|
Washington Post
March 27, 2003
GOP Abandons Funding Issue
The leading Senate Republican champion of President Bush's initiative to help religious charities agreed yesterday to drop its most controversial provisions in hopes of winning swift approval of tax incentives to encourage charitable contributions.
The new plan leaves virtually nothing of Bush's original plan to expand government funding of religious charities but increases chances of a break in the two-year deadlock that held up passage of more general legislation aimed at helping charities of all kinds...
...Opponents of the administration's initiative hailed Santorum's announcement as a victory. "It's a huge break in the battle over this," said Joe Conn, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington advocacy group. "Frankly, they blinked," he added...
[ link ] Read the story >
In These Times
March 9, 2003
Texas' record shows dangers of faith-based policy
...In 1996, Texas appointed an almost entirely Christian commission to eliminate regulations that prevented faith-based providers from receiving government funds. Then Governor Bush pushed agencies to change policies and eliminate licensing and inspection requirements for religious charities, and Texas became the first state to implement taxpayer-funded religious services.
After five years of such experimentation, Texas discovered many serious flaws:
* After Texas’ Department of Protective and Regulatory Services stopped regulating childcare providers, rates of confirmed abuse and neglect at the religious facilities rose quickly and are now 25 times higher than at state-licensed facilities. Religious facilities had a 75 percent complaint rate, compared to 5.4 percent at state-licensed facilities.
* Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse inspectors presented Teen Challenge, a Christian residential drug treatment program and one of Bush’s highly-touted models, with a 49-page list of violations of state regulations. Teen Challenge said its mission was “to evangelize people” and “initiate the discipleship process to the point where students can function as Christians … applying spiritually motivated Bible principles.” The program had no credentialed counselors, no chemical dependency services, failed to inform clients of their rights, and was found to be illegally handling medications.
* Jobs Partnership’s stated mission was to help clients “find employment through a relationship with Jesus Christ.” The group’s budget and curriculum show that $8,000 of state money was used to buy Bibles and that the program focused primarily on Bible study...
* The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, run by religious and crime-fighting Texas conservatives, was given $1.5 million in state funds for a religious-sponsored job training program that required “total surrender to Christ.”...
* Bypassing public debate, the Department of Criminal Justice used $1.5 million to fund the Inner Change prison pre-release program, a “Christ- centered, bible-based” program sponsored by Prison Fellowship Ministries, founded by Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson...
...Despite failures in Texas, Bush continues to push his federal faith-based initiative, largely through the use of presidential orders that circumvent congressional debate. “As the nation considers this public policy possibility,” says Ashley McIlvain, political director for TFN, “Texas already has a record with these policies. We know that faith-based initiatives violate the religious freedom of people in need. In Texas, our record shows that the faith-based initiative also puts people in danger.”
[ link ] Read the story >
American Prospect
January 31, 2003
Chris Mooney
The American Prospect's Chris Mooney picks apart John Zogby and his dishonest polls for the Cato Institute that purport to show public support for privatizing social security. Of course, when Zogby asks about SS privatization, he doesn't mention that such privatization could have negative consequences, such as cuts in guaranteed benefits
[ link ] Read the story >
Associated Press
January 28, 2003
President Bush has long preached of the power of prayer to aid drug addicts. Now he's putting dollars behind the rhetoric, asking Congress for $600 million for a new, three-year drug treatment program that would welcome the participation of religious groups.
The proposal sparked conflict even before Bush touted it before Congress. Opponents fear government will pay for programs that replace professional counselors with prayer and Bible study.
"The president wants to fund untested, unproven programs that seek to pray away addiction," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "People with addiction problems need medical help, not Sunday school."
[ link ] Read the story >
New York Times
January 22, 2003
News Section
The policy shift significantly expands the administration's contentious religion-based initiative
The Bush administration plans to allow religious groups for the first time to use federal housing money to help build centers where religious worship is held, as long as part of the building is also used for social services.
The policy shift, which was made in a rule that the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed this month, significantly expands the administration's contentious religion-based initiative.
The White House says it wants to end discrimination against religious groups. Opponents say the policy breaches the separation of church and state.
[ link ] Read the story >
New York Times
December 29, 2002
Editorial
President Bush punched a dangerous hole in the wall between church and state earlier this month by signing an executive order that eases the way for religious groups to receive federal funds to run social services programs. The president's unilateral order, which wrongly cut Congress out of the loop, lets faith-based organizations use tax dollars to win converts and gives them a green light to discriminate in employment. It should be struck down by the courts.
