Political MoJo

Line-Item Veto: Worse Than We Thought

| Thu Mar. 23, 2006 5:18 PM EST

Because no budget maneuver is too arcane or seemingly trivial for us to analyze, let's discuss the line-item veto again. Previously, we've argued that giving the president the power to strip out any part of a congressional spending bill he or she didn't like would invite abuse by the executive branch.

Now the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has their own report on the line-item veto, noting that the line-item veto powers sought by this administration would enable the president to withhold funding for all sorts of programs beyond earmarks—"pork," in other words. If Bush wanted to, he could withhold funds for months and months from, say, the Education Department, even if Congress doesn't approve. In his 2006 budget, Bush called for, among other things, a $3.4 billion cut to education, an $866 million cut to the Department of Health and Human Services, and a $277 million cut from the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress will likely (and sensibly) reject all of these cuts—unless, of course, the president can skirt around Congress.

You'd think this sort of thing would never pass muster with the Supreme Court since it violates the separation of powers in a major way. Still, the idea needs to be stopped. Letting the president basically write legislation on his own would be catastrophic, to put it very mildly.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Building roads on federal land: "We're open for business."

| Thu Mar. 23, 2006 4:12 PM EST

Via the LA Times: Gale Norton, who leaves office next week, closes her tenure with a characteristic flourish:

Guidelines issued by Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton on Wednesday will make it easier for counties to lay claim to old trails and closed roads they would like to open across federal lands in the West, including national parks in Southern California.

In one of her final actions before leaving her post next week, Norton issued a policy dealing with right-of-way claims under a Civil War-era law that county officials in several Western states have tried to use to circumvent federal land-use restrictions on motorized access.

Norton's memo gives Interior officials nationwide latitude to grant rights of way to counties and other claimants and even approve road construction and improvements.

...But environmentalists said the secretary's guidelines amounted to an invitation to counties and other entities to claim everything from hiking trails to dry stream beds and start using them as roads.

"The barriers to [these] claims have been lowered to practically nothing," said Ted Zukoski, a Denver-based attorney with Earthjustice who was involved in a major court case on the matter. "The bar is so low that it has the effect of telling everyone: 'We're open for business. Make a claim.' "

For more on the Bush administration's dogged efforts to run roads through federal parkland, see, for starters, here and here, and here.

Uncle Bucky makes out like a...Bush

| Thu Mar. 23, 2006 2:15 PM EST

George W. Bush's Uncle Bucky (William H.T. Bush), brother of George H.W. Bush, has collected about $1.9 million in cash, plus $800,000 in stocks, from the recent sale of Engineered Support Systems, Inc. ESSI, of which Bush was a director, was sold to DRS Technologies for $1.7 billion at the end of January, after the company experienced record growth from expanded military contracts, most related to activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The contracts, some awarded on a no-bid basis, include a $77-million deal to refit military vehicles with armor for use in Iraq.

Securities and Exchange Commission filings indicate that there are two investigations of ESSI in progress. One involves a stop order from the U.S. government on field generator units. It seems ESSI did not tell its shareholders about the stop order until seven months after it was issued. During that seven month period, several of the company's executives, including William Bush, cashed in millions of dollars worth of stock and stock options.

DRS is not commenting on the investigations (the second one involves an insurance contract), other than to say it is cooperating with SEC officials.

Sudden increase in tracking down Vietnam deserters appears tied to Iraq war

| Wed Mar. 22, 2006 9:00 PM EST

Patriot Daily has a good analysis of the current trend of the U.S. military to track down Vietnam war deserters in what the authors call "an effort to set an example to deter the growing number of Iraq War military resisters who are fleeing to Canada." Since the war in Iraq began, at least 8,000 soldiers have deserted, a number which represents a decrease in desertions since September 11, 2001. The U.S. military denies that it has stepped up its campaign to find deserters, but there is some evidence to the contrary.

At least one Marine official has acknowledged that his office was being more aggressive in tracking down Vietnam war deserters. Chief Warrant Officer James Averhart said that he had ordered cold cases reopened, and that in his first year on the job, his sqad had brought in 27 deserters.

One case of particular interest is that of U.S. Marin Allen Abney, who lives in Canada but who has crossed the border "hundreds of times" to shop to take other trips. Just this month, he crossed the border and was arrested and transferred to military custody. Abney's case received publicity in both the American and Canadian press, and perhaps coincidentally, he will probably be released soon. Abney, like many soldiers, did not apply for amnesty under either the Ford clemency plan or the Carter amnesty plan. Though the Carter plan was much less punitive than the Ford plan, it gave unconditional amnesty to draft evaders only.

What Fiscal Conservatism Means

| Wed Mar. 22, 2006 6:43 PM EST

Andrew Sullivan has been arguing for the past few days that, just because Bush has failed to make sweeping budget cuts during his time in office, doesn't mean that small-government fiscal conservatism has been discredited as an ideology. Strictly speaking, that's accurate, I guess, although I'd like to see more people start discrediting fiscal conservatism, because if a Republican ever came to power who was more willing to cut government programs than George W. Bush, it would be catastrophic.

Just to get beyond numbers here, Rose Aguilar has a good piece in Alternet today that does some reporting on what many of the government discretionary programs that pundits like Sullivan want to cut actually mean for real-life people. Here's an example:

Every month, 80-year-old Sally Shaver pays someone to drive her to the Harvest Hope Food Bank in Columbia, S.C., to pick up a box of fresh produce, baked goods, dry cereals, juice, canned goods and cheese. "It really helps me out because after paying for my rent, phone bill and medication, I barely have enough for food," she says. "If I could work, I would, but I have an artificial knee and a pacemaker, and I can't get around.

