Sen. Carl Levin is The Real Deal

The Republican Party is staking its future on people like Sarah Palin for commonsense solutions to our nation's problems. Meanwhile, Democrats don't have to look any further than Sen. Carl Levin. This is his commonsense approach to paying for the war in Afghanistan.

Higher-income Americans should be taxed to pay for more troops sent to Afghanistan and NATO should provide half of the new soldiers, said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000” a year, could fund more troops...

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.

That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.

"Incredibly well" is an understatement. The Bush tax cuts cost almost $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted and 52.5 percent of the benefits are going to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. And, of course, we can't forget the war profiteers cronies who made a killing off Iraq, i.e., Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, etc.

Had the Bush administration showed some commonsense and opposed tax cuts to pay for increased defense spending, he wouldn't have squandered Clinton's surplus and left office with a record budget deficit of more than $1 trillion.

Traditionally during wartime, taxes have been raised to pay the costs of war, but Bush and the GOP had some grandiose idea that Iraq's oil would pay for the war. So, they drummed up a lie to get things started and proceeded to cut taxes for their rich cronies, leaving our country in economic shambles.

So kudos to Sen. Levin and his commonsense approach to paying for the Afghanistan War. Besides, if rich Republicans have to dig into their trust funds to pay for war, it's a pretty sure bet they won't be so quick to support it.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Afghanistan now deadlier than Iraq ever was

h/t Brandon Friedman at VetVoice

When the Iraq War reached its deadliest peak during a 10-week period in April, May, and June of 2007, 308 coalition troops died. That was 1 out of every 575 troops on the ground at the time.* It was a terrible period in which even the most die-hard Bush supporters began to question the sense in continuing the occupation. By contrast, 105 coalition troops have died in Afghanistan during the past 10 weeks. But because there are only 52,700 troops in Afghanistan, this represents 1 out of every 502 troops on the ground.

Memo to Pentagon: What more evidence do you need that Afghanistan is looking like an emergency?

* = The surge reached its peak in early summer 2007 and there were at least 177,000 coalition troops present.

Army Career Counselors Harass Parents

I know our military is stretched thin and recruiters are under a lot of pressure to sign people up, but what happened to Brandon Friedman's mother (Friedman is the Editor of VetVoice and a Captain in the Individual Ready Reserve) is unacceptable and way out of the bounds of common decency in my opinion. In Friedman's words (my emphasis):

My mom called me on Friday afternoon. She was slightly upset, but mostly angry. I asked her why.

She said that two soldiers had come to the house looking for me.

Now, this doesn't surprise me at all. It's not the first time that's happened. In fact, they'd shown up at my parents' house twice before. The Army is so desperate for warm bodies that recruiters and career counselors will pretty much go anywhere if they think they can get somebody to sign up. And I'm still in the IRR, so that makes me a prime target--even though I've already served two tours in combat. But that's not the issue here.

The issue is how these two guys acted. My mom--who rarely gets flustered--explained that the two NCOs who'd come to the house were Army Reserve Career Counselors from the 90th Regional Readiness Command. They had shown up at my parents' house in an attempt to lure me back into a unit. But they didn't just ask.

Instead, according to my mom, they proceed to play good cop/bad cop with her. Sergeant First Class M. played the good cop. He explained that they were just there to let me know what options were available to me, should I want re-join a unit. He handed her his card.

The task of playing bad cop, however, fell to Master Sergeant N. Hovering over her in the driveway, Sergeant N. leaned in and told my mother--at her house, in the absence of both me and my father--that he could "make it easy" on me, and that he could give me "alternatives" if she would put them in contact with me. The implication was clear to my mother: If she wasn't willing to put them in contact with me, it would not be "easy" for me. He wasn't saying it specifically, but, as we all know, he was suggesting that if I wasn't willing to come off the IRR and join a unit, then I'd likely be recalled to Active Duty involuntarily and deployed for a third time.

To a mother who doesn't understand how the Army works, it was easy for him to make her think that he had some sort of say in the process. This is a common technique.

Irritated by his vague threats and intimidation, my mom told them she didn't have any contact information for me. Then she expressed to them that they could leave her home. She called me a while later.

Now, I can tell you, my mom doesn't need the added stress of having soldiers appear at her door. She doesn't need these guys telling her that her twice-deployed son could be sent back to Iraq if she doesn't give out his personal information. And she certainly doesn't need it done in the moderately threatening tone she described.

