data shows rising premiums from

the Bush administration's Medicare bill will eat into

seniors' Social Security checks.

 

ECONOMY: The LA Times on Bush's " fiscal funhouse. "

 

ASSAULT WEAPONS: E.J. Dionne Jr. on the " rancid

politics of gun control. "

 

 

DAILY GRILL

" The Bush administration said [reimportation

legislation] could lead to the importation of unsafe

or counterfeit drugs. " It called the bill " dangerous

legislation. "

 

- San Francisco Chronicle, 7/26/03

 

VERSUS

 

" I never, not once, heard the drug industry,

regulatory agencies, the government or anyone express

any concern related to safety. And I think it is

outright derogatory to claim that Americans would not

be able to handle reimportation of drugs when the rest

of the world can do this. "

 

- Top Pfizer executive Peter Rost, 9/12/04

 

 

DAILY OUTRAGE

Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes, getting

pummeled in the polls by Barack Obama, reportedly told

top GOP donors in Illinois he plans to make

" inflammatory " comments " every day, every week " until

the election, in order to close the gap. Keyes got

things started by reportedly referring to Obama as a

" terrorist " for voting against anti-abortion

legislation.

 

 

ARCHIVES

Progress Report

 

 

STUDENTS

Get a free DVD of Outfoxed. Sign up here to host a

screening on your campus.

 

Combat the right-wing noise machine on your campus.

Become a member of our network of campus publications

and student journalists.

 

by David Sirota, Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin

SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

CIVIL LIBERTIES Did Ashcroft Break the Law?

AFGHANISTAN Twenty-Six Days and Counting

HEALTH CARE Frist's Folly

HEALTH CARE Conflict of Interest 101

UNDER THE RADAR Go Beyond The Headlines

 

Sign up | Send tip | Permalinks | Mobile | Print

 

CIVIL LIBERTIES

Did Ashcroft Break the Law?

 

A new Government Accountability Office report found

that Attorney General John Ashcroft spent more than

$200,000 of taxpayer money on trips to 32 cities in

August and September of 2003 to specifically whip up

public support for the Patriot Act. In the process,

Ashcroft may have#160;broken the law. A 2002 federal

law explicitly prohibits federal funds from being used

by any executive branch agency #8211; including the

Justice Department #8211; to lobby the public for

support or defeat of legislation pending before the

Congress. Ashcroft's trips came immediately

after#160;the House of Representatives passed a

bipartisan amendment, sponsored by Rep. Butch Otter

(R-ID), which would have limited the Patriot Act

#8211; something Ashcroft opposed and was using public

money to campaign against. Ashcroft even traveled to

Otter's home district to publicly lobby Otter's

constituents against reforming the Patriot Act. Again,

this behavior by a Cabinet secretary is prohibited by

federal law. After two months of Ashcroft's

taxpayer-financed trips, Congress reconvened from its

summer recess and stripped out the provision from the

final bill behind closed doors in a conference

committee.

 

AFGHANISTAN

Twenty-Six Days and Counting

 

With only twenty-six days left before scheduled

democratic elections in Afghanistan, the country

erupted in bloodshed this week. Angry mobs loyal to

warlord Ismail Khan, recently ousted from power by

President Hamid Karzai, " burned half a dozen

international aid compounds, looted their contents,

and stoned national army troops sent to keep order. "

The United Nations evacuated 38 foreign employees from

Herat after the mob turned " international aid

facilities into smoldering, looted ruins. " Factional

fighting among warlords remains a serious security

issue. The Taliban and al Qaeda forces have also been

carrying out attacks in the country in an attempt to

disrupt elections on Oct. 9. Despite his pledge to

assure democracy, however, President Bush pulled time,

money and attention from securing Afghanistan to focus

on the war in Iraq.

 

WHERE IS OSAMA?: Three years after the 9/11 bombings,

the trail leading to Osama bin Laden has grown cold.

On CNN's Late Edition this weekend, Condoleezza Rice

said, " I think that it's a mistake to try and figure

out how close [to capturing Osama] we are or not. "

Here's a reason to care how close we are: recent

reports indicate " al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and

his No. 2 are still directing attacks in Afghanistan. "

One senior official said of recent attacks, " What we

see are their techniques and their tactics here in

Afghanistan, so I think it is reasonable to assume

that the senior leaders are involved in directing

those operations. "

 

SHORTCHANGED: The recent report by the 9/11 Commission

acknowledged Afghanistan was " the incubator for al

Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. " It also stated that,

since 9/11, " Taliban and al Qaeda fighters have

regrouped#8230;Warlords control much of the country

beyond Kabul#8230;Economic development remains a

distant hope#8230;The narcotics trade is again

booming. " However, Washington is planning to spend

$1.6 billion in Afghanistan this entire year, compared

to $8 billion going to Iraq each month. There are over

140,000 troops in Iraq, compared to fewer than 20,000

in Afghanistan. James Dobbins, President Bush's

special envoy to Afghanistan in 2001, notes,

" Afghanistan remains the least-resourced

nation-building exercise in the last 60 years. " The

numbers back him up: The Rand Corp. estimates foreign

aid to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003 averaged $52 a

person. Compare that to $814 for Kosovo and $1,390 for

Bosnia in the two years after the war there.