...While the initiative in theory bars federal subsidies for religious activities themselves, it clearly permits praying, proselytizing, religious counseling and other sectarian activities to be part of a program receiving federal funds.
President Bush's initiative runs counter to decades of First Amendment law, which holds that government dollars cannot be used to promote religion. The White House claims money will not be used to directly support religious activities. But by financing religious people who provide social services in a way that includes religion, the program will be doing just that.
The faith-based initiative is also unconstitutional, and fundamentally unfair, because it allows tax dollars to be used in programs that discriminate in hiring...
[ link ] Read the story >
LA Times / Commentary
December 23, 2002
Karen McCarthy Brown
Karen McCarthy Brown is director of the Newark Project, a mapping of religious life in Newark, N.J., and professor of anthropology of religion at Drew University Graduate and Theological Schools
Lots of people seem to think that federal funding for faith-based charity violates the separation of church and state. It does.
But there is another reason why Americans should be wary of allowing the government to have any financial control over our richly diverse religious traditions: Such funding allows the government to decide, essentially, what counts as a religion.
[ link ] Read the story >
www.nathannewman.org
November 18, 2002
Go GOP social security privatizers!
Read this commentary today by former GOP Congressman Vin Weber from the Wall Street Journal. He's trying to argue that because some GOPers ran on private accounts in Social Security and won, that shows how much popular support there is for SS privatization. But the key phrase in his article is this one:
"They promised to preserve the benefits of all current retirees and those nearing retirement."
Which is a nice promise and when you bullshit the public, you often can get shortterm political gain. But read the sentence again. What is says first is that there is no promise that most working people paying into the social security system will get full benefits.
Second, if you take a big chunk of social security taxes and put them into private accounts, that means you have to use a chunk of income taxes or other general revenue to pay for current retirees.
So here is what social security privatization means for young workers:
(1) Your guaranteed benefits will be slashed and if your personal account goes south in an Enron-style mess, you will be eating cat food in retirement.
(2)While it sounds like free money, you will actually be paying for those private accounts through increased income or other taxes.
(3)Therefore, the scam is that young workers get to pay double taxation, for present retirees and again to cover the costs of their own accounts.
Cute bait and switch, huh? The GOP gets to sound all progressive and pro-young worker, when they really are screwing them as thoroughly as possible. Paul Krugman has long been skewering Bush over the deceptive math involved in these proposals.
[ link ] Read the story >
The Black Commentator
November 13, 2002
Trojan Horse Watch
Your Tax Dollars pay for Propaganda Blitz
The Bush Administration is directly funding a media campaign by the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) [which is part of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University], the school vouchers propaganda outfit created by the far-right Bradley Foundation. The blatant political nature of the gift could not be plainer. "We want to change the conversation about parental choice by positively influencing individuals who are resisting parental choice options and get them to reconsider their outlook," said Undersecretary of Education Gene Hickok, announcing a $600,000 grant to the BAEO..
Also see:
Howard L. Fuller 
Sponsoring Conservative Minorities
[ link ] Read the story >
TomPaine.com
November 12, 2002
The conservative crusade to "privatize" Social Security played an important role in the 2002 election -- but not in the way that most supporters of this radical idea might have hoped. After more than a decade of aggressive marketing by right-wing interest groups, this was the first national election in which the privatizers might have gotten their dream scenario: a political debate over specific plans put forward by a sitting President -- and embraced by many in the House and Senate -- for diverting Social Security taxes and cutting benefits in order to fund private stock market accounts.
The debate, however, turned into a rout. The privatizers, when challenged, changed their colors and fled the field.
[ link ] Read the story >
Tom Paine.com
November 12, 2002
Bill Berkowitz
For 10 years, Christopher Whittle's Edison Schools Inc. has been hyped by right-wing think tanks and privatization advocates as the poster child for the transformation of America's public schools. These days, the controversial for-profit company is dealing with a plummeting stock price, a crumbling bottom line and charges it is cooking the books on its financials and test scores..
[ link ] Read the story >
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
October 15, 2002
Creationism Crowds Out Science
National Park Service employees from across the country who are concerned that Bush political appointees are taking our national parks in a new, dangerous direction have contacted PEER to ask for our assistance.