The tactic is clear according to Friedman: "Use the threat of an involuntary mobilization to coerce a soldier into joining a unit."

As you might have guessed, Friedman didn't let the incident pass. He called the Sergeants and ended up giving them a piece of his mind, and he also read them e-mail messages from other soldiers who were victims of these tactics. This was not an isolated incident. You can read those e-mail messages online too.

The bottom line is that the Army needs to address these tactics. As a mother, I think the Army needs to make it clear that parents are off limits. Harassing and intimidating a soldier's parents is not only morally wrong, it's unprofessional and unethical. Our country deserves better.

Friedman has a few suggestions of his own too:

Get rid of policymakers who use the military so carelessly that the mission cannot be accomplished without sending the same soldiers back into combat over and over and over.

Get rid of policymakers who allow the Individual Ready Reserve and the National Guard to be used in non-emergency situations and in elective wars.

If a war is necessary, and none of the above actions work, then initiate a draft.

If it wasn't for those "policymakers" above, this problem wouldn't have existed in the first place.

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

No money for bridges, lots for war

Money woes may have led to the collapse of that bridge in Minnesota last year, the one that killed 13 people, according to a report conducted for the state Legislature by a private law firm.

But the key finding was on the money issue.

"Financial considerations, we believe, did play a part in the decision-making" on bridge maintenance, Robert Stein, one of the attorneys, told lawmakers during a briefing. "Sometimes it's easier just to take the least expensive alternative or just commission another study."

Tom Johnson, another attorney who worked on the report, told legislators the maintenance work wasn't sufficient. The bridge was rated in "serious to poor" condition for 17 consecutive years by the National Bridge Inventory Standards.

"The question for the Legislature is, do you want to have a bridge that remains in a poor condition over 17 years?" Johnson told lawmakers.

There were other issues too, but the lack of money necessary for proper maintenance was the main issue. The question just begs to be asked...

When are we going to start taking care of our needs here at home?

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

Labor Calls for Strike Against the War

(h/t AlterNet)

Take note, John McCain: Labor is calling for a general strike against the war. Specifically, the Vermont AFL-CIO is throwing their support behind the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), who announced it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1st to demand an immediate end to the war and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East.

Here's the VT AFL-CIO press release [my emphasis]:

The Executive Board of the Vermont AFL-CIO, representing thousands of workers in countless sectors across Vermont, have unanimously passed an historic resolution expressing their "unequivocal" support for the first US labor strike against the war in Iraq.

Montpelier, VT - The Executive Board of the Vermont AFL-CIO, representing thousands of workers in countless sectors across Vermont, have unanimously passed an historic resolution expressing their "unequivocal" support for the first US labor strike against the war in Iraq. The strike, being organized by the Longshore Caucus of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU), will seek to shutdown all west coast ports for a period of 8 hours on the day of May 1st 2008. The Vermont AFL-CIO is the first state labor federation to publicly back the Longshoremen; other state federations are expected to follow.

The resolution, among other things, calls the war in Iraq "immoral, unwanted, and unnecessary", states that the vast majority of working Vermonters oppose the war, and contends that the war will only be brought to an end by "the direct actions of working people." Many other Vermont labor unions and organizations, including the Vermont Workers' Center, have also made official statements condemning the war.

The resolution also calls on working Vermonters to "discuss the actions of the Longshoremen, to wear anti-war buttons, and to take various actions of their own design and choosing in their workplace on May 1st, 2008."

"Workers in Vermont and all across this nation are against this war. We have already demanded that the government end it, but they have consistently failed to heed our words. Therefore working people are beginning to take concrete steps to make our resistance known. If the war does not immediately end we, the unions and working people of Vermont, will also be compelled to take appropriate action," said David Van Deusen, a District Vice President of the Vermont AFL-CIO.

Traven Leyshon, President of the Washington, Lamoille & Orange County Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, said, "Vermont labor has long called for an end to this war. The untold billions being spent on the war could instead be used to address our domestic needs. It is working people who pay the cost of the war - in some cases with our lives, but always with our sacrifices."

Labor looks out for us. The same can't be said for John McCain and friends.

