Michael, why dont you explain yourself without all those damn links.It's good that you are citing info, but why don't you explain yourself all by yourself.


I have to agree with you partly.Blacks have contributed greatly to our "demise", but the government has done quite a lot as well. Do you deny the governments involvement in the "Demise" of the black community(purposely or unintentionally?)

By the way, whats your race?

Michael don't worry about Affrimative Action and blacks. The group benefiting from it the most are white women....

Hello SweetWuzzy,

quote:

"Michael don't worry about Affrimative Action and blacks. The group benefiting from it the most are white women...." by SweetWuzzy

....This is true, which is another reason why I don't understand why so many Black people jump through any hoop against their own best interest!

"Michael, why don't you explain yourself without all those damn links. It's good that you are citing info, but why don't you explain yourself all by yourself." by Michael, why dont you explain yourself without all those damn links.It's good that you are citing info, but why don't you explain yourself all by yourself." by SweetWuzzy

I'm doing the best that I know how in expressing myself, supported with valid information, to make my argument or contention stronger. A voice without references, documentation, reputable sources, documented court case info, real to life experiences, would not carry much weight!

I have to agree with you partly. Blacks have contributed greatly to our "demise", but the government has done quite a lot as well. Do you deny the governments involvement in the "Demise" of the black community(purposely or unintentionally?)" by by SweetWuzzy

...but the government is composed of people. The people must take an active part in government to control their own destiny, be it Caucasian, Black, Korean, Hispanic, Filipino, Albino, American Veteran, Handicapped, Women, trans-sexual, Atheist, Jewish, Islamic, etc.

....again, with regard to the Black community, the best protection or tools of advancement to the posterity of Black people is with our own elected representatives, lawyers, judges, police officers, accountants, actuaries, teachers, social workers, preachers, janitors, electricians, plumbers, civil rights advocates, veterans, fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, or anyone else who has a stake in the community of Black America, first and foremost!

By the way, whats your race?

I'm Black, and I'm neither ashamed of, or attempt to run away from being Black, to instead take on characteristics of something that I will never be!

Let the Truth Be Told About AA.....Affirmative Action Around the World! ...AA has yet to help the masses or the millions in the underserved, the indigent, and/or the unrepresented to move up from poverty.

...and the failure on the part of our own inept treasonous no good elected officials, snake oil poverty pimping no good Black preachers, and the Black middleclass who protect, defend, and serve this misfit set, insure Black poverty, so much so, that ecomomic conditions within the inner-city are even worse today!

Since this is the reality of it, it would behoove the rank and file to rid themselve of this sleaze, that is if the intention is to move ahead, in their quest to provide for the best interest of the future posterity of all Black people!

....and it is useless to blame the CIA, the Mexican Mafia, the Crips, or the Bloods, for the failure to use common sense and/or show respect for yourself!

I have been through the system, be it unwarranted penal incarceration, sharing jail cells with my other family members, being passed around between the unethical, greedy, treasonous, sleazy, etc., of Black America, in the name of AFDC benefits for the greedy or the sleazy, even to the point of having all my sisters and brothers placed on probation by Black probation officers...the youngest child being ten months old at that time.

....Mind you, not a one of my sisters, brothers, parents, or I, have been proven to be criminal, insane, unfit, incorrigible in any court jurisdiction in the U.S.

......This is very real folks. I've even included attachments to some of what I have posted to share this reality!

....and I'm not about to flip this script!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

quote:

Let the Truth Be Told About AA.....Affirmative Action Around the World! ...AA has yet to help the masses or the millions in the underserved, the indigent, and/or the unrepresented to move up from poverty.

To the contrary***

Affirmative action for blacks

For blacks, the history of affirmative action reads a bit differently. Blacks have always worked the nation's lowest-paying and most menial jobs. Unlike women, blacks were underrepresented not only in managerial/professional jobs, but ordinary middle class jobs as well. Because the qualifications for the latter are less than the former, black gains were accomplished more easily and quickly. Their relatively quicker success also owed much to the fact that affirmative action began addressing racial discrimination many years before gender discrimination.

The following chart shows the leading economic indicators for blacks since 1959:

Black economic indicators, individual (Median income: 15 years and older, 1994 CPI-U-X1 adjusted dollars) (10)

Poverty Unempl. Median Percent of
Year Rate Rate Income white median
--------------------------------------------------
1959 55.1% NA $5,998 44.6%
1960 NA 10.2% 6,200 47.0
1961 NA NA 6,525 48.6
1962 NA NA 6,814 49.4
1963 NA NA 7,423 53.7
1964 NA NA 7,929 56.2
1965 NA NA 8,155 55.4
1966 41.8 7.3 8,837 60.0
1967 39.3 7.4 9,443 62.9
1968 34.7 6.7 9,918 63.2
1969 32.2 6.4 10,430 65.8
1970 33.5 8.2 10,858 69.1
1971 32.5 9.9 10,632 67.4
1972 33.3 10.0 11,399 69.3
1973 31.4 8.9 11,555 70.1
1974 30.3 9.9 10,797 68.1
1975 31.3 14.8 10,693 68.9
1976 31.1 13.1 10,983 70.3
1977 31.3 13.1 11,059 70.2
1978 30.6 11.9 10,908 70.3
1979 31.0 11.3 10,783 71.8
1980 32.5 14.3 10,520 71.0
1981 34.2 14.2 10,367 70.7
1982 35.6 18.9 10,372 70.0
1983 35.7 19.5 10,283 68.2
1984 33.8 15.9 10,529 68.3
1985 31.3 15.1 10,882 69.3
1986 31.1 14.5 11,020 68.0
1987 32.4 13.0 11,425 69.5
1988 31.3 11.7 11,859 69.7
1989 30.7 11.4 12,052 69.7
1990 31.9 11.3 11,711 68.7
1991 32.7 12.4 11,471 68.8
1992 33.4 14.1 11,252 68.5
1993 33.1 12.9 11,614 70.7
1994 30.6 11.5* 12,248 74.1*

*Cannot be compared to previous years.
As these charts show, affirmative action has indeed been successful in helping women and minorities; the job just isn't finished yet.

A significant number of the 1.3 million black government employees owe their jobs (or promotions to managerial rank) to affirmative action. Corporate affirmative action programs (some voluntary, others reflecting consent decrees in response to government pressure) have opened up managerial ranks, though not yet the very top echelons, to minorities and women.

Any assessment of the expansion of employment opportunities over the past three decades must take into account, in Jerome Karabel's words, "how exclusionary many labor markets were in 1965 not only in high-status professions such as law, medicine, and academe but also in strategic working-class domains such as construction unions and police and fire departments." Karabel notes that while increased minority representation in the professions is widely recognized, "the record in certain blue-collar jobs is just as impressive. For example, between 1970 and 1990, the number of black electricians more than tripled (from 14,145 to 43,276) and the number of black police officers increased almost as rapidly (from 23,796 to 63,855)." A significant portion of these gains is attributable to affirmative action plans applicable to unions and local governments. Aggregate gains in employment and promotion for women and minorities have continued during the past decade, considered by some to have been a period of diminished attention to equity.

quote:

....which is nothing but more B.S. as presented by Kevin41, when placed in a reality check!

**Academic studies independent of Kevin41**

VI. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON TARGET GROUPS

It is also important to know whether affirmative action has improved the employment status of women and minorities. Research on the issue of target group attainment has revolved around three categories of outcomes: (a) employment rates, (b) income attainment, and (c) promotion rates and occupational attainment.

A. Employment of Women and Minorities in Organizations

Several studies have examined how employment has varied as a function of affirmative action policies. Leonard (1990), in a review of the economic literature, concluded that affirmative action increased the proportion of Black males in federal contractor firms in the early 1970s, although this was frequently limited to nonskilled occupations (e.g., Beller, 1978; Burstein, 1978; Goldstein & Smith, 1976; Heckman & Wolpin, 1976). Results for Black females and White females are less consistent in showing gains (e.g., Goldstein & Smith, 1976; Heckman & Wolpin, 1976). However, between 1974 and 1980, Black male and female employment increased significantly faster in organizations that were growing and in federal contractors than in other establishments (see further Leonard, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c).

In an analysis of EEO­1 compliance reports, Smith and Welch (1984) demonstrated a shift in Black employment from noncontractor to contractor firms during the years from 1966­1970. They also concluded that Black males were three times as likely to report they were managers or professionals in 1980 than in 1966; women and Black females were twice as likely to do so. Likewise, Osterman (1982) concluded that women employed in industries that received greater attention from the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and had higher rates of federal purchases had lower quit rates than women not employed in these industries. Warner and Steel (1989) reviewed data from over 280 municipal police departments and concluded that departments with a stronger commitment to hiring women had greater utilization rates of women in policing jobs, although this difference was sometimes dampened in times of budgetary stress.

More recently, Uri and Mixon (1991), in an analysis of male and female employment data from 1947 to 1988, demonstrated that women aged 20­54 had more stable employment from 1965­1980, although they lost some of these gains during 1981­1988. Men showed the opposite effect. Uri and Mixon also suggested that affirmative action programs increased women's share of projected employment while decreasing that of men. Other researchers suggest that the magnitude of these latter changes may be quite limited (for reviews see Clayton & Crosby, 1992; Johnson, 1990; and Leonard, 1989).

Research using more focused samples also suggests some effects of affirmative action policies on employment outcomes. Konrad and Linnehan (1995a), using a sample of 138 firms in a major metropolitan area, demonstrated that human resource management policies that took protected category status into account were positively associated with the percentage of people of color in the firm's management and the rank of the highest woman in the firm. However, these policies were not significantly associated with the percentage of women employed by the firm, the percentage of women in management, the percentage of people of color employed by the firm, or the rank of people of color. Konrad and Linnehan also found that human resource management policies that did not take protected category status into account were not associated with any of their measures. In contrast, government contractor status was positively associated with the percentage of women employed and the percentage of women in management. Further, firms which were subjected to compliance reviews had lower percentages of female employees and female managers than did firms which were not subjected to compliance reviews.

