Political News — October & November 2007

Bush Vetos Renewal of Child Health Care Benefits

Political news--October & November 07 Home Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army Oklahoma passes tough illegal-immigrant laws Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours Water Privatization Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke Bush Vetos Renewal of Child Health Care Benefits

By Bill Curry, Former counselor to President Clinton, twice ran for governor of Connecticut, and currently newspaper columnist for the Hartford Courant. At http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-curry/george-bush-secret-socia_b_67943.html, 10/10/7 George Bush, Secret Socialist

Nearing the end of a catastrophic presidency George Bush seeks redemption in odd ways. Having wrecked Iraq he takes aim at Iran. Having denied global warming, he asks others to fix it. Having waged war on a credit card, he mimics fiscal prudence in symbolic budget battles with Congress.

It's all too little and too late; sort of like Britney Spears staying home a night a week in hopes of being named mother of the year. But for Bush, it's never too late to do some damage, which brings us to a tough topic for Britney and Bush: the health of children

In a saner world, Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill would be unexplainable. The basic facts:

SCHIP insures 6.5 million kids in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level, or $41, 300 a year for a family of four. States can set lower limits and many do. The bill Bush vetoed raised eligibility to 300% of poverty, extending coverage to 4 million children. The cost: 35 billion over 5 years. Bush makes two arguments: we can't afford it and even if we could, it's creeping socialism.

Bush's math is as fuzzy as ever. He says his budget strengthened SCHIP. Read the fine print. The $5 billion he'd add over five years is only a third of the inflation rate. That means a substantial cut, not an increase, in the number of children covered.

Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours

Political news--October & November 07 Home Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army Oklahoma passes tough illegal-immigrant laws Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours Water Privatization Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke Bush Vetos Renewal of Child Health Care Benefits

Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours www.huffingtonpost.com, 8/5/7 Daniel Brook: a journalist whose writing has appeared in Harper's, Dissent, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe, among other publications. Brook was a finalist in the 2003 Livingston Awards for Young Journalists and won the 2000 Rolling Stone College Journalist Competition while a student at Yale. He lives in Philadelphia. He is the author of The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America. Last night at the Yearly Kos Democratic presidential candidates' debate in Chicago, Hillary Clinton, bated by Barack Obama and John Edwards who have pledged not to take campaign money from Washington lobbyists, defended her open pocket policy: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," the New York senator said. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people...I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don't think anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist." A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system." But Clinton seems to be in denial about the power of campaign cash even though, as a matter of historical record, she has flip-flopped like a trained marine mammal at Sea World for major contributors. For example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to veto a credit card company-backed bill to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. Inspired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren's speech about the devastating impact the legislation would have on single mothers and their children, Hillary informally lobbied the president on what she termed "that awful bill." Yet a few years later, Hillary, now in the Senate with the help of copious contributions from the credit card companies, voted for the same bill. "The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it's powerful on Capitol Hill," Warren later explained. "It's a [testament to] how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that...they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that." So please, Hillary, let's not pretend that Washington lobbyists defend the interests of social workers -- or single mothers -- and that their contributions don't affect your positions anyway. The power of entrenched wealth perverts the political process and turns politicians--even those whose hearts are in the right place, as Hillary's often is -- into paid corporate spokespeople. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it, "We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both." Hillary's hypocrisy then, is not just Hillary's hypocrisy. It is America's hypocrisy. It is the hypocrisy that says we can be a plutocracy and be a democracy at the same time. This campaign, then, must be a time for choosing. If their lips move, they are lying—Mark Twain This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.

www.huffingtonpost.com, 8/5/7 Daniel Brook: a journalist whose writing has appeared in Harper's, Dissent, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe, among other publications. Brook was a finalist in the 2003 Livingston Awards for Young Journalists and won the 2000 Rolling Stone College Journalist Competition while a student at Yale. He lives in Philadelphia. He is the author of The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America.

Daniel Brook: a journalist whose writing has appeared in Harper's, Dissent, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Boston Globe, among other publications. Brook was a finalist in the 2003 Livingston Awards for Young Journalists and won the 2000 Rolling Stone College Journalist Competition while a student at Yale. He lives in Philadelphia. He is the author of The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America.