Shaver, who worked as a nurse's aide for most of her life, brings in $451 a month in social security. Her fixed income qualifies her for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which is designed to improve the health and nutrition of low-income senior citizens, pregnant women, postpartum mothers, infants and children.

Last year, CSFP provided 536,196 people with a monthly box of food. Bush's proposed budget for 2007 calls for a nationwide elimination of the entire program.Now from reading Sullivan's recent posts, I take it his brand of "fiscal conservatism" would preserve all the "good" programs for the poor—perhaps like the one above—while cutting all the "bad" stuff, like agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare and entitlements for the middle class and the like. ("[T]he bottom line," writes Sullivan, "is that the middle class and the prosperous elderly are far too pampered by government in this country.")

That's all well and good in theory—I'd love to see corporate welfare ended, too—but in practice, when "fiscal conservatives" come to power, it's only programs like the CSFP that ever get put on the chopping block, partly because 80-year-old Sally Shaver doesn't have an army of lobbyists working in D.C. That's how fiscal conservatives are always going to operate—cut programs for the poor while keeping their grip on power by catering to business interests. There's no "magical" fiscal conservatism that will somehow get voted into office someday and do all the things Sullivan would like to see.

Globalization and Fashion

Wed Mar. 22, 2006 6:17 PM EST

Who says fashion has to be frivolous? Northeastern Kenya is home to 127,000 refugees from Somalia, and some of the women have taken an interest in girls' volleyball. But the traditional women's hijab can be a major nuisance when trying to play in 100 degree heat. Enter the "sporty hijab" by Nike, which modifies the conventional design with lighter fabric. "Our arms will be free now," said Hamdi Hassan Hashi, 27. Nike has committed to providing 700 "conservative, comfortable and suitable for serving" uniforms, and are teaching local girls to sew the garments out of locally produced materials as well.

Meanwhile, there's an untapped denim market in the Muslim community. Al Quds jeans target comfort-seeking Muslims, with extra baggy fits for added flexibility, lots of pockets for storing things during prayer and green seams (the sacred color of Islam). Produced in a Pakistani plant with 15, 000 employees, the denim are made "for and by Muslims." For now, Al Quds are only available in Italy—not surprisingly, the fashion capital of the world.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Why Worry About Invasive Species?

| Wed Mar. 22, 2006 4:57 PM EST

Let's talk about invasive species for a bit. Last Sunday, the New York Times printed a strange op-ed by George Ball, president of the seed and plant company W. Atlee Burpee & Company, which argued that environmentalists—or, in his marvelously neutral language, "botanical xenophobes"—should stop worrying and let his company sell exotic and non-native plans to anyone who wants them:

Christianity Banned in Algeria

Tue Mar. 21, 2006 8:39 PM EST

Another Islamic county is taking aim at curbing religious freedom; this time, it's Algeria. The Algerian parliament, in reaction to a recent "Christianizing campaign," passed a law that bans the practice of any religion other than Islam in the country. The penalty—two to five years in prison and a hefty monetary fine—applies not only to practicing Christians, but any person, manufacturer, or store that circulates "publications or audo-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam." According to the Arabic News, the Christian community constitutes the largest religious minority in the country.

Antitrust Law Aims at Apple

Tue Mar. 21, 2006 8:13 PM EST

A new bill was approved today in France that could force Apple to share previously protected technology in order to open the market. Currently, Apple products are only compatible with one another, meaning that if a user buys a song on Apple's music service iTunes, it can only be played on an Apple iPod. Since its inception, Apple has been able to thwart competition and dominate the online music market partially because of this technology. The iPod accounts for two out of every three portable music devices on the market, a fact obvious to anyone who takes public transportation amongst swarms of white-earphone wearers.

If this French law is adopted, it could effectively weaken Apple's global dominance. Even if the law doesn't pass, it should cause a commotion among users, all of whom would rather have the ability to share their music with more playing devices. Undoubtedly, the media will latch on to the story, opening Apple up to scrutiny for being user unfriendly.

In the long run, Apple may have no choice but to share the secrets of their format. By choosing to keep their designs compatible only with other Mac products, users likely will perceive Apple as a bully, a similar image problem facing computer conglomerate Microsoft. Because Apple's entire brand is aimed at a youth-dominated audience, it is too image-conscious to become alienated from its users. But unless Apple can brush this growing commotion under the rug, Apple's digital player dominance likely will be harmed.

The Osirak Fallacy

| Tue Mar. 21, 2006 6:11 PM EST

Every now and again, the dinner-table conversation will turn to Iran (well, not my dinner table, but some…). And then on to Iran's nuclear program. And then on to how we must not let Iran go nuclear. And then perhaps on to how Israel did pretty well for itself by bombing Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor—and setting back Iraq's nuclear program for years—back in 1981. You see where this is going.

Well, before the conversation ever does reach that point, read Richard K. Betts' piece in the National Interest, which notes that the Osirak bombing didn't really set back the Iraqi nuclear program in the 1980s, as everyone thinks. In fact, it may have even accelerated Iraq's nuclear program by making Saddam Hussein extra-determined to get the bomb, and in any case, Betts notes, attacking Iran isn't really a good thing to do. That doesn't mean the Bush administration won't try it—common sense hasn't stopped this crew yet—but Betts at least lays out the argument in one nice, neat place.