You can read the full text of the resolution here.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

The peace symbol is 50 years old

While reading about the anniversary of Martin Luther King's death last week, I came across something I had never heard before: The peace symbol was brought to our country by one of King's associates. It became a prominent feature during civil rights marches before migrating to protests against the Vietnam War.

I also learned that the peace symbol turned 50 years old in February. Amazing! That simple symbol of peace has been around for half a century, but it wasn't always an anti-war symbol. It was designed by Gerald Holtom for the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War (CND) and was originally used by the British nuclear disarmament movement.

[Holtom]...was one of many intellectuals in Britain during the 1950s who were deeply agitated first by having witnessed the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but then watching their own government, despite being in a time of postwar material hardship, race to join the nuclear club. [...]

At its basic level, the design combined two letters from the semaphore alphabet of flag-signalling, N (flags at eight and four o’clock) and D (flags at six and 12 o’clock), to indicate nuclear disarmament. A circle signified the earth.

But to Holtom, who had been a conscientious objector in the Second World War, there was more to it. “I was in despair,” he later wrote, “deep despair. I drew myself: the representative of an individual in despair, with hands palm outstretched outwards and downwards in the manner of Goya’s peasant before the firing squad.”

The newborn symbol premiered in the world’s first anti-nuclear march on Good Friday of that year, shortly after Britain’s first H-bomb tests in the South Pacific. Some 10,000 gathered first in Trafalgar Square, then over four days marched 80 kilometers to a place called Aldermaston where the nuclear program was — and still is — headquartered.

No longer focused solely on nuclear disarmament, since 2001 the CND started organizing resistance campaigns against U.S. and British policies in the Middle East.

It's sad to think that 50 years later men are still waging wars and peace is still as elusive as ever.

(Image by Flickr user NoHoDamon and used under a Creative Commons license.)

A Question for Sen. McCain

Vote Vets puts our spending in Iraq into proper perspective.



(h/t to Vote No on Joe)

A lot of money for death and destruction

How much have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost American taxpayers? Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz coauthored an article in the London Times yesterday that crunched some numbers.

As the fifth year of the war draws to a close, operating costs (spending on the war itself, what you might call “running expenses”) for 2008 are projected to exceed $12.5 billion a month for Iraq alone, up from $4.4 billion in 2003, and with Afghanistan the total is $16 billion a month. Sixteen billion dollars is equal to the annual budget of the United Nations, or of all but 13 of the US states. Even so, it does not include the $500 billion we already spend per year on the regular expenses of the Defence Department. Nor does it include other hidden expenditures, such as intelligence gathering, or funds mixed in with the budgets of other departments. [...]

From the unhealthy brew of emergency funding, multiple sets of books, and chronic underestimates of the resources required to prosecute the war, we have attempted to identify how much we have been spending - and how much we will, in the end, likely have to spend. The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. [emphasis added]

Three trillion dollars for death and destruction, and a majority of it was spent on the Bush administration's lies about Iraq. How different our country and the world would be today if leaders had followed Barack Obama's example and voted against the war. Instead of reading the intelligence for themselves, they took the President at his word. Their intellectual laziness cost thousands of people their lives and put future generations in debt for years to come. History will not only judge Bush harshly, but also our leaders who blindly followed him.

U.S. Military Spending in Context

Want to read some eye-popping figures on our military budget or the number of personnel we employ related to our defense? Check out Paul Waldman's column. He also describes just how far-flung our military power is:

According to the Defense Department's 2007 Base Structure Report, we maintain 823 military facilities in 39 foreign countries, and another 86 facilities in seven U.S. territories. According to the document, "DoD occupies a reported 343,867 buildings throughout the world, valued at over $464 billion and comprising almost 2.4 billion square feet." The DoD also owns 32.4 million acres of land (nearly all of it in the U.S.), or over 50,000 square miles, an area about the size of Louisiana (or half of Colorado; or Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maryland combined).

Our military doesn't come cheap. Ezra Klein took Waldman's numbers and put them into the chart you see here to give us a visual image of US military spending as compared to the handful of nations we're theoretically spending that money against (numbers are from 2005).

This is how Klein breaks the numbers down:

Our spending is 43 percent of the total. Not the total on that chart. The total of the world. The "hostile" nations on that chart barely equal out to a fraction of our spending.