B. Income Attainment

Examinations of income attainment by women and minorities before and after the enactment of civil rights legislation has yielded somewhat inconsistent results. Burstein (1978) suggested that salaries of non-Whites were positively affected by affirmative action legislation. Smith and Welch (1984) reported substantial wage gains for Black men and women during 1967­1981 but suggested that most wages gains came prior to 1974. Son, Model, and Fisher (1989) found that the income gap between Blacks and Whites increased during the years between 1974 and 1981. This finding was moderated by educational attainment. Blacks with a high school education or less earned less than their White counterparts. However, young Black college graduates narrowed the income gap such that their income was quite similar to that of college educated Whites. In contrast, Crosby, Allen, and Opotow (1992) concluded that affirmative action legislation has not contributed to widening the income gap between middle and lower class Blacks. Leonard (1990) suggested that affirmative action increased the occupational attainment of non-White males and therefore has narrowed the wage gap between Whites and non-Whites.

C. Promotional and Occupational Status

Research has also examined rates of promotion and occupational status of women and minorities before and after the implementation of federally mandated equal employment opportunity programs begun in the early 1970's. This is relevant to the present review because the first principle of affirmative action is that the organization must abide by a policy of equal opportunity. EEO programs implemented in elementary and secondary public education systems of Oregon and New York reduced discriminatory hiring practices by about half (Eberts & Stone, 1985). DiPrete (1987) and DiPrete and Soule (1986) also found that EEO programs had positive effects on the promotion of non­White and female lower level employees to higher level positions in federal agencies. DiPrete and Soule point out that female and non­White lower­level employees did not have a greater probability for promotion than did male and White lower­level employees. Leonard (1990) reported that Black males increased their representation in skilled trades from 1974 to 1980 in federal contractor firms, although the employment rates of all Blacks did not increase over these years. Black females also increased employment share in all occupations except technical, craft, and white­collar trainee (see Leonard, 1989 for a review of the impact of affirmative action on women's employment). Son et al. (1989) found that Blacks' occupational status was moderated by level of education. College-educated Blacks fared as well or even better than their White counterparts; Blacks with high school education or less fared more poorly than their White counterparts.

D. Summary

Research on the impact of affirmative action on demographic group attainment indicates that, in general, gains have been made, although there is some evidence of losses for those with low educational levels. All three categories of group level outcomes (employment rates, income attainment, and promotion rates and occupational attainment) show some improvement over the time period in which affirmative action has been implemented.

**The brother rebuts Horowitz....this is an old article but it speaks a timeless truth......

Why Dems Need Blacks Revisited
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 3, 1998


Black People Must Be Stupid

By Joel Dreyfuss

Black people must be stupid. That's the conclusion implied by David Horowitz's Why Dems Need Blacks column following the November elections. Horowitz is baffled that blacks continue to vote for Democrats in majorities "like the populations of Communist countries." He complains that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) won 94 percent of the vote in his Harlem district and suggests there would be uproar if a white candidate defeated a black candidate because more than 90 percent of whites voted for the white candidate.


Horowitz follows in a long tradition of lamenting the willingness of black people to vote their interests. I can understand why he's upset: Unusually high black turnouts in key races had a lot to do with upsetting the Republican apple cart in November. Until the day after the election, the impact of black voters was barely discussed on the talk shows, a state of affairs reflected on election night, when being white seemed to be the primary qualification for on-air pundits.

Lamentations about black voters are often thinly disguised efforts to set them aside. In 1984, after Ronald Reagan won reelection with majorities among all constituencies except African-Americans, a number of political experts suggested that blacks were isolated because of their unwillingness to join the coronation. Yet within weeks, this same "isolated" group launched protests that would force a change in the Reagan Administration's "constructive engagement" policy toward South Africaprotests that eventually helped end apartheid and free Nelson Mandela.

One of the favorite devices of conservatives is the mythical "double standard." Blacks get away with behavior that would not be acceptable among whites because of white guilt. "Why Blacks Need Dems" is full of such insinuations. Massive black support for black candidates is one example. Yet in races involving black candidates who are not incumbents, 80 percent of the white vote usually goes to the white candidate no matter how qualified the black candidate. Even Andrew Young, that paragon of integration and moderation, could barely gather 15 percent of the white vote when he first ran for Congress in 1972.

The red herring of the double standard is actually a cover for another favorite conservative hot button: moral equivalency. The fact that most black people only got the right to vote in the last 30 years; that they represent just twelve percent of the population; or that they are the only ethnic group whose rights were specifically limited by this nation from its inception seem not to matter to critics like Horowitz. So 90 percent of blacks voting as a bloc is rendered equal to 90 percent of whites voting to maintain their dominance.

While Horowitz laments the refusal of blacks to vote for most Republican candidates (strange that he doesn't mention the Govs. Bush), he ignores the GOP's long history of race baiting and appealing to white interests. In fact, Republican gains in the South are largely the result of thinly veiled appeals to white voters who feared black political gains. From Richard Nixon's 1968 "Southern strategy" through Willie Horton to antiaffirmative action appeals in this last election, the message to white voters has been clear: Let's keep them under control. In other words, white voters are asked to vote their interests, although white voters' interests are usually equated with everyone's interests. Once again, black voters just don't seem to understand.

Horowitz cites welfare reform as an example of Republican policies that have helped blacks, but even many who favored ending the old dependencies warn that an unusually long economic boom may have masked the long-term effects of throwing tens of thousands off the rolls with little or no safety net. One of the issues he and other conservatives ignore is that African-Americans have been among the chief critics of the damaging effects of welfare. But blacks favored a more gradual, well-planned process to avoid the chaos that could hit many cities in an economic downturncities still viewed as alien territory among suburban white voters.

Why is it that white conservatives use black conservatives to support their arguments? If their ideas can stand on their own merits, why must they drag in blacks making the same arguments? It suggests that for all the posturing about merit, white conservatives feel they need someone with a different skin color to make their positions more credible. Horowitz laments the harsh criticism of black conservatives like Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, and others by mainstream blacks. But isn't the wholesale rejection of their arguments by African-Americans a sign of maturity? Blacks have looked beyond the color of their skin to the content of their character, and rejected their positions.

As one who has closely followed the arguments of conservatives of all colors for years, I think one of the problems with many of these black conservatives is that they simply restate old arguments made by white conservatives. When black conservatives try to make more nuanced arguments such as economist Glenn Loury's complaint that white conservatives offer no constructive alternatives to the programs they don't like they are expelled from the circles that initially welcomed them.

Conservatives like Horowitz cannot admit that black people have enemies. They are willing to give every opponent of affirmative action, set-asides, and minority election districts the benefit of the doubt: that they are really taking positions because they have the best interests of black people at heart. Maybe that's why he doesn't bring up the cynical Republican strategy in the first part of this decade to push blacks into majority-minority districts so Republicans could win all-white suburban districts.

And like most conservatives and a lot of liberals Horowitz is willing to dismiss the worldview of the black majority as simply wrong. African-Americans live in a world more finely nuanced than conservative ideology can comfortably embrace. Polls show that black people believe they have friends and enemies in all colors. Black people feel they still need affirmative action because of their real experiences with white people. That is why middle-class black people are more ardent supporters of affirmative action than poor blacks. They find that even the most well-meaning whites cannot always overcome hundreds of years of legislated and implied superiority. Just as African-Americans see real progress, they also see continuing obstacles, slights, unintended insults and exclusions. And that is why they won't embrace the Larry Elders and Clarence Thomases as heroes, no matter how often they get called black sheep.

Joel Dreyfuss covers technology for Fortune magazine. He is a founder of the National Association of Black Journalists.

Again, ML, your information and it's presentation, are not the whole truth.

It's interesting that two of the primary commentators on AA, one pro and one con, are both Professors of Philosophy at different academic institutions. It's also interesting, that Professor Pojman is White and Professor Mosley is Black.

It would be easy to say that their viewpoints are racially influenced but I will not comment on that. There is something wrong with Professor Pojman's objectivity, though. I say this because I have now read Pojman's essay in detail and his central theme is the discrimination against white males. He even cites a personal experience when a white male colleague was denied a position because the college was ordered to hire a women or an African American.

This does not mean that his arguments are incorrect but the whole essay seems a little "off". It is my intuitive feeling that Pojman's essay is not quite up to academic standards and that leads to your use of his percentages and your statement...

"To the contrary, 12% which leaves 88% that have not and will not reap AA benefits"

You see, these percentage figures are really from Professor Albert Mosley's book "Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference" in which he makes a strong argument for the continuation of AA.

But since Professor Pojman has taken these numbers out of context and does not explain what exactly Professor Mosley meant, other then to say "Consider the...percentages of those who qualify for Affirmative Action programs", we don't know what these numbers mean.

Unless, of course you've read "Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Unfair Preference" Have you read this book? Have you even read the chapter where Professor Mosley references these percentages? No, of course not!

So, not having read what Professor Mosley meant with his 12% figure, you can't use it to validate a statement such as...

"To the contrary, 12% which leaves 88 % that have not and will not reap AA benefits"

Does that make sense?

And really, in mathematics, there is not such thing as 123% of an entirety.

And only 12% of Blacks "qualify" for ALL AA programs???? Come on! Gimme a break!


CW

Maybe you're already covered this, ML. If so, just point me in the right direction. How was it that you became illegally incarcerated?

And since you were illegally incarcerated, how come you don't seem to have much compassion for all the other Black men who are illegally incarcerated?

CW

"Maybe you're already covered this, ML. If so, just point me in the right direction. How was it that you became illegally incarcerated?" by Chilewillow

I believe that I have posted enough information to answer this question, be it concerning myself, and/or other family members.

"And since you were illegally incarcerated, how come you don't seem to have much compassion for all the other Black men who are illegally incarcerated?" by Chilewillow

.......and I have yet to blame, or turn cold shoulders to any Black male illegally incarcerated. Again, it is you who have drawn such an erroneous conclusion. I have posted, and continue to post, enough free information to the contrary.