Last night at the Yearly Kos Democratic presidential candidates' debate in Chicago, Hillary Clinton, bated by Barack Obama and John Edwards who have pledged not to take campaign money from Washington lobbyists, defended her open pocket policy: "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," the New York senator said. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people...I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don't think anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist." A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system." But Clinton seems to be in denial about the power of campaign cash even though, as a matter of historical record, she has flip-flopped like a trained marine mammal at Sea World for major contributors. For example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to veto a credit card company-backed bill to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. Inspired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren's speech about the devastating impact the legislation would have on single mothers and their children, Hillary informally lobbied the president on what she termed "that awful bill." Yet a few years later, Hillary, now in the Senate with the help of copious contributions from the credit card companies, voted for the same bill. "The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it's powerful on Capitol Hill," Warren later explained. "It's a [testament to] how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that...they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that." So please, Hillary, let's not pretend that Washington lobbyists defend the interests of social workers -- or single mothers -- and that their contributions don't affect your positions anyway. The power of entrenched wealth perverts the political process and turns politicians--even those whose hearts are in the right place, as Hillary's often is -- into paid corporate spokespeople. As the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it, "We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both." Hillary's hypocrisy then, is not just Hillary's hypocrisy. It is America's hypocrisy. It is the hypocrisy that says we can be a plutocracy and be a democracy at the same time. This campaign, then, must be a time for choosing. If their lips move, they are lying—Mark Twain

"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," the New York senator said. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people...I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don't think anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist."

A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system."

Water Privatization

Political news--October & November 07 Home Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army Oklahoma passes tough illegal-immigrant laws Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours Water Privatization Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke Bush Vetos Renewal of Child Health Care Benefits

More Robber Baron Capitalism A Win in the Water War Stockton, Calif., residents have stopped one multinational company from taking over their water system, but other localities remain threatenedBy Megan Tady, 8/1/07, Published in In These Time, also on the web at http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3282/

Bill Lokyo never expected to find himself embroiled in a six-year battle over water with a multinational corporation and city officials in Stockton, Calif.

But Lokyo and the group Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton (CCOS) felt compelled to challenge a rushed deal that turned the city’s publicly owned water system into a for-profit venture. This month, their perseverance paid off when the city finally sent privatization packing.

In 2003, against the wishes of many Stockton residents, the city signed a 20-year contract with the company OMI-Thames to manage its wastewater, water and stormwater system. The CCOS, joined by the Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters of San Joaquin County, filed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act to halt the project until it allowed for public participation. Judges twice ruled in favor of the groups, and on July 17, city officials voted to rescind their appeal and dissolve what Food and Water Watch, a group that challenges corporate control of water resources, has called the “most notorious water privatization deal in the United States.”

As Loyko and fellow members of CCOS celebrate, water watchdogs mark another tally for citizens fighting to keep or regain local control of their water.

“It’s both symbolic for the anti-water privatization movement, and it’s a real victory for the citizens’ groups of Stockton—it means that the ordeal of water privatization is over for the city of 270,000 people,” says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch.

Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke

Political news--October & November 07 Home Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army Oklahoma passes tough illegal-immigrant laws Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours Water Privatization Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke Bush Vetos Renewal of Child Health Care Benefits

Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke Hurricane GEORGE: How the White House Drowned New Orleans by Greg Palast[Thursday, August 23] It's been two years. And America's media is about to have another tear-gasm over New Orleans. Maybe Anderson Cooper will weep again. The big networks will float into the moldering corpse of the city and give you uplifting stories about rebuilding and hope Now, let's cut through the cry-baby crap. Here's what happened two years ago - and what's happening now. This is what an inside source me. And it makes me sick: "By midnight on Monday, the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody." The charge is devastating: That, on August 29, 2005, the White House withheld from the state police the information that New Orleans was about to flood. From almost any other source, I would not have believed it. But this was not just any source. The whistle-blower is Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina. I'd come to van Heerden about another matter, but in our talks, it was clear he had something he wanted to say, and it was a big one. He charged that the White House, FEMA and the Army Corp hid, for critical hours, their discovery that the levees surrounding New Orleans were cracking, about to burst and drown the city. Understand that Katrina never hit New Orleans. The hurricane swung east of the city, so the state evacuation directors assumed New Orleans was now safe - and evacuation could slow while emergency efforts moved east with the storm. But unknown to the state, in those crucial hours on Monday, the federal government's helicopters had filmed the cracks that would become walls of death by Tuesday. Van Heerden revealed: "FEMA knew at 11 o'clock on Monday that the levees had breeched. At 2 p.m. they flew over the 17th Street Canal and took video of the breech." Question: "So the White House wouldn't tell you the levees had breeched?" Dr. Van Heerden: "They didn't tell anybody." Question: "And you're at the Emergency Center.' Dr. Van Heerden: "I mean nobody knew. The Corps of Engineers knew. FEMA knew. None of us knew." I could not get the White House gang to respond to the charges. That leaves the big, big question: WHY? Why on earth would the White House not tell the state to get the remaining folks out of there? The answer: cost. Political and financial cost. A hurricane is an act of God - but a catastrophic failure of the levees is an act of Bush. That is, under law dating back to 1935, a breech of the federal levee system makes the damage - and the deaths - a federal responsibility. That means, as van Heeden points out, that "these people must be compensated." The federal government, by law, must build and maintain the Mississippi levees to withstand known dangers - or pay the price when they fail. Indeed, that was the rule applied in the storms that hit Westhampton Dunes, New York, in 1992. There, when federal sea barriers failed, the flood waters wiped away 190 homes. The feds rebuilt them from the public treasury. But these were not just any homes. They are worth an average of $3 million apiece - the summer homes of movie stars and celebrity speculators. There were no movie stars floating face down in the Lower Ninth Ward nor in Lakeview nor in St. Bernard Parish. For the 'luvvies' of Westhampton Dunes, the federal government even trucked in sand to replace the beaches. But for New Orleans' survivors, there's the aluminum gulag of FEMA trailer parks. Today, two years later, 89,000 families still live in this mobile home Guantanamo - with no plan whatsoever for their return. And what was the effect of the White House's self-serving delay? I spoke with van Heerden in his university office. The computer model of the hurricane flashed quietly as I waited for him to answer. Then he said, "Fifteen hundred people drowned. That's the bottom line." They could have survived Hurricane Katrina. But they got no mercy from Hurricane George.