 

BY THE NUMBERS: Last week, President Bush attempted to

showcase a victory in Afghanistan, claiming, " In

Afghanistan, terrorists have done everything they can

to intimidate people, yet more than 10 million

citizens have registered to vote in the October

presidential election, a resounding endorsement of

democracy. " He may want to check his numbers. There

are only 9.8 million eligible voters. Election

officials in the country have acknowledged " the number

of voting cards issued far exceeded the estimated

number of eligible voters " and that voter fraud is

rampant. According to reports, " in a country where the

average income is $2 a day, some Afghans who heard

that political parties and presidential candidates

would pay up to $150 for voting cards gladly lined up

at registration centers several times to get multiple

voting cards. "

 

ELECTION STRATEGY: Critics fear the White House is

trying to fast-track polls in Afghanistan without

providing needed security, pushing the unprepared

country into elections to further its own political

agenda. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed

his worry to the U.N. Security Council last month,

saying the security situation in Afghanistan had

" seriously deteriorated " in parts of the nation, and

increased security was crucial before legitimate

elections could be held. The country faces violence

from both the warlord armies and a reconstituted

Taliban insurgency. Intimidation tactics and surges in

violence already have caused Afghanistan to miss June

and September deadlines; today, there are still

serious, unmet security concerns. For example, the

government " said it aims to disarm, demobilize and

reintegrate 27,000 more factional fighters by Oct. 8,

but with only 14,000 disarmed since the process began

last year, independent observers consider this a

highly optimistic target. "

 

HEALTH CARE

Frist's Folly

 

In March, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)

promised that " the Senate will begin a process for

developing proposals that would allow for the safe

reimportation of approved prescription drugs. " Five

months later, Frist still won't even allow a vote on

the issue even though it could save some Americans up

to 50 percent on prescription drugs. According to

Frist's spokesman, he continues to oppose

reimportation because he " doesn't feel they [safety

concerns] have been met. " Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of

the New England Journal of Medicine, said in August

that " there is no reason that buying drugs in Canada

is any less safe than buying them in the United

States. " It's no longer the case " that drugs that are

sold in the United States are made by only American

companies. And made in this country. " Pfizer, for

example, makes its anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor in

Ireland and " it's the same Lipitor that's sold in both

U.S. and Canadian pharmacies. "

 

DORGAN BILL HAS SAFETY PROTECTIONS: A bill (S. 2328)

introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) would allow for

the importation of FDA prescription drugs from 19

developed countries, including Canada. The Dorgan bill

includes numerous safety precautions, including FDA

inspections of foreign sites, anti-counterfeiting

measures and strict labeling requirements. A

bipartisan coalition of governors #8211; Rod

Blagojevich (D-IL), Craig Benson (R-NH) and Jim Doyle

(D-WI) #8211; sent a letter to Frist on Friday

" calling on him to allow a vote " on the Dorgan bill.

Write your senator and Bill Frist and demand a vote on

drug reimportation before Congress goes on recess.

 

PFIZER EXEC SPEAKS CANDIDLY: An executive for Pfizer

Inc., Peter Rost, said that the pharmaceutical

industry should stop fighting efforts to block the

reimportation of cheaper prescription drugs from

Canada and " speak out for the people who can't afford

drugs, in favor of free trade and against a closed

market. " Rost, who also has worked for several drug

companies in Europe, where drug reimportation is

commonplace, said " during my time responsible for a

region in Northern Europe, I never, not once, heard

the drug industry, regulatory agencies, the government

or anyone express any concern related to safety. " Ross

added that " it is outright derogatory to claim that

Americans would not be able to handle the

reimportation of drugs when the rest of the world can

do this. " An official Pfizer spokesman disavowed

Rost's remarks, claiming reimportation " puts the

health of patients at risk. "

 

HEALTH CARE

Conflict of Interest 101

 

On the campaign trail yesterday, President Bush and

Vice President Cheney seized on what they called an

" independent study " that found Kerry's health care

plan would cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years #8211;

about three times the cost of previous estimates. The

study was conducted by the American Enterprise

Institute, a conservative organization that employs

Cheney's wife, Lynne, and Cheney's daughter, Liz.