In a series of recent decisions, the National Park Service has approved the display of religious symbols and Bible verses, as well as the sale of creationist books giving a biblical explanation for the Grand Canyon and other natural wonders.
[ link ] Read the story >
Washington Post
October 2, 2002
Today, Operation Blessing International, a Virginia Beach charity created by Robertson, is to get $500,000 in the first wave of grants to be distributed under the faith-based initiative, which gives federal money to religious organizations that provide social services...
Also see:
How Pat Robertson self-dealt he and his son $90 million in tax-exempt funds
[ link ] Read the story >
Washington Post
September 14, 2002
Office's Officials Have Appeared With Republican Candidates in Tight Races
Republicans are using the prospect of federal grants from the Bush administration's "faith- based initiative" to boost support for GOP candidates, especially among black voters in states and districts with tight congressional races this fall.
Top government officials overseeing the program, designed to funnel federal social service grants to religious groups, have appeared at Republican- sponsored events and with GOP candidates in at least six states. The events often target black audiences, such as a recent South Carolina seminar to which about 1,600 black ministers were invited. The events' hosts explained how the federal program will distribute about $25 million in grants to community groups affiliated with churches and other private-sector institutions...[full story at Washington Post].
Also see:
Bringing faith to the West Wing: FB Initiative laying the groundwork for GOP patronage machine
[ link ] Read the story >
TomPaine.com
August 14, 2002
Bill Berkowitz
Despite Setbacks, President Bush's Faith-Based Team Moves Forward
More than 18 months after the introduction of his faith-based initiative, Congress is still debating a compromise version of the president's proposal. The "Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment Act of 2002" (CARE Act), which passed out of the Senate Finance Committee in mid- June, has yet to be voted on by the full Senate or be reconciled with a more controversial House bill passed last year. Although it is clear that Bush's vision of moving "armies of compassion" into just about every sphere of domestic life will not be realized by whatever legislation eventually emerges from Congress, the administration is making a great deal of progress funneling money to faith-based organizations..
[ link ] Read the story >
New York Times
June 21, 2002
Paul Krugman
To make sense of what passes for debate over Social Security reform, one must realize that advocates of privatization ... are determined not to understand basic arithmetic. Otherwise they would have to admit that such accounts would weaken, not strengthen, the system's finances.
[ link ] Read the story >
New York Times
June 18, 2002
Opponents of President Bush's plan to create personal investment accounts within Social Security released a report today concluding that the administration's approach would lead to deep cuts in retirement benefits and still require trillions of dollars in additional financing to keep the system solvent.
The report, by Peter A. Diamond, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Peter R. Orszag, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution...
...The report concluded that...monthly benefits...would be well below benefits promised under current law even after taking account of the returns from a personal investment account...
Under one of the commission's proposals, the report said, total benefits would be 10 percent below current-law benefits for low-income people, 21 percent below current-law benefits for middle-income people and 25 percent below current-law benefits for upper income people.
Under the other proposal, the reductions in total benefits would range from 21 percent to 27 percent, and would be even larger if adjusted for the risk of investing in the stock market, the report said. The benefit reductions would be smaller for people who reach retirement age in the next three or four decades...
Also see:
Center on Budget and Policies report (pdf) html summary of report
[ link ] Read the story >
Village Voice
June 18, 2002
James Ridgeway
A Small Cartel of Conservative Lawyers Rewrites the American Rule
Behind the Bush Administration's attack on civil rights in the name of war lurks the network of attorneys crafting laws for a new America.
Their hodgepodge of rules and statutes either now or soon will remake the nation, providing local police with sweeping federal authority, pushing the military and CIA directly into everyday domestic politics, and sanctioning indefinite detention without a charge or even a court hearing. Immigration policy already has disintegrated into the random search and arrest of anyone with dark skin. College students are to be singled out on the basis of ethnic background and required to carry special identity papers. In the rather near future, all citizens will be registered in a national database that includes criminal records, welfare payments, delinquent loans, credit card debt, and so on. Committees of local vigilantes are on the way to being sanctioned as legitimate militias assigned to root out terrorists, just as the Ku Klux Klan was after the Civil War.
These are not distant ideas out of George Orwell, but real laws and practices about to be put in place.
The underpinnings of this new America rest in the hands of a fairly small group of conservative lawyers in Washington...These intense, smart ideologues hail from the right-wing revolutionary movement, which believes it's past time to take America back from the crummy, weak- kneed liberal elites. Their moment has finally arrived...