Hurricane GEORGE: How the White House Drowned New Orleans by Greg Palast[Thursday, August 23] It's been two years. And America's media is about to have another tear-gasm over New Orleans. Maybe Anderson Cooper will weep again. The big networks will float into the moldering corpse of the city and give you uplifting stories about rebuilding and hope

Now, let's cut through the cry-baby crap. Here's what happened two years ago - and what's happening now. This is what an inside source me. And it makes me sick: "By midnight on Monday, the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody." The charge is devastating: That, on August 29, 2005, the White House withheld from the state police the information that New Orleans was about to flood. From almost any other source, I would not have believed it. But this was not just any source. The whistle-blower is Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina. I'd come to van Heerden about another matter, but in our talks, it was clear he had something he wanted to say, and it was a big one. He charged that the White House, FEMA and the Army Corp hid, for critical hours, their discovery that the levees surrounding New Orleans were cracking, about to burst and drown the city. Understand that Katrina never hit New Orleans. The hurricane swung east of the city, so the state evacuation directors assumed New Orleans was now safe - and evacuation could slow while emergency efforts moved east with the storm. But unknown to the state, in those crucial hours on Monday, the federal government's helicopters had filmed the cracks that would become walls of death by Tuesday. Van Heerden revealed: "FEMA knew at 11 o'clock on Monday that the levees had breeched. At 2 p.m. they flew over the 17th Street Canal and took video of the breech." Question: "So the White House wouldn't tell you the levees had breeched?" Dr. Van Heerden: "They didn't tell anybody." Question: "And you're at the Emergency Center.' Dr. Van Heerden: "I mean nobody knew. The Corps of Engineers knew. FEMA knew. None of us knew." I could not get the White House gang to respond to the charges. That leaves the big, big question: WHY? Why on earth would the White House not tell the state to get the remaining folks out of there? The answer: cost. Political and financial cost. A hurricane is an act of God - but a catastrophic failure of the levees is an act of Bush. That is, under law dating back to 1935, a breech of the federal levee system makes the damage - and the deaths - a federal responsibility. That means, as van Heeden points out, that "these people must be compensated." The federal government, by law, must build and maintain the Mississippi levees to withstand known dangers - or pay the price when they fail. Indeed, that was the rule applied in the storms that hit Westhampton Dunes, New York, in 1992. There, when federal sea barriers failed, the flood waters wiped away 190 homes. The feds rebuilt them from the public treasury. But these were not just any homes. They are worth an average of $3 million apiece - the summer homes of movie stars and celebrity speculators. There were no movie stars floating face down in the Lower Ninth Ward nor in Lakeview nor in St. Bernard Parish. For the 'luvvies' of Westhampton Dunes, the federal government even trucked in sand to replace the beaches. But for New Orleans' survivors, there's the aluminum gulag of FEMA trailer parks. Today, two years later, 89,000 families still live in this mobile home Guantanamo - with no plan whatsoever for their return. And what was the effect of the White House's self-serving delay? I spoke with van Heerden in his university office. The computer model of the hurricane flashed quietly as I waited for him to answer. Then he said, "Fifteen hundred people drowned. That's the bottom line." They could have survived Hurricane Katrina. But they got no mercy from Hurricane George.