....as for the many individuals who have truly played a part in the destruction of the Black community, be it:

A. Stealing from the Black community game playing no good Black elected representatives.

B. Butcher/Killer King Hospital Black "quack" doctors, nurses and/or Hospital Administrators.

C. No good poverty pimping jackleg felonious Black preachers, deceitful Congressional Black Caucus, and/or psuedo civil rights advocates.

D. Big Tookie, the founder of the "Crips".


..... I'm not about to give praise or show compassion for these disgraceful, treasonous, and deceitful set of individuals.

....Many individuals are just fed up with the existing status quo!

Much of the factual information as posted by me, about my immediate family, did not come free or without extreme sacrifice. This reality being said, any additional information will be for sale.

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

Affirmative Action, Civil Rights: How Would Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts Vote?
By T.J. DeGroat
© 2005 DiversityInc.com®
July 20, 2005



After weeks of speculation that he would choose a woman or a person of color, President Bush last night nominated federal appeals–court judge John G. Roberts Jr. to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.


"I reviewed the credentials of many well-qualified men and women. I met personally with a number of potential nominees," Bush said during a short primetime news conference. "In my meetings with Judge Roberts, I have been deeply impressed. He's a man of extraordinary accomplishment and ability. He has a good heart."

But what are his views?



Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., is a staunch conservative who has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003.



Roberts hasn't been in his present job long enough to leave much of a paper trail.

"He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network.

That short tenure is precisely why National Urban League President Marc H. Morial is worried about Roberts. "We have very little information on his judicial philosophy with respect to the important ... issues of affirmative action, voting rights and civil rights," he said. "From Dred Scott to Plessy to Brown to Bakke to Bolling, individual justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have played a critical role in obtaining or denying racial justice and equal opportunity in America. Because the next Supreme Court justice will make decisions affecting the lives of all Americans, it is crucial that they have a strong, positive and demonstrated commitment to civil rights."



Roberts has provided some clues to his personal beliefs.

In 2001, in private practice, he wrote an amicus brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative-action program.



And as a lawyer in the Reagan administration, he worked to stop a congressional effort to make it easier for people of color to argue successfully that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act, according to a San Francisco Chronicle editorial.

During the first Bush administration, Roberts wrote a brief stating that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs"”a view the Supreme Court rejected.

Just last week, Roberts voted with a unanimous three-member panel to put Bush's military tribunals in the war on terror back on track. The decision clears the way for the Pentagon to resume trials for detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

DiversityInc Bookstore


Contains 539 pages,
20 charts and more than 300 examples from corporate America.
The Business Case for Diversity®

The Business Case for Diversity offers the most comprehensive and current analysis of the rationale for and success of corporate diversity.

Diversity results for: Human Assets, Marketing, Sales, Suppliers and Investors, New Population Data and Detailed Case Studies, and New Data on Spending Power of Ethnic Markets.

For More Information




Roberts' has worried some pro-choice advocates. As deputy solicitor general under former President Bush, he co-wrote a brief suggesting that the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. "The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.



But during his 2003 confirmation hearing, Roberts told senators that he would respect the high court's ruling. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," he said. "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Still, NARAL Pro-Choice America immediately issued a statement expressing concern about the nomination. "We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade," the organization said.

The National Organization for Women also is against Roberts. "We refuse to allow Roberts, who is such a stealth opponent of women's rights, pass the Senate confirmation process," President Kim Gandy said. "George W. Bush just guaranteed the fight of his political career with this nomination."

Bush's announcement was somewhat surprising. Many Washington, D.C., insiders expected Bush to nominate a woman to replace O'Connor, who became the first female Supreme Court justice when former President Reagan appointed her to the bench in 1981. Judge Edith Brown Clement, of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans, was considered the frontrunner.

Picking a woman would have gone over well with Americans. A USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll released this week found that 78 percent of those interviewed considered it essential or at least a good idea to replace O'Connor with a woman.

Sixty-three percent said nominating a Latino was a good idea.

Bush's choice was a "letdown to the Hispanic community," Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, told the Houston Chronicle. "That we have no representation whatsoever in the highest court of the land"”I think it's long in coming."

The surprise nominee has earned praise from Republicans and some Democrats.

"It's a good choice," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., one of the senators who doctored a truce on the issue of judicial filibusters. He wouldn't predict whether Roberts would make it through the confirmation process unscathed, but he said "it's certainly a good place to start."



Also in on the Senate deal was Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., who told the Hartford Courant last week that Roberts was one of three potential nominees he thought would not spark a filibuster (subscription required).



But the road to the Supreme Court is not free of potential obstacles. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

That's the stance taken by The New York Times, which opined (registration required), "It would be irresponsible to take a position on the nomination of Judge Roberts until his background is carefully reviewed, and until senators have a chance to question him at length."



The Chicago Tribune acknowledged that some Americans would be disappointed by Bush's decision to add another white man to the high court. "No appointment ... can meet every need," the editors said. "But the Supreme Court always needs outstanding legal minds. In Roberts, it would get exactly that."



The San Francisco Chronicle supported Bush's call for a "dignified process" of Senate confirmation. "But there is nothing undignified," the editors argued, "about asking pointed, probing questions about the record and values of a man vying for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court."

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Poll: Public Sees Bush As Less Trustworthy By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 19, 7:33 PM ET



Americans have growing doubts about President Bush's honesty and his effectiveness, according to a poll taken at a time people are uneasy with the war in Iraq, uncertain about the economy and nervous about the terrorist threat.

Half of those in the poll taken by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent, said they believe the president is trustworthy, while almost as many, 46 percent said he is not. Bush was at 62 percent on this measure in a September 2003 Pew poll and at 56 percent in a Gallup poll in April. One of Bush's strong suits throughout his presidency has been the perception by a majority of people that he is honest.

The slide in trust in Bush comes at a time the White House is answering questions about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in the public leak of the identity of a CIA operative.

"If the economy were doing better, the Iraq war wasn't as tenuous and people weren't as uneasy about terrorism, then they might be willing to cut Bush some slack on the Rove issue," said Robert Shapiro, who specializes in public opinion at Columbia University. "And it's all tied back to how the war was justified, so it raises all those issues as well."

Only half the public is closely following the allegations that Rove leaked the identity of a CIA operative, according to Pew. Democrats are predictably more inclined to say Rove should resign than Republicans.

But GOP support for Rove is lukewarm. About four in 10 Republicans said Rove shouldn't resign; about the same number said they were not sure.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said an analysis of the survey suggests the Rove controversy is contributing to the president's credibility problem. The belief that Rove has committed a serious offense is having an impact on Bush's ratings on believability, he said.

Only a fourth of people in an ABC News poll out this week said they believe the White House has been cooperating fully with the investigation of the CIA leak.

About half, 49 percent, in the Pew poll said they approve of the job being done by Bush on terrorism "” as low as he's been on that issue since Sept. 11, 2001. Many independents have abandoned support for Bush in this area.

Bush's job approval in the Pew poll was 44 percent, with 48 percent disapproving.

The poll of 1,502 adults was taken July 13-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

___

Pew Research Center "” http://www.people-press.org

I do not play the "who's got a better white man" contest but one would have to admit...Clinton was more than we'll ever probably see as a president, particularly a white southerner.....al I have to say is...blacks did well under Slick Willie....where unemployment went to the lowest in 40+ years (for blacks)...and I really think that is the reason bush got the support he did...he duped stupid white people with his brand of nationalism...and had them convinced that they could have prosperity without sharing it with those coloreds....now look at their stupid azzes...stock market gone, economy trashed, deficits, corporate scandals unchecked, jobs outsourced...and they can STILL get negroes to sing the praise of this administration...remarkable.........





Powered by



SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close







Clinton, Africa and true colors
By DeWayne Wickham
It's worth repeating that Bill Clinton was not this nation's first black president, but he almost certainly was the next best thing.

Clinton shakes hands with school children in Nairobi, Kenya on Friday. Clinton took a six-nation tour of Africa to focus attention on the AIDS crisis.
By Sayyid Azim, AP

Like Theodore Roosevelt, the trust-busting, two-term Republican president, Clinton, a Southern Democrat who also served two terms, has spent a lot of time in Africa since leaving office. Roosevelt arrived in Kenya in 1909 to hunt wild game. While there, Roosevelt and his son Kermit killed a lot of animals. Clinton went there last week to save the lives of black children.

When Toni Morrison, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Literature, offered the tongue-in-cheek suggestion that Clinton was the first black American president in a 1998 essay in The New Yorker, a lot of people cried foul. Some whites said it was condescending; more than a few blacks called the idea offensive. The attacks on Clinton's closeness to African-Americans picked up when he chose to locate his post-presidential office in Harlem, after being rebuffed in an attempt to put it in a more expensive building in midtown Manhattan.

But last week, Clinton showed once again why "” while far from black "” he is the one Oval Office occupant who, more than any other, has a real connection to, and empathy for, blacks in this country and abroad.

Tour through Africa

During a stop in Rwanda on Saturday, Clinton apologized for his "personal failure" to prevent the tribal conflict in 1994 that took at least 800,000 lives in that country. That same day, the former president was in Kenya to launch an effort to provide more children in that country with treatment for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Just 1% of the 100,000 Kenyan children infected with HIV are being treated. Through his foundation, Clinton is working to double that number and to provide lifesaving drug treatment to 10,000 children in 10 African countries. The spread of HIV and AIDS across sub-Saharan Africa has taken a great human toll and is an issue that has alarmed many African-Americans.

While in Africa, Clinton also attended a birthday celebration for Nelson Mandela, the 87-year-old patriarch of South Africa's multiracial democracy. Out of office since 1999, Mandela is nearly as revered among African-Americans as he is by black South Africans. Both the symbolism and the substance of that gesture put Clinton in a class by himself among U.S. presidents.