Will a new occupant in the White House affect military spending? Not according to Waldman:

John McCain says that he wants "a larger and more capable military," no shock from a man who barely ever met a military operation he didn't support. The one who actually provides some specificity is Mitt Romney, who wants to increase military spending to four percent of Gross Domestic Product. According to the government's current projections, GDP in 2009 will be $15.3 trillion, which means Romney is proposing to boost military spending by about 20 percent, to $612 billion in his first year in office (not counting Iraq). [emphasis added]

...the Democrats don't have much to say -- although Barack Obama wants to add 65,000 Army soldiers and 27,000 Marines. A consistent hawk, Hillary Clinton evinces no particular desire to reduce the size of the military either.

No wonder we don't have money for infrastructure, health care, education, etc. We're spending as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. For what? So we can be safe here at home? Our spending doesn't reflect that says Waldman:

...the portion of our "defense" spending that goes to actual defense is miniscule. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines aren't patrolling our borders and training to defend our cities. What they prepare for, and what they're called to do, is to project our extraordinary military power outward.

We're the world's sole superpower, but we really aren't safe at home and our domestic needs aren't being met. What a mess our leaders have made of this country.

Update: In a report released today, here's more proof those defense dollars aren't protecting us on the homefront:

The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

Bush Mentors Maliki

It appears Maliki's model of government is a clone of the Bush administration. From TPM Muckraker [all emphasis mine]:

President Bush might not require Congressional approval for the upcoming U.S.-Iraq security agreement. But [Iraq gov't spokesman] al-Dabbagh said the Maliki government will need to secure a blessing for the deal from the Iraqi parliament. And even though the deal will cover a U.S. military presence for years to come, Dabbagh doesn't expect any parliamentary turbulence -- let alone refusal.

"[The] U.S. people should have confidence that the Iraqi people are accepting this without any pressure," he said. "It is their choice to have a lasting agreement."

Huh? It's their choice? Not according to recent polls (also from TPM):

A September poll conducted by ABC News and the BBC found that 47 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave Iraq immediately, up from 26 percent in November 2005 and 35 percent last winter. Polls in Iraq should be taken with a grain of salt, given the inherent problems of polling under violent conditions. But only seven percent said U.S. troops should "remain until the Iraqi security forces can operate independently, and zero said the U.S. should never leave."

What the people want apparently doesn't matter (that sounds familiar). Dabbagh doesn't expect the parliament to scotch the agreement. He even hinted that the Maliki government will make sure it doesn't.

Meanwhile, here at home, a majority of Americans still remain committed to bringing our troops home. Maybe Bush or Maliki could explain to us how "bring the troops home" translates into "never leave Iraq."

It's a bad time to be a Republican

Democrat candidates across the country have a smorgasbord of issues to pick from on the campaign trail. Iraq and health care are two of the biggest, but "it's the economy stupid" is quickly closing the gap. Here's the bad economic news for Republicans:

The Rasmussen Consumer Index measures the nation’s economic confidence on a daily basis and has now been below the 100.0 baseline level for two full weeks. That baseline was established in October 2001 meaning that economic confidence today is lower than it was in the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. [emphasis mine]

Just 13% of Americans now say the economy is getting better while 68% say it is getting worse. Forty-two percent (42%) say the country is in a recession already and another 13% say a recession is coming within six months.

The Gallop Organization got a similar sentiment:

Just 13% of Americans say economic conditions are positive, lowest reading since the Gallup Organization started polling on the question in 1991 — a time when overall consumer confidence was at one of its lowest points in the past 40 years. [emphasis mine]

Even the Republicans' base is feeling the pain according to Bloomberg:

Affluent consumers, pinched by shrinking stock portfolios, falling property values and smaller bonuses, are behaving like their less-well-off peers: They're reining in spending.

That portends a steeper slowdown than originally forecast for the U.S. economy, or even a recession, because the richest fifth of American households accounts for almost 40 percent of consumer spending, the main engine of economic growth.

Yep, it's definitely a bad time to be a Republican. This is the state of our economy today as described by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

But there should be no misunderstanding, whatever the vagaries of presidential politics, that the economy has taken a hammering during Mr. Bush's seven years in power. On the plus side, to the degree that the unemployment rate is a valid measure, it stands at a not-bad 4.6 percent. On the other hand, job creation, although it has had a few good months, has in general been abysmal, not even meeting the 150,000-per-month minimum needed to absorb new entries into the job market.