"By midnight on Monday, the White House knew. Monday night I was at the state Emergency Operations Center and nobody was aware that the levees had breeched. Nobody."

The charge is devastating: That, on August 29, 2005, the White House withheld from the state police the information that New Orleans was about to flood. From almost any other source, I would not have believed it. But this was not just any source. The whistle-blower is Dr. Ivor van Heerden, deputy director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, the chief technician advising the state on saving lives during Katrina.

I'd come to van Heerden about another matter, but in our talks, it was clear he had something he wanted to say, and it was a big one. He charged that the White House, FEMA and the Army Corp hid, for critical hours, their discovery that the levees surrounding New Orleans were cracking, about to burst and drown the city.

Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army

Political news--October & November 07 Home Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army Oklahoma passes tough illegal-immigrant laws Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours Water Privatization Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke Bush Vetos Renewal of Child Health Care Benefits

Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army Following a mass killing of Iraqis, which made the press, blackwater has come under scrunty. The neocons have sent more mercinaries than soldiers—and at a cost of about $400,00 man. A privatized army. From In These Times Views > October 11, 2007 http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3354/blackwater_nation/ Blackwater Nation Contracting soldiers of fortune is only one example of our recent philosophy of government By Brian Cook Those seeking to pinpoint the date that propelled the private military firm Blackwater into its prominent (and disastrous) position in the U.S. military apparatus might look toward Sept. 11, 2001. Al Clark, one of the company’s co-founders, once remarked, “Osama bin Laden turned Blackwater into what it is today.” And two weeks after 9/11, Erik Prince, the company’s other co-founder and current CEO, told Bill O’Reilly that, after four years in the business, “I was starting to get a little cynical on how seriously people took security. The phone is ringing off the hook now.” However, in her new book, The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein suggests that we should turn the calendar back one day and read the speech that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave to Pentagon staffers on Sept. 10, 2001. The day before 19 hijackers flw passenger flights into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Rumsfeld darkly warned of “a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. … With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.” Who was this dastardly adversary? “[T]he Pentagon bureaucracy.” Declaring “an all-out campaign to shift the Pentagon’s resources from bureaucracy to battlefield, from tail to the tooth,” Rumsfeld told his staff to “scour the department for functions that could be performed better and more cheaply through commercial outsourcing.” He mentioned healthcare, housing and custodial work, and said that, outside of “warfighting,” “we should seek suppliers who can provide these non-core activities efficiently and effectively.” As Jeremy Scahill has reported, the implementation of that plan has been wildly successful, with at least 180,000 private contractors currently employed in Iraq, outnumbering U.S. troops by 20,000, even after the “surge.” (In the first Gulf war, the soldier-to-contractor ratio was 60:1.) But the results have been disastrous, from the deplorable conditions at the recently privatized Walter Reed military hospital, to the contaminated food and fecal-soiled bathing water that Halliburton provided to U.S. troops, to the gung-ho Blackwater contractors who prefer to shoot Iraqi hearts rather than win them. This outsourcing of the military’s core services is in keeping with the Bush administration’s philosophy of government. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted that we’ve seen the same dynamic at work in the IRS, with the agency outsourcing debt collection of back taxes to private companies, which then receive a share of the return for their work. But to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Bush administration is to overlook the complicity of Democrats in accepting a neoliberal agenda that has gutted government services and redistributed its wealth into the hands of private interests. After all, the Clinton administration first expanded the use of military contractors, deploying them in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti and Colombia. In fact, in late September, as the most recent Blackwater massacres started to gain mainstream press attention, hundreds of corporate luminaries joined Bill Clinton in New York City to extol the charitable efforts of the Clinton Global Initiative. The former president said his humanitarian endeavor is needed to tackle education, poverty and global warming because these are issues the “government won’t solve, or that government alone can’t solve.” That might be true, but only because we’ve undergone 30 years of a political ideology that has robbed government of needed revenues, derided regulation that might impinge on corporate profits and sneered at the idea that a public spirit could be preferable to private motives. Rather than rely on the charity of those who have so handsomely profited, it’s time we alter the perverse arrangement. {Why there aren’t figures on what Blackwater earns in Iraq and what the US government is charge per man per day) According to former Blackwater officials, Blackwater, Regency and ESS were engaged in a classic war-profiteering scheme. Blackwater was paying its men $600 a day but billing Regency $815, according to the Raleigh News and Observer. "In addition," the paper reports, "Blackwater billed Regency separately for all its overhead and costs in Iraq." Regency would then bill ESS an unknown amount for these services. Kathy Potter told the News and Observer that Regency would "quote ESS a price, say $1,500 per man per day, and then tell Blackwater that it had quoted ESS $1,200." ESS then contracted with Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which in turn billed the government an unknown amount of money for the same security services, according to the paper. KBR/Halliburton refuses to discuss the matter and will not confirm any relationship with ESS.

Following a mass killing of Iraqis, which made the press, blackwater has come under scrunty. The neocons have sent more mercinaries than soldiers—and at a cost of about $400,00 man. A privatized army. From In These Times Views > October 11, 2007 http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3354/blackwater_nation/ Blackwater Nation Contracting soldiers of fortune is only one example of our recent philosophy of government By Brian Cook