Global view

In September, Clinton will host a global conference in New York "” the first of 10 annual meetings with world leaders "” to discuss how they might address issues of poverty and strife. The "distinguished attendees" listed on the event's Web site include not just British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, but also Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and Rwandan President Paul Kagame.

Clinton "has always had this vision of a higher community, in terms of how we are interconnected and interdependent. So it doesn't surprise me that African leaders have such a prominent place in this gathering," said Minyon Moore, Clinton's former political director.

All of this would have been an impressive undertaking for a sitting president, keenly aware of how such outreaches in Africa might improve his standing among African-American voters. But for one out of office, Clinton's actions have a ring of selflessness.

In her 1998 essay, Morrison wrote that notwithstanding his white skin, Clinton was: "Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected (president) in our children's lifetime."

Her point is well-taken. Though he is not nearly as much of a race man as Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., or as tireless a black advocate as Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Clinton stands virtually alone as a president who has connected to blacks in ways that only another black might be expected to do.

But among those who have had the highest office in this land, Bill Clinton by far comes closer than any other to deserving the title of first black president.

DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY.

And that comes from a guy who lauds being a republican in the midst of double digit unemployment, twice the percentage than during the 90's...but I forgot...for some people that means it is time to celebrate, just like when AA repeals assisted in the decline of key social indicators....everyone has choice with what they would like to believe, but I guess the key is to know thy freind and squash thy enemy....and the rest is moot.......

"And that comes from a guy who lauds being a republican in the midst of double digit unemployment, twice the percentage than during the 90's...but I forgot...for some people that means it is time to celebrate, just like when AA repeals assisted in the decline of key social indicators....everyone has choice with what they would like to believe, but I guess the key is to know thy freind and squash thy enemy....and the rest is moot......." by Kevin41

Well as reality would have it the Democratic Party, the so-called liberal community, and/or most of all our own inept elected black leadership are doing an very dishonorable job at keeping the Black community oppressed which gave me good reason to change political parties!

Yep...the difference between 5% and 11% black unemployment....now that is a hard sell........I wonder which one is best? (end sarcasm)

Which I guessis why no one wants to explain double digit black unemployment (not just for black men for those who are stupid and want to include their own interpretation of what I just said earlier) during the last 4 republican administrations and single digit during the last two democratic administrations..I guess it all coincidental...those damn dems are just lucky..........real lucky....

**The highest levels of black OVERALL unemployment coincides with republican administrations over the last 25 years....that is not a sales pitch for the Dems..just a stating of the facts..no matter how ANYONE wants to FEEL about the matter.......

"Deseret Morning News, Wednesday, June 08, 2005

'Victimhood' can't explain all of blacks' problems

If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil-rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Ronald Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists," dressed in three-piece suits, to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil-rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope."

As my colleague Tom Sowell pointed out in a recent column, "Liberals, Race and History," if the Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it.

Only 30 percent to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per-pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.

Across the United States, black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary; their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.


What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery "” a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.

Since black politicians and the civil-rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic. But being so explicit is not as far-fetched as one might think. In a campaign speech before a predominantly black audience, in reference to so many blacks in prison, presidential candidate John Kerry said, "That's unacceptable, but it's not their fault." by Walter Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University

.....now again as for the likes of misinformation as expressed by any Kevin41, it would behoove the reader to ignore falsehoods!

Signs point to repercussions of kids being poorer
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
More U.S. children are living in poverty these days, and their parents often have difficulty finding full-time work, according to a handful of new reports.
Advocates say these findings and others are worrisome because they could hamper children's progress in health, education and other areas.

In 2003, slightly more children lived in families in which no parent had full-time, year-round employment than in 2000, according to the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, which released its annual Kids Count Databook on Tuesday.

The foundation's finding mirrors statistics released last week by a consortium of federal agencies that found child poverty is worsening after a five-year improvement.

Doug Nelson, foundation president, says the new statistics signal "the end of a lot of good trends."

Although few of the foundation's 10 leading indicators were sharply up or down, five worsened slightly in contrast with recent years when nearly all improved.

"Clearly, some of that momentum and progress has stalled or been compromised," Nelson says. "We think it's cause for pause."

The report gathers data from several sources that measure categories such as children's health, well-being and education.

This year, it found improvements in teen birth rates and high school graduation rates.

The joblessness figures are worrisome because it's unclear whether states are doing all they can to help hard-to-employ parents find and keep good jobs, Nelson says.

Many of these parents might be struggling with substance abuse or criminal records, Nelson says. "Their kids are going to end up in a world of trouble. That's our biggest worry."

Federal figures released last week show that 18%, or about 13 million children, lived in poverty in 2003, the latest year for which figures are available.

That is lower than in 1993, when 23% of children were poor, but higher than in 2001, when 16% lived below the poverty line.

For a family of four in 2003, the average poverty threshold was $18,810 in annual income, the U.S. Census Bureau says.

An increase in poverty could have dire consequences for children's education, says W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University.

For years, poverty rates were dropping sharply. "Now we're moving steadily in the other direction," he says.

Rising poverty rates mean that state-financed preschool programs targeted toward poor children probably will be forced to enroll more kids, often without more money, Barnett says.

"The population they're required to serve goes up every year, but their budgets don't necessarily follow suit."

Among Kids Count findings:

"¢The percentage of kids living in families in which no parent has full-time, year-round employment grew slightly, from 32% to 33%.

"¢Teen birth rates dropped from 48 births per 1,000 teens in 2000 to 43 per 1,000 in 2003.

"¢High school dropout rates fell from 2000 to 2003, from 11% to 8% of teens ages 16-19.

Other statistics released last week suggest that fewer kids are living in traditional families.

The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, a multi-agency clearinghouse, notes in its biennial report:

"¢In 2004, 68% of children lived with two married parents, down from 77% in 1980.

"¢Though the percentage of children in traditional families is down from 1980, the 68% figure has remained steady for a decade.

"¢Children living with just a mother are more likely to live in poverty.

"¢In the past several years, serious violent crime among kids has risen sharply. In 2002, such serious crimes affected 10 per 1,000 juveniles; by 2003, it was 18 per 1,000.

The victims also say their peers were more likely to be the perpetrators. Fifteen per 1,000 said a juvenile committed the crime, up from 11 per 1,000 in 2002.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin41:
**The highest levels of black OVERALL unemployment coincides with republican administrations over the last 25 years....that is not a sales pitch for the Dems..just a stating of the facts..no matter how ANYONE wants to FEEL about the matter.......

**This is a fact and the other reasons do not invalidate this FACT....regardless of what they are.......

"Domestic policyMain article: Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration

President Bush has endorsed an amendment to the United States Constitution that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, which would ban same-sex marriage, but leaves open the possibility of civil unions. Bush has tended to be opposed to forms of affirmative action, but expressed appreciation for the Supreme Court's ruling upholding selecting college applicants for purposes of diversity. Although President Bush did meet with the National Urban League, he is the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

President Bush has implemented three controversial tax cuts during his term in office. Bush advocates the partial privatization of Social Security wherein an individual would be free to invest a portion of his Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.

Bush signed the Medicare Act of 2003, which added prescription drug coverage to Medicare, subsidized companies that sell these drugs, and prohibited the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies.

Of the US$2.4 trillion budgeted for 2005, about US$450 billion are planned to be spent on defense.

In January of 2003, Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, which targets supporting early learning, measures student performance, gives options over failing schools, and ensures more resources for schools. Critics say schools were not given the resources to help meet new standards. Some state governments are refusing to implement provisions of the act as long as they are not adequately funded.

Scientists have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for reducing funding for scientific research, setting restrictions on stem cell research, ignoring scientific consensus on critical issues such as global warming, and hampering cooperation with foreign scientists by employing deterring immigration and visa practices. In February 2004, over 5,000 scientists (including 48 Nobel Prize winners) signed a statment "opposing the Bush administration's use of scientific advice". They felt that "the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important for our collective welfare". Bush's environmental record has been largely criticized by environmentalists, who charge that his policies cater to industry demands to weaken environmental protections.

Bush's cabinet possesses the most minorities of any US federal cabinet to date, including the first two Asian-American federal cabinet secretaries. (Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, the first Asian-American cabinet secretary, had previously served as Secretary of Commerce under Bill Clinton; he is the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet.)

His cabinet includes figures prominent in past Republican administrations, notably Colin Powell, who had served as and United States National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H. W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had served in the same position under Gerald Ford." by the President George Bush Administration, and more so than not, the majority of U.S. citizens agree with these policies.

...and tax cuts enable the middleclass and businesses to thrive, opportunity that generally increases business investment and consumer spending!

A Global Economy, and the need of business interests to lower the cost of labor has more to do with increasing the unemployment rate of Blacks than any Presidential Administration!

......High unemployment for Black people has existed during every Presidential Administration. Again our own elected Black leadership, Black middleclass, and/or others in positions of influence also have a duty to make for increased employment opportunity, business investment, competent representation, etc., within the "inner-city". Again the President George Bush Administration is not responsible for the demise of the Black community!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

*old W is giving them what they asked for...the damn fools who helped him get selected into office........