...These...lawyers are at the vanguard of the legal attack, but they are scarcely by themselves. Rather, they're part of a loose, extensive team of conservative lawyers who have collected here over the years. Some have clerked for justices Scalia and Thomas. Some learn about liberals by working in their midst as "counter clerks."...Just about everybody seems to have some attachment to the Federalist Society and, when it comes to policy matters, the Heritage Foundation, whose links to the administration and conservative lawmakers are preeminent...
...Of all the Federalist members, perhaps the best known is Solicitor General Olson. An assistant attorney general under Reagan, Olson has popped up at just about every event in D.C. since then, defending convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, representing Starr, advising Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, and supposedly taking part in the infamous Arkansas Project, which tried to link Clinton to mob dope runs from Central America into Mena, Arkansas. Olson has denied any connection. He is perhaps most famous for this statement: "There are lots of different situations when the government has legitimate reasons to give out false information."
[ link ] Read the story >
Village Voice
May 30, 2002
Nat Hentoff
Will God Set the Curriculum?
...In a crucially important First Amendment case, The Supreme Court will soon decide whether the constitutional separation of church and state will be largely dismantled.
The case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, concerns an Ohio program in which $2250 in public tax money is given in the form of vouchers, called "scholarships," to mainly low-income Cleveland families—many of them black—to remove their children from failing public schools and put them in private schools, including religious schools.
In the case before the Supreme Court, 99.4 percent of the children using these vouchers are going to religious schools...At issue is the First Amendment's command in the Establishment Clause that "there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion."
...the Supreme Court will decide whether the Cleveland voucher plan—and others in place or planned around the country—advance religion and also entangle government with religion. The Court will also rule on whether there is no violation of the Establishment Clause if the voucher money does not go directly to the religious schools but is paid to the parents, who then make a free and independent choice to use that money for a private religious school.
On February 20, oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court. The Bush-Ashcroft administration, which firmly supports the Cleveland voucher program, sent its top gun, Solicitor General [Ted] Olson, to defend it. He has often, and effectively, argued before the Court.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked Olson whether the voucher program makes "any effort to make sure that the money that ends up in the parochial schools is not used for religious training."
"No," Olson said. But he quickly added that the government is not "putting its thumb on the scales in favor of religion" because the parents make a "genuinely independent private choice."
Had I been arguing for the other side that day, I would have shown the Court this stern advice to parents who want to use vouchers from a Lutheran school in Cleveland:
"It is highly inconsistent for any parents to send a child to this school if they . . . are not living a Christian life or willing to learn how to lead such a life [and] are not supporting part of a Congregation through worship and sharing of time and talents."
Jews, Muslims, atheists, and agnostics need not apply to this school, however "genuinely independent" their choice to send their kids, with public money, to a religious school...
...The vote in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris will, in all likelihood, be 5-4, with Sandra Day O'Connor deciding whether to tear down much of what remains of that wall separating church and state. To be continued.
[ link ] Read the story >
Washington Post
May 4, 2002
Gerald Bracey
There's no pleasing some people, even when they get what they want. So why do we keep listening to them?
For almost 20 years now...prominent business leaders and politicians have sounded the same alarm about the nation's public schools. It began with the 1983 golden treasury of selected, spun and distorted education statistics, "A Nation At Risk," whose authors wrote, "If only to keep and improve on the slim competitive edge we retain in world markets, we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system..." The document tightly yoked our economic position in the world to how well or poorly students bubbled in answer sheets on standardized tests...
...So you might think that these Chicken Littles would be firing up their fax machines and e-mailing everywhere to report the following hot news from the World Economic Forum's "Global Competitiveness Report, 2001-2002": The United States ranks second in the organization's Current Competitiveness Index, trailing only Finland...
...But the naysayers haven't trumpeted the CCI ranking...Schools often take the hit for bad turns of events, but somehow never get the credit for upturns...In 1969, America put a man on the moon, a destination that the Russians -- with their allegedly superior scientists -- never reached. Did a magazine declare an end to the "crisis" in education? Do pigs fly?
...I've been following the angst over our competitive capabilities since the 1983 report, and I've noticed the same pattern. In the early 1990s, as the economy tanked and a recession set in, many variations of "lousy - schools -are - producing - a - lousy - workforce -and - it's - killing - us - in - the - global - marketplace" could be heard. But these slackers somehow managed to turn things around: By early 1994, many publications featured banner headlines about the recovery that later became the longest sustained period of growth in the nation's history...