Those seeking to pinpoint the date that propelled the private military firm Blackwater into its prominent (and disastrous) position in the U.S. military apparatus might look toward Sept. 11, 2001. Al Clark, one of the company’s co-founders, once remarked, “Osama bin Laden turned Blackwater into what it is today.” And two weeks after 9/11, Erik Prince, the company’s other co-founder and current CEO, told Bill O’Reilly that, after four years in the business, “I was starting to get a little cynical on how seriously people took security. The phone is ringing off the hook now.” However, in her new book, The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein suggests that we should turn the calendar back one day and read the speech that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave to Pentagon staffers on Sept. 10, 2001. The day before 19 hijackers flw passenger flights into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Rumsfeld darkly warned of “a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. … With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.” Who was this dastardly adversary? “[T]he Pentagon bureaucracy.” Declaring “an all-out campaign to shift the Pentagon’s resources from bureaucracy to battlefield, from tail to the tooth,” Rumsfeld told his staff to “scour the department for functions that could be performed better and more cheaply through commercial outsourcing.” He mentioned healthcare, housing and custodial work, and said that, outside of “warfighting,” “we should seek suppliers who can provide these non-core activities efficiently and effectively.” As Jeremy Scahill has reported, the implementation of that plan has been wildly successful, with at least 180,000 private contractors currently employed in Iraq, outnumbering U.S. troops by 20,000, even after the “surge.” (In the first Gulf war, the soldier-to-contractor ratio was 60:1.) But the results have been disastrous, from the deplorable conditions at the recently privatized Walter Reed military hospital, to the contaminated food and fecal-soiled bathing water that Halliburton provided to U.S. troops, to the gung-ho Blackwater contractors who prefer to shoot Iraqi hearts rather than win them. This outsourcing of the military’s core services is in keeping with the Bush administration’s philosophy of government. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted that we’ve seen the same dynamic at work in the IRS, with the agency outsourcing debt collection of back taxes to private companies, which then receive a share of the return for their work. But to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Bush administration is to overlook the complicity of Democrats in accepting a neoliberal agenda that has gutted government services and redistributed its wealth into the hands of private interests. After all, the Clinton administration first expanded the use of military contractors, deploying them in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti and Colombia. In fact, in late September, as the most recent Blackwater massacres started to gain mainstream press attention, hundreds of corporate luminaries joined Bill Clinton in New York City to extol the charitable efforts of the Clinton Global Initiative. The former president said his humanitarian endeavor is needed to tackle education, poverty and global warming because these are issues the “government won’t solve, or that government alone can’t solve.” That might be true, but only because we’ve undergone 30 years of a political ideology that has robbed government of needed revenues, derided regulation that might impinge on corporate profits and sneered at the idea that a public spirit could be preferable to private motives. Rather than rely on the charity of those who have so handsomely profited, it’s time we alter the perverse arrangement. {Why there aren’t figures on what Blackwater earns in Iraq and what the US government is charge per man per day) According to former Blackwater officials, Blackwater, Regency and ESS were engaged in a classic war-profiteering scheme. Blackwater was paying its men $600 a day but billing Regency $815, according to the Raleigh News and Observer. "In addition," the paper reports, "Blackwater billed Regency separately for all its overhead and costs in Iraq." Regency would then bill ESS an unknown amount for these services. Kathy Potter told the News and Observer that Regency would "quote ESS a price, say $1,500 per man per day, and then tell Blackwater that it had quoted ESS $1,200." ESS then contracted with Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which in turn billed the government an unknown amount of money for the same security services, according to the paper. KBR/Halliburton refuses to discuss the matter and will not confirm any relationship with ESS.

However, in her new book, The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein suggests that we should turn the calendar back one day and read the speech that then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave to Pentagon staffers on Sept. 10, 2001. The day before 19 hijackers flw passenger flights into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Rumsfeld darkly warned of “a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. … With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas. It disrupts the defense of the United States and places the lives of men and women in uniform at risk.” Who was this dastardly adversary? “[T]he Pentagon bureaucracy.”

Declaring “an all-out campaign to shift the Pentagon’s resources from bureaucracy to battlefield, from tail to the tooth,” Rumsfeld told his staff to “scour the department for functions that could be performed better and more cheaply through commercial outsourcing.” He mentioned healthcare, housing and custodial work, and said that, outside of “warfighting,” “we should seek suppliers who can provide these non-core activities efficiently and effectively.”

As Jeremy Scahill has reported, the implementation of that plan has been wildly successful, with at least 180,000 private contractors currently employed in Iraq, outnumbering U.S. troops by 20,000, even after the “surge.” (In the first Gulf war, the soldier-to-contractor ratio was 60:1.) But the results have been disastrous, from the deplorable conditions at the recently privatized Walter Reed military hospital, to the contaminated food and fecal-soiled bathing water that Halliburton provided to U.S. troops, to the gung-ho Blackwater contractors who prefer to shoot Iraqi hearts rather than win them.

Oklahoma passes tough illegal-immigrant laws

Political news--October & November 07 Home Blackwater in Iraq--A Privatized Army Oklahoma passes tough illegal-immigrant laws Hillary's Hyprocrisy--and ours Water Privatization Kitrina--why Bush held back that the leaves broke Bush Vetos Renewal of Child Health Care Benefits

The law makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants. Businesses, which are barred by federal law from hiring illegal immigrants, can be sued by a legal worker who is displaced by an illegal one.

The measure denies illegal immigrants certain public benefits such as rental assistance and fuel subsidies.

"It's clearly one of the most restrictive policies" in the country, says Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

Muñoz says she's particularly concerned about a provision that gives local police the authority to check immigration status. Such policies create fear among all Hispanics, including those in the country legally, and may contribute to discrimination, she says.