Economy

Bush Administration Fails to Jumpstart Economy
As of May, 2005, there have been 893,000 jobs created over the first 52 months of the Bush presidency - a gain that is due solely to the 917,000 jobs created in the government sector that offset the 24,000 jobs lost in the private sector. Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of the recession. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise.
Source: Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Weekly, Jenna Churchman, June 6, 2005

Legislation Reflects Bush Business-Friendly Climate, Weakens Consumer and Environmental Regulations
President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress are moving to extend corporate tax breaks, allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and limit lawsuits against corporations "” including a settlement of asbestos litigation that has driven 70 companies into bankruptcy. The pro-business momentum is accelerating, analysts say, in part because the steps are easier to take in the lower-publicity atmosphere of a non-election year. A bipartisan deal, moreover, which allowed some of Bush's long-stalled judicial nominees could also be a boon to US corporations. Janice Rogers Brown, a conservative, anti-regulation judge from California, will serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where most cases that affect government regulation are heard. Early in Bush's second term, Congress passed a law sought by banks and credit-card firms that makes it harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy. Another new law shifts most class-action lawsuits from state to federal courts, a move aimed to reduce huge verdicts against corporations.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor, "Washington More Open to Business Than Usual," Gail Russell Chaddock, June 9, 2005

Bush Budget Slashes Education, Veterans' Health Care, Law Enforcement, and Environmental Protections
The Bush administration's budget for the 2006 fiscal year will cut non-defense discretionary spending, including education, veteran's health care, law enforcement, and environmental protections. In all, President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget plan calls for elimination of or drastic cuts from 154 programs. Funding for the Iraq war, however, was recently increased. A House subcommittee approved an initial $45 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, two weeks after Congress approved $82 billion for this year's costs of the conflicts. Although President Bush argues that it is too early to request money for the wars during the 2006 budget year, which starts Oct. 1, with no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, war costs are certain and many lawmakers are reluctant to wait for his request.
Source: Washington Post, "Bush's '06 Budget Would Scrap or Reduce 154 Programs," Judy Sarasohn, February 22, 2005; Washington Post, "House Bill Would Provide $45B More for War," Liz Sidoti, May 24, 2005

Bush Vows to Veto Stem Cell Compromise Bill
The House of Representatives-including 50 Republicans-compromised on a bill to expand stem cell research, touted by scientists as a possible step toward finding cures for diseases and afflictions including Alzheimer's, cancer and paralysis. President Bush, however, said that he will veto any bill that uses federal funds for stem cell research. "The Congress has made its position clear, and I've made my position clear," Bush said. "I will be vetoing the bill they send to me if it were to pass the United States Senate." In response, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., stated his opposition to the President, "Not to have the availability of the best in medical care is simply atrocious. The bill passed the House by a big margin. And I think when it is publicized further, that margin could grow to override a veto."
Source: Washington Post, "Bush Rejects Stem Cell Compromise," Mike Allen and Rick Weiss, May 26, 2005; CNN.com, "House passes embryonic stem cell bill"

Bush's National Energy Policy is Full of Smoke
When Bush announced his National Energy Policy on May 17, he vowed to fund research into "new, clean coal technologies." Although the administration has been handing out $250 million a year as an incentive for companies to develop technologies that reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, the General Accounting Office-the independent research arm of Congress-has repeatedly found this "Clean Coal Technology Program" wasteful and mismanaged. A 2001 report, for example, found eight clean coal projects suffering "serious delays and financial problems" and two of them in bankruptcy. Perhaps most importantly, the new technologies are doing little to actually "clean" coal. The Energy Department's own evaluations of clean-coal projects have shown that many new "clean coal" technologies are actually 40 percent less effective in removing sulfur dioxide emissions than the more conventional smokestack "scrubbers"-the technology required under the laws the administration has so diligently weakened.
Source: Mother Jones, "Dirty Money," Daphne Eviatar, May 26, 2005

Bush's "Political Capital" Account Drained
When Bush won reelection last fall, he declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital" that he intended to "spend." Six months later, however-according to Republicans and Democrats alike-his bank account has been significantly drained. In the past week alone, the Republican-led House defied his veto threat and passed legislation promoting stem cell research; and Senate Democrats blocked confirmation, at least temporarily, of his choice for U.N. ambassador. In addition, Bush's approval ratings in public opinion polls rank at the lowest level of his presidency. In the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, taken in May, 47 percent of Americans approved of Bush's performance, tying the lowest marks he ever received in that survey. Similarly, just 31 percent approved of his handling of Social Security, an all-time low in the Post-ABC poll, while only 40 percent gave him good marks for his stewardship of the economy and 42 percent for his management of Iraq. Other polls have recorded similar findings, with Bush's approval rating dipping as low as 43 percent in a Pew Research Center Survey.
Source: Washington Post, "Bush's Political Capital Spent, Voices in Both Parties Suggest," Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei, May 31, 2005

Numbers Contradict Bush's Claims of Economic Growth
In the 2005 State of the Union address, Bush said that more Americans are going back to work and that the economy is growing and healthy. The numbers don't necessarily support this assumption. Job growth over the last 18 months has fallen short of administration predictions by 1,703,000"”more than one-third fewer jobs than the president's Council of Economic Advisers said would be created. Present employment levels show only 119,000 more individuals working than when Bush took office in 2001, which is effectively a decrease in employment rates, as the total civilian labor force grew by more than two million workers in 2004 alone, according to the Department of Labor. Additionally, the most recent data from the Census Bureau show that the average income for middle-class households has dropped by $1,525 since its peak in 2000. The labor force participation rate"”the percentage of people either working or looking for work"”fell in Jan. 2005 to a seasonally adjusted 65.8 percent, the lowest rate since 1988.
Sources: USA Today, "Fewer Americans participating in labor force or seeking jobs," Barbara Hagenbaugh, Feb. 6, 2005; Department of Labor, "Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age," Feb. 2005; Center for American Progress, "American Progress Report: Talking Points," Feb. 2, 2005; Center for American Progress, "On the January Employment Situation," Scott Lily, Feb. 4, 2005; "State of the Union," President Bush, Feb. 2, 2005; Economic Policy Institute, Feb. 4, 2005.

Bush Budget Proposal Heavy on Defense, Light on Domestic Spending
The Bush administration's proposed budget for FY 2006 slashes spending on key domestic programs. Major areas of decreased U.S. governmental spending include Medicaid, the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the environment, and farm subsidies. Places where the budget is seeing larger expenditures include border, airport, and seaport security, anti-terrorism programs, and food and drinking water safety. The budget proposal counts on Bush's tax cuts remaining in place, reinforcing the intent to make them permanent. The new budget does not include the cost of privatizing Social Security, which could reach into the trillions, or the continuation of U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sources: New York Times, "Bush Unveils Budget That Favors Security Over Social Spending," David Stout, Feb. 7, 2005; Washington Post, "President Sends '06 Budget to Congress," Peter Baker, Feb. 8, 2005.

Bush Racks Up More Debt
For the third time in three years, Congress will have to raise the federal debt ceiling, thus increasing the government's borrowing authority by as much as $800 billion. According to the Washington Post editorial board, "the Treasury Department has been doing the governmental equivalent of scrounging for spare change in the couch cushions to pay its obligations." This latest hike in the debt limit will amount to a grand total of more than $2 trillion during Bush's first term. "The deficits [the government] racks up year after year impede economic growth, burden future generations and force the United States to rely on foreign governments and investors," the Post reports. "Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education and other programs." In his first State of the Union address, Bush spoke of his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion debt held by the public at that time. He said, "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now." As it stands today, the debt is on track to reach the $6.5 trillion mark by 2011.
Source: Washington Post, "Soaring Ceilings," Editorial Board, Nov. 17, 2004.

Bush Plans to Overhaul the Tax Code
Bush never gets tired of indulging the special interests of wealthy Americans. Sources close to the White House say that the Bush administration is considering a tax code overhaul that would drastically cut, if not eliminate, taxes on savings and investment. According to advisors, Bush plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capitals gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps to "encourage economic growth." To pay for these changes, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and doing away with tax deductions for employers who provide their workers with health insurance. Bush has said that tax policy will be the centerpiece of his domestic agenda in the coming years. And during his campaign, he said replacing the income tax with a national sales tax was "an interesting idea."
Source: Washington Post, "Bush Plans Tax Code Overhaul," Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Nov. 18, 2004.

Bush Taxes Immigrants Wanting to Become U.S. Citizens
George Bush says that America is a "welcoming" nation. So why has he raised fees on the very things he wants incoming immigrants to do: work hard, play by the rules, and become citizens? Over the past four years, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (now a faction of the Department of Homeland Security) has raised the cost of 31 existing fees and has added nine categories of new ones. The tax to become an American citizen has increased 55 percent. The Bush administration has privatized the 1-800 immigration help line, and the new privatized workers usually need to read from a script to answer callers' questions, resulting in the dispension of incomplete or conflicting information. The administration cites the cost of increased security for the price hikes, but that figure ($21 per application) is less than half the amount of the recent fee increases. The real cost of these increased fees may be that fewer immigrants can afford to take the legal route to citizenship.
Source: AlterNet, "Taxing Immigrants," Jonathan Rowe, Oct. 19, 2004.


A Welfare Program for Big Business
In early October, Congress considered a $140 billion dollar tax bill that would provide a tax break to 276 large companies and special interest groups. Instead of using this money to help national financial worries, Congress has decided to give tax breaks to the rich and powerful. As Doug Thompson explains, this "corporate tax reform bill" is more like a "welfare program for big business." A few specific examples include provisions for the following corporations: Starbucks, NASCAR, Carnival Cruise Lines and Home Depot. Thompson claims that many members of Congress, representatives and senators alike, only care about "the golden rule." That is, "he who has the gold, makes the rules."
Source: Capitol Hill Blue, "Corporate 'Tax Reform:' Rich Get Richer While Taxpayers Get Screwed," Doug Thompson, Oct. 12, 2004.