White House aides " were crowing about the study in

conversations with reporters before it appeared on the

conservative group's Web site. "

 

BUSH GROSSLY DISTORTS KERRY PLAN: Bush described John

Kerry's health plan as " a government takeover of

healthcare. " It is unclear exactly what Bush is

talking about. Kerry proposes: making it easier for

employers to offer health insurance and reducing

premiums by setting up a pool for catastrophic costs,

providing incentives for administrative efficiency and

expanding existing government programs to cover

children and the poor.

 

Under the Radar

 

DEFICIT #8211; HIDING THE PRICE TAG: In his convention

speech earlier this month, President Bush claimed Sen.

John Kerry has " proposed more than $2 trillion in

federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a

senator from Massachusetts. " What Bush did not say was

that he himself was proposing an agenda with an even

bigger price tag. As the Washington Post reports, the

administration's own cost estimates show the expense

of Bush's second term proposals is " likely to be well

in excess of $3 trillion over a decade. " Specifically,

Bush's proposal to make his tax cuts permanent " would

reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion " while

his Social Security privatization plan " could cost the

government $2 trillion. " The president has had little

to say about the deficit as he barnstorms across the

country, prompting critics #8211; including

conservative groups #8211; " to say Bush refuses to

admit there will not be enough money in government

coffers to pay for many of his plans. " The silence is

an interesting contrast to all the flip-flopping

declarations about the deficit the administration has

previously issued.

 

TAXES #8211; BUSH PROPOSALS COULD EQUAL 'WINDFALL' FOR

RICH: President Bush has vowed to make tax reform a

centerpiece of his second term agenda, but an internal

Treasury Department study from late 2002, posted last

week on the Washington Post Web site by author Ron

Suskind, " warned that any fundamental simplification

of the nation's tax system would 'produce windfall

winners and losers,' would likely lower taxes for the

rich, and could have devastating political

consequences for its champions. " Treasury economists

identified especially serious drawbacks to reform

proposals including a " 'flat consumption' tax that

shifts the tax burden from savings and investment to

wages and spending. " Bush has described replacing the

income tax with a federal sales tax as " an interesting

idea that we ought to explore seriously. "

 

POLITICS #8211; HOUSE GOP FLEES FROM BUSH: Roll Call

reports House Republicans are scampering away from the

far-right agenda laid out by President Bush and Vice

President Cheney at the Republican National

Convention. Under the headline " Bush Convention Agenda

Not Gospel, " the newspaper notes that Rep. Tom

Reynolds (R-NY), the chairman of the House GOP's

campaign committee, indicated that the few moderate

speakers at the convention " might be more suitable

role models for candidates " in certain districts. As

one example of a House Republican fleeing from the

president, Roll Call cites Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT),

who said, " My job is to tell voters in my district how

I'm different " from Bush. Simmons specifically

questioned the White House's desire to " play around "

with Social Security privatization.

 

ENVIRO #8211; EPA BLAMES POLLUTION ON POVERTY: A New

York Times report on the Bush administration's

environmental record shows the White House has

consistently put the interests of corporate polluters

ahead of the environment. Defending decisions to push

for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge, oppose caps on carbon dioxide emissions, and

briefly abandon a Clinton proposal to cut the

permissible level of arsenic in drinking water by 80

percent, EPA administrator Michael Leavitt said the

Bush administration was first and foremost concerned

with corporate polluters' bottom line. Leavitt said,

" There is nothing that promotes pollution like

poverty. " Leavitt's concern for the welfare of

corporate polluters is touching, especially given

recent Census Bureau data showing 39.5 million

Americans now live in poverty, with 2003 marking the

third straight year since Bush took office that that

number has increased. No comment from Leavitt on which

barriers and regulations the Bush administration will

be lifting to help those Americans escape poverty.

 

HOMELAND SECURITY #8211; NO PRACTICE SHOTS: The

Washington Post reports that " critical new elements "

of the Bush administration's high priority

anti-missile system will not be tested again before

being activated this autumn. The last chance for

testing " appeared to vanish yesterday with the

disclosure that the next flight test has been

postponed until late this year, well past the November

election. " Against a backdrop of doubt surrounding the

system's likely effectiveness, the Pentagon announced

the system will nevertheless begin operating in the

next month or two. " But the delay leaves the Pentagon

pressing ahead with a system that will not have been

flight-tested in nearly two years #8211; and never

with the actual interceptor that will be deployed. " A

congressional audit of the system in August concluded

its capabilities were " 'largely unproven' because of a

lack of realistic testing. " The Pentagon's chief

weapon's evaluator has calculated that the costly

system " may be capable of hitting its targets only

about 20 percent of the time. "