Mr. Bush's two major tax cuts benefited his base, the rich. The national debt has soared on his watch, resulting in the United States having to spend $200 billion a year on debt service. China holds $1 trillion in U.S. public and private debt, another uncomfortable thought. Mortgage foreclosures are expected to reach 2 million, cutting into both Americans' sense of well-being and their willingness to spend money as consumers -- a development that could be catastrophic for retailers.

Gasoline at more than $3 a gallon, while oil company profits soar, is simply enraging, and no American can be unaware that both Mr. Bush and his vice president, Dick Cheney, came to government from the oil industry. The price didn't go from $20 a barrel in 2002 to nearly $100 today simply because of growing Chinese and Indian demand. The riling of the Middle East that Mr. Bush's Iraq war created has played an important role in that phenomenon.

On a more basic level, the United States -- in no small part because of spending its money on wars and profits to oil companies and defense contractors -- continues to neglect its human and physical infrastructure. America is not educating nearly enough scientists and engineers. Its bridges, roads and technology development continue to get short shrift.

And don't forget about our devalued dollar. OPEC is threatening to dump the dollar and rapsters are rapping about the Euro being the newest "bling".

There's no doubt the president is responsible for the state of our economy, but that doesn't absolve the Republicans who went along with him each step of the way. They are equally responsible. They need to be held accountable too. The voting booth is the perfect place to accomplish that.

An Emblem of the War

I've spent some time today reading various tributes to our soldiers and veterans and I just had to share something Libby mentioned on her blog at the Detroit News. These are Libby's words:

[...] many of our newest veterans, like James Blake Miller will be battling their demons in the dark confides of a troubled mind here at home. They fight and suffer for us. Take a moment to let them know they didn't pay the price in life, limb and peace of mind for nothing.

James Blake Miller is the Marlboro Man. You might remember the picture of this young Marine taken in Falluja in November 2004. He became an instant emblem of the war and Americans connected with his photo. Nobody wanted to see him wounded or dead, so Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski made a special trip to visit him and offered him the chance to return home. Miller turned him down. He didn't want to leave his buddies.

Click here to read the rest of his story. Miller is home now and fighting a whole lot of demons.

This is a Blogging For Michigan Troop Care post. From November 11 through November 25, 2007, Blogging For Michigan will use 100% of every dollar received in the Troop Care fund to purchase and ship items to Michigan troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Learn more about BFM Troop Care here. Click here to contribute to Troop Care. Contributions are not tax deductible.

Honoring My WWII Veteran

Veterans Day. We set this day aside each year to honor all who have served America. My father is one of those people. Although he died more than 30 years ago, I often think of his military service and the stories he told us while we were growing up. He served in the Navy on a troop transport ship during WWII in the Pacific Theatre. I remember the names of places he talked about - the Philippines, Guadalcanal, Leyte, Luzon, Midway, Pearl Harbor - and the stories he told. I also remember groaning inwardly at some of them. They couldn't possibly be true! He must be embellishing a little for his friends' benefit. This is one of his more unusual stories:

Dad said three ships left New Guinea making their way through the Philippines, they were headed for Lingayen Gulf. His ship was in the middle, and they were zig-zagging all over the place because the crew had been drinking homemade moonshine made in the boiler room. As his story goes, the Japanese sank the ship in front of them and also the one behind, but they made it through safe and sound because of that zig-zag pattern (and the homemade hooch).

I doubted the part about the homemade moonshine and I also doubted the part about the ships in front and behind being sunk. I owe my dad an apology. Years after he died, I got a copy of his service papers and the name of the ship he served on. I also found several links online that described the "very heavy kamikaze attacks" these transport ships suffered in the same region my father described. It had to be terrifying.

I've also had men my father's age tell me that the crews often made their own alcohol and the captain turned a blind eye. As my uncle said, "When your men are on a mission they may never get out of alive, do you think the captain is really going to worry about breaking a few rules?" Good point.

Anyway, my dad was one of the lucky ones to come home alive, and although he could joke about some of the action he saw, it changed him. He drank more than he should have, and he also had anger issues. They both contributed to his early demise and complicated his life.