Multi-Millionaire Bush Claims He's Not Rich
During a July 20 talk at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Bush seemed to disavow his own personal wealth: 'You see, if you can't raise enough by taxing the rich, guess who gets to pay next? Yes, the not-rich. (Laughter.) That's all of us.' Bush and first lady Laura Bush had income totaling $822,126 last year, and according to the Wall Street Journal, their net worth is somewhere between $7.7 and $18.9 million. "Bush tries to come off as a regular guy in his campaign appearances," Dan Froomkin noted in the Washington Post, on July 21. "But maybe he pushed it a little too far yesterday."
Sources: Washington Post, Dan Froomkin, July 21, 2004; WhiteHouse.gov, Remarks by the President in 'Ask the President' Event, Kirkwood Community College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, July 20, 2004

Bush's Budget Will Not Help Economy
According to the Associated Press, a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office study found that "the tax cuts and other policies President Bush proposed in his $2.4 trillion budget would probably have a minimal impact on the economy." While the agency stated that Bush's proposal "could either increase or reduce economic output through 2009, and improve it in the following five years," the study concluded that "the differences are likely to be small, affecting output by less than one-half of one percentage point." The effect of Bush's tax cuts and proposed budget are still unclear, and many leaders are demanding immediate and effective action. AP quoted Sen. Kent Conrad, the top Democrat on the budget panel, who described Bush's policies as "truly dangerous to the economic security of our country ... we have a responsibility to alter that course."
Sources: Alan Fram (Associated Press), "Office: Bush Budget Won't Jolt Economy," The Las Vegas Sun, March 8, 2004.

Bush Administration Projects Economic Improvements, Then Backs Away from Data
During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion. Bush recently restated his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs, stating "5.6% unemployment is a good national number." However, the New York Times recently uncovered a White House report indicating that the president is considering reclassifying low-paid fast-food jobs as higher-paid manufacturing jobs to make it appear like the unemployment rate is going down.
Sources: MSNBC Transcript, Feb. 8; The New York Times

Bush Attempts to Paint Rosy Picture of Struggling Economy
When speaking with a group of women small business owners on Jan. 9, Bush said that "unemployment dropped today to 5.7 percent," claiming that this "is a positive sign that the economy is getting better." Unfortunately, according to the Baltimore Sun, that is not the case. The Sun reported that underlying that positive number was "grim economic news"”only a handful of new jobs were created and hundreds of thousands of discouraged people dropped out of the workforce." Although unemployment fell from 5.9 percent to 5.7 percent in December, only 1,000 new jobs were created. Furthermore, the work force typically grows when the economy advances, but in this instance it shrank due to the 309,000 people who stopped looking for work. The withdrawal of these workers from the work force, not new jobs, pushed the unemployment rate down, as no significant number of jobs were created in December. The Sun went on to say that "the December numbers are a continuation of a long period of inadequate job creation." The economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since employment peaked in Feb. 2001, and gains in recent months have been "miniscule."
Sources: White House Office of the Press Secretary, "President Speaks with Women Small Business Owners on the Economy," Jan. 9, 2004; Baltimore Sun, "Falling Jobless Figure Deceptive," Jan. 9, 2004.

Poverty here at home increased for the second year in a row under George W. Bush. Find out more.

Under Bush: Surplus Dollars Turn Into Huge Deficits
According to the New York Times, the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare changes enacted this year alone will increase the national debt by $750 billion over the next decade. If the tax breaks are extended as expected, the total comes to $1.25 trillion over the the next ten years. Robert L. Bixby of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan budget watchdog organization, told the Times, "In fiscal terms, there is no doubt in my mind that this has been the most irresponsible year ever." Goldman Sachs economist Ed McKelvey stated in his firm's newsletter that "the U.S. federal budget is out of control." The $374 billion dollar budget deficit in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, which was by far the largest dollar amount ever, is expected to rise to $525 billion in this fiscal year. Should that be the case, the Times reports that "the annual budget picture will have deteriorated by more than $650 billion" during Bush's term as president, from a surplus of $127 billion in fiscal year 2001. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) criticized the Republicans' budget record saying that "they have passed an irresponsible fiscal policy starting with tax cuts and now loaded with giveaways." Worse yet are the forecasts for the future. Critics of the administration's budget policies say that "the problem is not so much deficits today as those in years to come." Read more about who loses when Bush gambles with the economy.
Source: New York Times, "Spending Discipline Proves Unfashionable This Year," Nov. 25, 2003.

Bush Economy: Temporary Growth, Lasting Damage
While George W. Bush has been touting good news on the economy, the picture is not quite so rosy, especially in the long term. The Boston Globe reports that recent economic growth is not "merely a lucky accident." According to the Globe, Bush's enormous military and security spending, and two of the largest tax cuts in the nation's history are likely to result in "short-term growth and long-term damage." The Globe describes the economic policies of the Bush administration as a "crude and destructive cocktail of stimulants." Even if the recent positive economic signals temporarily take hold, "the administration's policies will weaken the economy over time, fall particularly harshly on its working middle- and low- income citizens, and fail to prepare the nation for a century of far more intense global competition."
Source: Boston Globe, "Boom and Bust," Nov. 9, 2003.

Bush Policies Will Keep Nation in Debt, Says U.S. Comptroller General
U.S. Comptroller General David Walker refuted George W. Bush's claims that his administration can cut the federal deficit in half within five years without changing policies. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Bush has argued that by 2006, growth prompted by his $1.7-trillion tax cut plus spending cuts will pare deficits in half." Contrary to Bush's claims, Walker, the nation's chief fiscal officer stated that, "The idea that this is manageable or that we are going to grow our way out of the problem is just flat false." CBSNews.com reports that Walker went on to say that, "It's time to admit that we're in a fiscal hole and to stop digging," yet Bush has refused to change his mind about making the tax cuts permanent. Despite Bush's pledge to not "pass [problems] on to other Presidents and other generations," according to Walker, that's exactly what is about to happen. In an interview with United Press International, Walker grimly states that, "We must begin to come to grips with the dawning fiscal realities that threaten our nation's children's and grandchildren's future." Get more information on how this economic squeeze is forcing states and the federal government to cut back on aid to the nation's poorest families, many of whom are headed by women.
Sources: CBSNews.com, "Watchdog Declaring Deficit Crisis," Sept. 17, 2003; Los Angeles Times, "Bush's Economic Growth Forecast Called 'False'," Oct. 7, 2003.

Under Bush, Rich Get Richer While Outlook for Poor and Middle Class Grows Bleaker
The Associated Press reports that the total net worth of America's richest people rose 10 percent to $955 billion this year from 2002, according to Forbes magazine's annual ranking of the nation's 400 wealthiest individuals. Unfortunately, things are not going nearly as well for the rest of the country, according to two recently released Census Bureau reports. These reports show that median household income declined 1.1 percent in real terms from the 2001 figure to $42,409. Furthermore, the number of people in the U.S. living in poverty has risen for the second year in a row to 34.6 million, an increase of nearly 3 million people since 2000. The proportion of Americans living in poverty increased to 12.1 percent in 2002 from 11.7 percent in 2001"”an additional 1.7 million people in poverty.
Sources: Frederick, Md. News-Post, "Net Worth of America's Richest Rises After Two-Year Decline," Sept. 20, 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, "Poverty in the United States: 2002," Sept. 2003; U.S. Census Bureau, "Income in the United States: 2002," Sept. 2003

Bush Tax Cuts Lead to Largest Deficit Ever, Leaving Future Generations to Shoulder the Burden
George W. Bush's 2001 assurance that his tax cuts "could happen without fear of budget deficit, even if the economy softens" have proven to be false, as the estimated $480 billion budget deficit this fiscal year will be the highest in U.S. history. In a Sept. 5 speech, Bush admitted his tax cuts account for one quarter of the deficit. According to the New York Times, each dollar of tax cuts, federal borrowing to finance the tax cuts, the war and routine government operations will total $3.60 over six years. Citizens for Tax Justice estimate that the 26 million taxpayers making $28,000 to $45,000 are especially hard hit by federal borrowing"”each dollar of tax cuts for this group is accompanied by $6.55 of increased federal debt. MSNBC reports that even if the government limited itself to paying only for retirement benefits, health benefits and interest on the national debt, federal taxes would still have to be raised by 70 percent"”permanently"”to meet those obligations. This is an unfortunate irony, as Bush said during his first year in office that "we owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now" to pay down the national debt.
Sources: Washington Post, "A Sound Bite So Good, the President Wishes He Had Said It," July 7, 2002; George W. Bush, Presidential Speech, Sept. 5, 2003; New York Times, "Studies Say Tax Cuts Now Will Bring Bigger Bill Later," Sept. 23, 2003; MSNBC, "What Do Record Deficits Mean For You?," July 18, 2003; George W. Bush, Presidential Address to Joint Session of Congress, Feb. 27, 2001

Bush Policies Led to Loss of 93,000 Jobs in August
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced Sept. 5 that another 93,000 jobs were lost during the month of August. With August's losses, approximately 3.3 million private-sector jobs have disappeared since Bush took office. The Economic Policy Institute reports that this is the largest sustained loss of jobs since the Great Depression. According to the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc., further job losses are yet to come. The firm predicts an additional 399,000 jobs will be cut during the final four months of 2003. Unemployment has risen to over 8.9 million people, as the unemployment rate increased from 4.2% in Jan. 2001 to 6.1% in Aug. 2003. Critics believe that the continued loss of jobs and surging unemployment offer unfortunate proof that Bush's "Jobs and Growth Plan" is not really about jobs and growth but about misdirected tax cuts and mismanagement of the economy as a whole.
Sources: AFL-CIO, "Another 93,000 Jobs Disappeared in August," Sept. 5, 2003; Economic Policy Institute, "Job Watch," Sept. 5, 2003

Federal Deficit Skyrockets Under Bush Administration
During his first two and a half years in office, Bush has catapulted the nation from a $127 billion surplus to a projected deficit of $1.9 trillion by 2008. The 2003 budget deficit is set to hit a record high of $455 billion, a dramatic increase from the $158 billion deficit for the 2002 fiscal year, the Washington Post reports. Estimates for 2004 place the budget deficit even higher at $475 billion"”a sum which does not include the rapidly accumulating costs of the U.S. military presence in Iraq, which the Defense Department is currently estimating at $5 billion per month. The Post reported that White House budget director Joshua B. Bolton attributes 23% of the nation's deficit to the three successive Bush tax cuts.
Sources: Washington Post, "White House Foresees 5-Year Debt Increase of $1.9 Trillion," Jonathan Weisman, July 16, 2003