Well, if the schools took the rap when the economy went south, surely they would be praised when the economy boomed, right? Hardly. A mere three months after the Times story appeared, IBM CEO Louis V. Gerstner Jr., wrote an op-ed for for the Times headlined "Our Schools Are Failing." They are failing, said Gerstner, because they are not producing students who can compete with their international peers.
The bashers have kept up their drumbeat. Intel CEO Craig R. Barrett, Texas Instruments CEO Thomas Engibous, State Farm Insurance CEO Edward Rust and then-Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson all took to the nation's op-ed pages in 2000 and 2001 to lament the threat that our education system poses to our competitiveness...
...None of these fine gentlemen provided any data on the relationship between the economy's health and the performance of schools. Our long economic boom suggests there isn't one -- or that our schools are better than the critics claim. ..
[ link ] Read the story >
April 24, 2002
Crossfire on CNN
CARVILLE: Did Mr. Olson tell the truth under oath? [about not being involved in the Arkansas Project]
BROCK: He did not. He was up to his ears in the Arkansas...
CARVILLE: So wait, he is the current -- so listen, he lied under oath?
BROCK: He did.
[ link ] Read the story >
St Paul Pioneer Press
April 22, 2002
Rob Levine, guest columnist
In "With school choice, every child can win" (March 1), the Heritage Foundation's Jennifer Garrett fails to mention that the real goals of the school choice movement are the breakup of one of the last two unionized sectors of U.S. society: public primary and secondary education, and the conversion to private profit of some of the $300 billion spent in the U.S. each year on public primary and secondary education...
[ link ] Read the story >
New York Times
March 28, 2002
Paul Krugman
In a way, it's a shame that so much of David Brock's "Blinded by the Right: The conscience of an ex- conservative" is about the private lives of our self-appointed moral guardians. Those tales will sell books, but they may obscure the important message: that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" is not an overheated metaphor but a straightforward reality, and that it works a lot like a special- interest lobby.
[ link ] Read the story >
WorkingForChange
February 12, 2002
Bill Berkowitz
Cautious 'compromise' treads dangerous territory
On February 7 President Bush, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), announced that they had settled on a deal for legislation that would incorporate some of the president's proposals from his faith-based initiative. Whether the provisions will become law or not is still up in the air, because they must be approved by both the House and the Senate.
The most controversial provision in the proposed legislation would allow direct grants to religious based charities, which currently must setup non-sectarian branches of themselves in order to get federal money.
This provision is an extension of the so-called "charitable choice" provisions, first introduced into the 1996 welfare reform bill by then-Senator now-Attorney General John Ashcroft. It is not now clear whether these religious federal money recipients would have to abide by all other federal laws, such as civil rights laws, or laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, or religious beliefs.
According to Rep. Bobby Scott, (D-Va), "The legislation does not make it clear that religious groups that discriminate in hiring will not be eligible. Rather, it will be up to the Bush administration to interpret the law..." Writes Berkowitz: "The result of this compromise is that the Bush Administration, stocked as it is with right-wing ideologues, will be the fox guarding the henhouse. And, at the risk of mixing metaphors, they've created a loophole you could drive a bunch of tractor-trailer trucks through."
Of course the Bush Administration is not to be trusted to deal even-handedly with religious charities that support it. Berkowitz recounts last year's ugly dustup over a backroom political deal between the Salvation Army and the Bush Administration that would have allowed the Salvation Army to receive federal funds and still discriminate against homosexuals, while providing the Bush Administration with a $1 million campaign touting it paid for by the Salvation Army.
Berkowitz also recounts how Marvin Olasky, the conservative philanthropy product who is the "godfather" of "compassionate conservatism" (and advisor to George W. Bush), reported last year in his World magazine that he had been given assuarances by the Bush Administration that its legislation-writer was a master at writing "vague language" that would create an opening for religious grant recipients to proselytize its beneficiares despite what appear to be restrictions against it.
Meanwhile, "Senator Lieberman praised the president for his 'leadership' and pointed out that he believes the legislation is 'a constitutionally appropriate' way to proceed...." Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has a different take: "The White House claims this plan will offer equal treatment for all groups, but it actually gives special treatment to religious groups."