Today is not just about my dad though. Today is about all the men and women who have served and continue to serve our country with honor and incredible personal sacrifice. Today is not about partisanship, color, creed or sexual orientation. Today is about giving thanks to all of our veterans and support to our troops. Thank you from the bottom of my heart - and thank you too, dad. I miss you.

This is a Blogging For Michigan Troop Care post. From November 11 through November 25, 2007, Blogging For Michigan will use 100% of every dollar received in the Troop Care fund to purchase and ship items to Michigan troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Learn more about BFM Troop Care here. Click here to contribute to Troop Care. Contributions are not tax deductible.

Five years ago today...

Think Progress reminds us that five years ago today the Senate voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq by a vote of 77-23. Here are the 23 Senators who courageously voted no, including Michigan's own, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Levin.


Bush declared at the time that "America speaks with one voice."

Five years later, America is once again speaking with one voice: "Bring our troops home."

(Cross posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Republicans don't even try to pretend they care anymore

Several news items caught my eye this week that showed the Republican Party's true colors and/or total disregard and disrespect for American citizens. First, from the WaPo, comes this:

The Justice Department notified Chiquita Brands International yesterday that it will not seek to criminally charge its former top executive and other former high-ranking officers over the company's payment of bribes to a Colombian organization on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Corporations trump taxpayers and soldiers. How typical. Why should they be held accountable or have to sacrifice for the war on terror? That's what we have soldiers and taxpayers for according to Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). From Think Progress:

In an interview on CNN today, Wolf Blitzer asked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) about “the Americans who are killed every month” in Iraq and “how much longer” the “military commitment is going to require?” “The investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here,” replied Boehner.

What arrogance. Even one life is too much to pay for Bush's lie. But, wait, there's more:

...it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

Does Boehner honestly think we believe he cares about our children? Bush and friends only care about corporations. Take the recent toy recalls by Mattel as an example. This is how Dana Milbank described the testimony of Nancy Nord (acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Bush appointee) when she appeared before legislators to answer questions about all that lead:

Actually, the lawmakers' drilling of Nord made it sound as if every day is a sad one for her agency. Product safety regulators, broke and undermanned, have been powerless to prevent millions of Barbie dolls, Polly Pockets, Dora the Explorers and Thomas the Tank Engines from entering the country from China with lead paint and other defects. Parents -- and therefore lawmakers -- are furious. But instead of showing contrition, Nord treated the lawmakers as if they were impertinent children.

"Are you saying that the Chinese have now adopted a new and different standard when it comes to lead paint?" asked Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the panel examining the issue.

"I think, sir, that that's a question you would really need to put to the Chinese," Nord replied curtly.

Durbin, with some of the offending toys on the table in front of him, asked why the commission didn't do more to block lead in children's jewelry.

"Well, the law is what it is" was Nord's brushoff.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Nord if she knew what percentage of toys get lead tests.

"No, I don't."

After much hemming and hawing from Nord about her agency's ability to stop dangerous toys coming from China, Brownback got cranky: "Chairman, what I want to hear is you say these products are not going to enter our shores if that's what you continue to find."

"Well, I'm happy to say that," Nord retorted.

It's pretty obvious Nord doesn't care about our children, which turns out to be a plus for corporations.

While dismissive of the senators, the acting chairman was solicitous of the manufacturers. She "commended" the industry for its safety initiatives. A toy manufacturer reciprocated, calling Nord's agency "exemplary."

If Nord sounded a bit like a corporate fox guarding the consumer henhouse, consider her previous employers: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Corporate Counsel Association and Eastman Kodak.

Among the nuggets served up at yesterday's hearing: The CPSC's staff, once 978, is down to 401; its budget is half of what it was three decades ago, in inflation-adjusted terms; its toy-testing department consists of one man, Bob, who drops toys on the floor in his office; and its toy-testing lab is an overloaded workbench in its outmoded headquarters.

So the toy testing department's budget has been drowned in a bathtub. Let me guess. The Republicans trust corporations to do the right thing and test their own products, those same corporations that cut costs by outsourcing jobs to China. The same corporations that never stopped to think that the Chinese might cut costs too.

Why is lead paint — or lead, for that matter — turning up in so many recalls involving Chinese-made goods?

The simplest answer, experts and toy companies in China say, is price. Paint with higher levels of lead often sells for a third of the cost of paint with low levels. So Chinese factory owners, trying to eke out profits in an intensely competitive and poorly regulated market, sometimes cut corners and use the cheaper leaded paint.