Following "Official" End of the Recession, Bush Diverts Blame, Unemployment Continues to Rise
According to the New York Times, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), an independent group that tracks the business cycle, recently concluded that the recession ended in Nov. 2001, eight months after it started in March and two months after tens of thousands lost jobs in the wake of terrorist attacks. A number of economists remain skeptical of the economy's potential for growth, particularly as millions of Americans remain jobless and more than one million private-sector jobs have been lost since the recession's alleged end. The Times reported that while the economy exhibited six consecutive months of job growth only 12 months after the official end of the recession in the early 1990's, payrolls are continuing to decline now 20 months after the reported end of the most recent recession. As Bush's 2004 re-election campaign begins to accelerate, the Washington Post reported that Bush has been practicing some of his own "revisionist history" in attempting to pin the blame for the recession on the Clinton administration. The Post reports that in Nov. 2001, Bush made several comments acknowledging the NBER-identified start of the recession in March 2001. Yet beginning in August 2002, and increasingly so in his re-election campaign, Bush began to insist that his administration "did, in fact, inherit an economic recession," which he stamped with a new start date of Jan. 1, 2001.
Sources: New York Times, "Recession is Over; Jobs Aren't Trickling Down," Daniel Altman, July 18, 2003

Bush Administration's Free Trade Policies Contribute to Record Deficit
During the first quarter of 2003, the U.S. reached a record trade deficit of $136.1 billion. The trade deficit"”considered to be the best measure of the country's international economic standing as well as the investment flows between countries and unilateral transfers such as foreign aid payments"”increased by 5.8 percent during the period of January through March. According to the Washington Post, critics of the Bush administration maintain that the "growing deficits are proof that the administration's free-trade policies are not working." The Post also reports that Bush's free trade policies"”which contend that the best way to reduce the deficit is for other countries to remove trade barriers"”are being blamed for the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs.
Source: Associated Press, "Trade deficit swells to record $136.1 billion in first quarter," Jeannine Aversa, June 19, 2003

Unemployment Hits Nine-Year High, Democrats Fault Bush's Economic Policies
The Labor Department recently announced that the unemployment rate reached a nine-year high of 6.1% due to the loss of 17,000 jobs in May. In reaction to the news, several Democrats voiced concern that Bush's economic policies are to blame for the steady rise in unemployment rates since the beginning of his administration. According to the White House Bulletin, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California contends that Bush has established "the worst record of job-creation of any President since the Great Depression." She went on to comment that Bush's policies have resulted in a nearly $3 trillion increase in America's debt and the loss of more than three million jobs. The White House Bulletin also quoted House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland as saying that Bush's "only answer to this glaring problem is to cut taxes in a way that most economists agree won't stimulate the economy and that will impose a greater share of the tax burden on the middle class."
Source: AFL-CIO, "15 Million Unemployed and Underemployed as Jobless Rate Rises Again." No Author, June 9, 2003; The White House Bulletin, "Democrats, AFL-CIO Slam Bush on Unemployment; Chao Defends Administration's Record," No Author, June 6, 2003.
Bush Signs Tax Cut That Neglects Minimum-Wage Families, Local Governments
Critics of the 2003 tax legislation recently signed by Bush"”the third largest tax cut in U.S. history"”claim that it neglects the needs of minimum-wage families and local governments. In order to pass the bill, Bush increased the federal government's public debt limit by nearly $1 trillion and okayed the omission of minimum-wage families"”which include 11.9 million, or one of every six children under 17"”from receiving an increased child credit. According to the Los Angeles Times, the tax legislation will cause many localities around the country to make even deeper cuts to already-reduced basic services. The diminished funding to localities is even more damaging in the face of the increased spending on public safety and homeland security now required by the federal government. To minimize the long-term costs of this tax legislation, several of the tax cuts have been implemented on a temporary basis, but the Washington Post reported that the administration plans to push for these cuts to gain permanent status"”leading to a ten-year cost that far exceeds the estimated $350 billion cap on spending that several legislators demanded.
Sources: Washington Post, "Bush Signs $350 Billion Tax Cut Measure," Dana Milbank, May 29, 2003; New York Times, "Tax Law Omits Child Credit in Low-Income Brackets," David Firestone, May 29, 2003; Los Angeles Times, "Tax Cut an Empty Gesture to Cities," Vicki Kemper, May 28, 2003.

Bush-Backed House Pension Proposal Might Hurt Workers
A pension proposal backed by the Bush administration and passed by the House would allow workers to receive investment advice from the managers of their 401(k) plans. Opponents of the measure are concerned that the proposal would open the door to "financial conflicts of interest because advisers could recommend funds that pay them fees." Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) argued that the proposal made no sense "when many of the biggest investment houses in the nation... have just paid out nearly a billion and a half dollars for committing just these kinds of abuses."
Source: Associated Press, "House Passes 401(k) Bill Allowing Investment Advice From Fund Managers," Leigh Strope, May 14, 2003

Unemployment Increases to Eight-Year High
Reaching its highest point in eight years, the unemployment rate rose to six percent in April, according to data released by the Labor Department. About 48,000 jobs were lost in April, bringing the total number of jobs lost over the last three months to 525,000. According to economists, indicators do not point to a quick recovery in the job market. The administration has responded to the economic slump by arguing that a nearly trillion-dollar tax cut package is needed to stimulate the economy. However, a broad range of economists have found that the "plan would provide only modest short-term stimulus because the tax cuts are not well-targeted towards quickly increasing demand."
Sources: New York Times, "Jobless Rate Rose to 6% Last Month," David Leonhardt, May 3, 2003; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Administration's Economic Growth Claims Disputed by Broad Range of Economists," April 17, 2003

Economy Continues to Hemorrhage Jobs
March 2003 employment data released by the Labor Department painted an increasingly dire picture of the job market, as more than 108,000 jobs were lost in March"”well above the 40,000 analysts had forecast. Although the unemployment rate held steady at 5.8 percent, the figure appeared unchanged partly because the number of people who have given up on trying to find a job jumped from 450,000 in February to 474,000 in March. Also contributing to the unchanged unemployment rate are 4.7 million workers"”up by half a million since last year"”who are working part-time jobs because they cannot land full-time employment.
Source: Associated Press, "Businesses Slash 108,000 Jobs in March," Leigh Strope, April 4, 2003

Tax Cuts, Economy Push Federal Deficit to Record Highs
Consistent with the record deficits forecast for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the federal deficit totaled $193.9 billion during the first five months of fiscal year 2003, according to information released by the Treasury Department. This figure is almost three times the deficit amount for the same time frame last year. According to the Associated Press, lower tax revenue due to a struggling economy and lower tax payments from individuals and corporations contributed to the soaring deficit.
Source: Associated Press, "Federal Deficit Soars, Heading for Yearly Record," Jeannine Aversa, March 20, 2003

Unemployment Rises, Economic Forecasts Worsen as Nation Heads off to War
Despite earlier forecasts that painted a brighter employment picture, the economy shed 308,000 jobs during February 2003. The Labor Department reported a 5.8 percent unemployment rate in February, up from 5.7 percent in January. The economy has lost approximately 2 million jobs "since hiring peaked in March 2001." Economists remained pessimistic about the economic outlook and indicated that the prospect of war with Iraq would prevent an improvement in the unemployment situation.
Source: Associated Press, "Unemployment Rate Rises to 5.8 Percent in February as Companies Slash Most Jobs Since Terrorist Attacks," Leigh Strope, March 7, 2003

Bush Withholds Information About State Funding, as States' Deficits Continue to Rise
The White House's Office of Management and Budget announced that it will no longer print a report detailing states' funding for federal programs. According to Democrats, Bush's decision is "an effort to conceal cuts the administration is making in popular programs." The move comes shortly after a meeting of the National Governors Association during which many governors complained about Bush's reluctance to provide assistance to cash-strapped states. According to the Washington Post, states have projected budget shortfalls of $30 billion for this year and $82 billion for 2004.
Source: Washington Post, "Seek and Ye Shall Not Find," Dana Milbank, March 11, 2003

Bush Budget Is Based on Uncertain Expectations, Increases Deficits, Cuts Domestic Spending
Bush unveiled his proposed 2004 budget, which analysts and lawmakers fear will generate larger deficits and will result in the elimination of a number of a domestic programs and which depends heavily on uncertain spending cuts and unreliable tax revenue increases. The proposed budget, which projects a deficit of $307 billion for 2004, does not include the cost of a war with Iraq and other international military operations. Under Bush's proposals almost 60 percent of the proposed increases are for national defense, while many social service programs are eliminated or reduced.
Sources: Washington Post, "Bush Budget Makes Big Revenue Gambles," Jonathan Weisman, Feb. 5, 2003; Washington Post, "Budget Sharply Boosts Defense," Amy Goldstein and Mike Allen, Feb. 4, 2003

Bush's Proposed Tax Cuts Will Decrease Federal Revenues
A package of tax cuts recently presented by the Bush administration as part of his 2004 budget would reduce federal revenue by $1.46 trillion over the next ten years. Bush's tax plan includes repealing the estate tax, eliminating tax on stock dividends and allowing tax-free saving "for anyone who can afford it." According to the Washington Post, Bush's proposals would "create numerous opportunities for Americans to pile up enormous sums tax-free."
Source: Washington Post, "Bush Budget Would Shrink Federal Revenue," Albert B. Crenshaw, Feb. 4, 2003

CBO Forecasts Increases in Deficit
The Congressional Budget Office issued a forecast that places this fiscal year's deficit at $199 billion, exceeding by more than a third the figure projected five months ago. The forecast comes shortly before Bush intends to unveil a proposed package of tax cuts totaling $674 billion. Merely two years after the CBO had projected a surplus of $5.6 trillion for this decade, surpluses are not anticipated until at least 2007.
Source: Washington Post, "CBO Worsens '03, '04 Deficit Projections," Jonathan Weisman, Jan. 29, 2003