"It is simply wrong for a publicly funded job training facility to post a banner that reads, 'Only Jesus Saves,'" Lynn added. "If a religious group receives public funds, they should display an American flag, not a crucifix. The faith-based initiative still has a giant question mark hanging over it."
Concludes Berkowitz: "At the end of the day, the Bush faith- based team may not have gotten all it wanted, but it has certainly gotten a foot, a rather large one at that, in the door. From this point forward that door will continue to be nudged open inch by inch."
[ link ] Read the story >
Arizona State University
January 31, 2002
Education Policy Research Unit
A new comprehensive look at Edison Schools, Inc., by Gerald Bracey at Arizona State University paints a disturbing picture of the for-profit manager of public schools. In short,
"No other project...illustrates so clearly the difference between the theory of market operations and the cold water of reality in schools [nor] contrasts so sharply the gap between the demands of the bottom line inherent in for-profit Education Management Organizations and their avowed desire to help American public education."
Bracey persuasively argues that Edison is a master of obfuscation, mystifying straightforward things like how many schools it operates, or how the students at those schools are doing, which turns out to be not so well. Further - there is little if any innovation going on at Edison Schools, where standard curricula are being used, and in some cases teachers are actually handed scripts to teach from! These policies have caused mass resignations among teachers at public schools where Edison has taken over.
Also see:
NY Times: Cleveland Case Poses New Test for Vouchers City Pages: The Edison Project's formula is simple: Take a Minneapolis public school, add some entrepreneurial savvy, and watch the profits roll in. Trouble is, it doesn't add up
[ link ] Read the story >
Freedom From Religion Foundation
January 8, 2002
The Freedom From Religion Foundation's legal challenge of direct, unrestricted taxpayer funding of a faith-based social service agency has resulted in the first court decision in the nation against public funding of faith-based initiatives.
In a decision announced this week (January 9, 2002), U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, for the Western District of Wisconsin, found that a public "grant to Faith Works constitutes unrestricted, direct funding of an organization that engages in religious indoctrination" and that the "funding stream violates the establishment clause."
Also see:
"FFRF vs. Ashcroft", Freethought Today, August 2001 FaithWorks' Statement of Faith, Theology & Spirituality, Freethought Today, August 2001 "Foundation Goes To Court Over 'Charitable Choice' Funding of 'Faith Works', Freethought Today, November 2000 Read the Faith Works decision
[ link ] Read the story >
The American Prospect
December 16, 2001
It appears that President Bush's Social Security Commission, packed with privateers and Cato Institute members, has nonetheless deadlocked and run out of steam, signaling perhaps an end to this administration's attempts to privatize the system.
Resistance to the plan was led by Republican Congressman Tom Davis (VA), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, and who fears that Republican candidates may be saddled with the plan.
Also see:
Cato Institute's Social Security Privatization website Paul Krugman writes that the commission and its authors are monumental liars.
[ link ] Read the story >
Washington Post
November 27, 2001
Justices Say Colo. Firm Shifted Arguments
[Editor's note: This Supreme Court decision represents a clear reversal and loss for Mountain States Legal Foundation and its client, Adarand Constructors]
...The court first heard the Adarand case in 1995 and ruled, by a vote of 5 to 4, that racial distinctions in government programs must survive "strict scrutiny" by the federal courts. Such programs must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling government interest," the court said, and remanded the case to lower courts to decide whether the highway program at issue met that standard...
...The case dismissed today, Adarand v. Mineta, No. 00-860, evolved out of Adarand's appeal of a lower federal appeals court's subsequent ruling that the program, as amended by the Clinton administration after the 1995 case, could indeed pass "strict scrutiny..."
[ link ] Read the story >
The Nation
November 14, 2001
Powers granted to hidden judicial bodies by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are supplanting regulatory authority of US polities
"Takings" theory fabricated by University of Chicago ideologue Richard Epstein and promulgated by the Federalist Society used to "protect" the "intangible property of 'expected profits'"
Previous conservative movement attempt to undermine federal regulatory authority via "nondelgation" failed at Supreme Court in case of American Trucking.
Little-known chapter of NAFTA gives more rights to foreign corporations than US citizens, in our own country!
[ link ] Read the story >
Atlantic Monthly
October 31, 2001
The conservative magazine survived and prospered for twenty-five years before Bill Clinton came into its sights. Now the former President is rich and smiling, and the Spectator is dead.
[ link ] Read the story >
|