So you can see why I don't believe the Republicans and their corporate friends when they say they care about our children. Their actions speaker louder than their words, and because of them, our children are dying or in danger.

A reason to be thankful for Mike Bishop (snark)

I thought Sen. Mike Bishop (R-MI) was over-the-top when he censored BFM from senate computers for saying bad things about him, but Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-NY) makes him look almost rational. Kuhl has been under pressure from protesters lately for his continued support of Bush's war policy, but his thoughts on how to deal with them sends shivers down my spine.

From the Huffington Post:

In an interview yesterday with the editorial board of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, Kuhl said he has "thought about packing" firearms to fend off protesters:

"Kuhl said that he wasn't at his offices when the protesters in Bath and Fairport were there. When I asked him if he had ever protested, he said "Yes, when I walked off the floor in Congress recently." I asked if that means he thinks the protesters have a right to do so and he again said "yes, just not over the line." He said that the types of protests have caused him to rethink security at his offices and that means securing doors. He said they are "more protective now" and that he "thought about packing."" [emphasis mine]

Just how "over the line" were those protesters that Kuhl is considering carrying a gun? You be the judge.

Republicans in the Twilight Zone

Following their vote yesterday to remain in Iraq indefinitely, the NY Times says Republicans are trapped in the twilight zone.

Twilight Zone Filibusters

Republicans have the right to filibuster under centuries-old rules that this page has long defended. It is the height of hypocrisy for this band of Republicans to use that power since only about two years ago they were ready to unilaterally ban filibusters to push through some of Mr. Bush’s most ideologically blinkered judicial nominees.

But beyond that, the Republicans are doing the public a real disservice and playing an increasingly risky hand by delaying sober consideration of the war. [...]

In postponing real action to September and beyond, Republicans laughed off the all-night debate as a “slumber party” of “twilight zone” theatrics by the Democrats. In fact, Bush loyalists seem trapped in the twilight zone, ducking their responsibility to represent constituents by applying credible pressure on the president to come up with an end to his sorry war.

While Republicans remain in the twilight zone, the rest of the country lives with the reality they've created, which explains these results from a poll taken yesterday by CBS/NYT:

61% Say Congress Shouldn't Fund War Without Timetable For Withdrawal

Don't give up, Harry

It's about time, Harry

From Bob Geiger: Reid To Force Senate Into All-Night Session Tuesday

Forcing his Republican colleagues to put up or shut up on the notion of an up-or-down vote, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just moments ago announced that he will immediately file a cloture motion on the Reed-Levin troop redeployment bill and, if Republicans follow through with a filibuster, will place the Senate in a prolonged all-night session Tuesday to force a true continuation of debate.

In Reid's words:

““All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case. Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate. Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.

I can't wait to hear members of the GOP stand there and explain why they want U.S. troops to keep dying for nothing.

Message to Bush: We Love You, Man!

No, that's not my message to Bush, it's from his base - those wealthy taxpayers who benefitted from all of his tax cuts:

Bush Breaks 150-Year History of Higher U.S. Taxes in Wartime

Iraq is the only major U.S. conflict, except for the 1846-48 Mexican-American War, in which citizens haven't been asked to make a special financial sacrifice. President George W. Bush opposes tax increases, even as the costs escalate far beyond predictions and he calls for more troops.

So, what's wrong with that?

[...] using borrowed money pushes the cost onto future taxpayers, who will have to pay it back with interest.

The war ``is being fought on our children's shoulders,'' said Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. ``You're probably talking about around $750 billion that is going to be spent on this war that will end up not being funded.'' [...]

The cost in Iraq has been growing rapidly and now runs about $8 billion per month, the independent Iraq Study Group estimated last month. The final tally, the group said, could reach $2 trillion once all the bills for caring for disabled veterans and replacing military equipment are counted. That would be more than 30 times what the White House estimated ahead of the March 2003 invasion.

We'll all be long dead and Americans will still be paying for Bush's folly.

I doubt that the president will follow Woodrow Wilson's example from WWI and subject corporations (war profiteers) to excess profits taxes, so maybe it's time for Congress to apply PAYGO rules to this deficit-financed war. It's not an entitlement program in the strict sense of the word, but granting no-bid contracts to war profiteers isn't much different in my opinion.