Dubya's Economic Plan Is a "Giveaway to the Wealthy"
Under the guise of creating a plan to stimulate the economy, Bush proposed a 10-year, $674 billion package that includes $364 billion in tax breaks to investors. The plan, which Democratic lawmakers have labeled a giveaway to the wealthy, would greatly benefit the top one percent of earners, who will receive almost a third of the plan's benefits, while only 8 percent of the breaks will benefit the bottom 60 percent of earners. Bush's proposal, which includes all tax cuts previously considered by the administration, devotes only about 15 percent to short-term economic stimulus and offers no assistance to cash-strapped states. According to several economists, Bush's plan will not provide any stimulus to the economy or increase job growth.
Sources: Washington Post, "Bush Outlines Economic Plan," Dana Milbank, Jan. 8, 2003; Washington Post, "Analysis Finds Little Gain in Tax-Cut Plan," John M. Berry, Jan. 6, 2003

Bush Placing Faith, Country's Future in Economic Theory His Dad Mocked as "Voodoo Economics"
George W. Bush invoked the Laffer Curve"”discredited by economists and mocked by his father as "Voodoo Economics""”to justify making the tax cuts permanent. The Laffer Curve theory"”which propelled Ronald Reagan's economic theory and tax cut"”is based on the premise that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy, ultimately increasing government tax revenues. According to Bush, "the deficit would have been bigger without the tax relief package." While economists across the ideological spectrum believe that tax cuts may "have an 'economic effect' that partially offsets the lost revenue from tax cuts," there is widespread consensus that the tax cuts will nevertheless result in lower tax revenues. According to the Washington Post, even supply-side economists were dubious that Bush's tax cuts had a positive effect on the burgeoning government deficit.
Source: Washington Post, "This Time a Bush Embraces 'Voodoo Economics' Theory," Dana Milbank, Nov. 14, 2002

The Administration Refuses to Support Unemployed Workers and Their Families
The administration indicated that, despite the weakening job market, it refuses to support legislation to extend unemployment benefits to the estimated 1.5 million workers who will have exhausted their benefits by the end of September. An additional 700,000 workers are expected to exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of the year.
Source: Gannett News Service, "Senate Panel Considers Renewal of Extended Jobless Benefits," Brian Tumulty, Sept. 12, 2002

Tax Cuts Are to Blame for Dwindling Surplus, Contrary to Administration's Assertions
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently issued budget estimates that project a deficit of $157 billion in fiscal year 2002, which ends in September. The CBO's estimates also forecast that the ten-year surplus"”which in January 2001 had been calculated at $5.6 trillion"”will only reach $336 billion, a figure analysts believe is optimistic since it assumes that the 2001 tax cut will expire in 2010. Although the Bush administration has argued that the last year's tax cuts are not to blame for the grim budget outlook, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the tax cuts are responsible for approximately a third of the depletion of the surplus.
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The New Congressional Budget Office Forecast and The Remarkable Deterioration of the Surplus," Richard Kogan and Robert Greenstein, Sept. 3, 2002

Bush Devotes $89 Billion to Higher-Income and Healthy Workers, Shortchanges Uninsured Children
Rather than invest more money in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) program to cover uninsured children and adults, Bush chose instead to devote $89 billion over 10 years for health-related tax credits which many experts have said will primarily benefit higher-income and healthy workers; and in the case of one tax credit, could potentially be used as a tax shelter.
Sources: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Administration Budget Includes Additional Health Tax Cuts That Primarily Benefit Higher-Income Individuals," and "Health Proposals in Administration's Budget Could Weaken the Employer-Based Health Insurance System," Edwin Park, Feb. 5, 2002

Bush Rewards Wealthiest One Percent with More Tax Cuts Than Bottom 60 Percent Combined
Bush wants to make his massive tax cuts permanent, at an estimated price tag of $1.7 trillion over the next ten years. According to the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities (CBPP), when all of the enacted tax cuts are in effect the 1.3 million tax filers who make up the most affluent 1% will receive about twice as much in tax cuts as the 78 million low- and moderate-income filers who comprise the bottom 60% of filers.
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Administration's Proposal to Make the Tax Cut Permanent," Joel Friedman, Robert Greenstein, and Richard Kogan, Feb. 4, 2002

Bush Tax Plan Offers Relief to the Rich, Ignores the Unemployed
Bush opposed the Democratic proposal for the economic stimulus package, which consisted of targeted tax relief, assistance for unemployed workers and spending for homeland security and economic recovery. Instead he promoted a plan that funneled the lion's share of income tax relief to the wealthiest 1%.
Source: Democratic Policy Committee

Women and Children Left Behind Under Bush's 2001 Tax Plan
According to The National Women's Law Center, 17 million women would receive no tax cut under Bush's plan. Three million families headed by women with children have an income below the federal poverty rate. This large group would receive no benefit from the tax plan. Thirty-six percent of all single mothers would receive no tax benefit, and nearly half of all African-American and Hispanic single mothers would not benefit from Bush's tax cut.
Source: National Women's Law Center, "Women and Children Last: The Bush Tax Cut Plan," March 5, 2001

Bush Attempts to Give Tax Breaks Worth Hundreds of Millions to Corporations
Bush tried to repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Had he been successful in repealing the AMT, corporations would have received the following retroactive tax breaks:

$1.4 billion to IBM
$371 million to United Airlines
$1 billion to Ford
$254 million to Enron
$833 million to General Motors
$241 million to Phillips Petroleum
$671 million to General Electric
$184 million to American Airlines
$608 million to Texas Utilities
$155 million to IMC Global
$600 million to Daimler Chrysler
$144 million to Comdisco
$572 million to Chevron Texaco
$136 million to CMS Energy
$102 million to Kmart
Source: Democratic Policy Committee: DPC and Citizens For Tax Justice, Corporate Annual Reports

** I see why I was able to get a doctorate at a early azz age in this country......I never thought or still don't think that I'm all that gotdamn smart.....but I guess I have enough sense to give the illusion of being smart if you surround me with stupid motherfuckers.....they say that things in life are relative...and now I am starting to REALLY REALLY see that shit is apparent.

I have a saying that epitomizes relative intelligence amongst individuals: "In a classroom full of "F" students, the one "D" student is the smart one, but in actuality is a "D" student really smart? I am glad some people I dialogue with make me feel like the "D" student daily.....and for that....I love them........


It is funny how the public is starting to just now perceive the things the progressiive minds on this board were saying before the damn fool even got selected.......


Poll: Bush's Iraq rating at low point
Opinion of president's honesty also sinks

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also suggests fewer than half now think he is honest.

A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the poll indicates the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number.

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to disapprove of Bush on his handling of Iraq in the past six months. (I wonder why?-frontline fodder, that's why)

American troops have suffered heavy casualties in Iraq this month. On Wednesday, 14 Marines were killed in the Euphrates River valley in the worst roadside bombing targeting Americans since the war began in March 2003.

On Monday, seven Marines were killed, six of whom died in a gun battle near Haditha in western Iraq.

William Anderson, a retired Republican from Fort Worth, Texas, said Bush "has the right intentions, but he's going about them the wrong way."

"Iraq is one of the issues that everybody has a problem with," Anderson said. "There are some big discussions about it around town. Everybody's got their agreements and disagreements. It seems like there's no end. Is it going to end up another Vietnam?"

If worries about Iraq continue, they could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That is about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.

The portion of respondents who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53 percent described him that way while 45 percent did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue -- with 48 percent saying he is honest and 50 percent saying he is not.

The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was largest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election. A further erosion of trust could make it tougher for Bush to win support for his policies in Congress and internationally.

"The reason that trust is so important has to do with the long-standing belief that you could trust him, even if you don't always agree with him and don't understand what he's doing," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "The honesty dip is partly caused by a loss of faith in his credibility on Iraq."

The president said Thursday from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, that threats from al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, "make it clear that Iraq is a part of this war on terror, and we're at war."

Bush pledged to "complete this job in Iraq."

Almost two-thirds in the poll described Bush as strong and likable.

"He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Georgia, and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me."

But the portion of respondents who view his confidence as arrogance has increased from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now.

"This country is a monarchy," said Charles Nuutinen, a 62-year-old independent from Greenville, Wisconsin. "He's turning this country into Saudi Arabia. He does what he wants. He doesn't care what the people want."

Six in 10 surveyed said they think the country is headed down the wrong track, despite some encouraging economic news in recent weeks.

"Iraq is just a great weight holding down perceptions of an economy that is quite robust," said Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "Whenever you have troops in harm's way, people are anxious about things in general."

Ipsos, an international polling firm, conducted the poll of 1,000 adults between August 1-3. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



** But I want the blkCons to....hang in there and keep waving that flag.....I love it when negroes go down with the ship.....a CLASSIC case of "massa, we IS sick!!"

Kevin- would you please put links up when you quote things so we can have the opportunity to see where they came from and perhaps read the entire article/source. It would be greatly appreciated.

(I do note that you gave the source at the bottom, but a link would be nice also.)

Marty... They made GOOGLE for a reason...

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Marty... They made GOOGLE for a reason...

You're right Nate, but links would be much more helpful.

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Marty... They made GOOGLE for a reason...

Yep....if they are AP stories they are found many many places...but he could put in the title in Google and it'll take him where it came from...I do it all the time..........

"Government can set the stage, but it is the private sector that actually drives economic growth." by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez

.....and the Republican Party more so than the Democratic Party promotes private business investment, growth, and/or development!

The Bush Administration, specifically the Department of Commerce is setting the stage and is very supportive of private business investment!

...and this among other reasons is "Why the majority of Americans hate the Democrats"

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton

Bush, GOP Labeled 'Thieves' Who 'Need to be Locked Up'
Marc Morano
Senior Staff Writer

Atlanta (CNSNews.com) - A featured speaker at Saturday's civil rights march in Atlanta said the Bush administration and Republican Party leaders are "thieves" who "need to be locked up" for stealing the past two presidential elections and presiding over federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq.

"They all need to be locked up because they are all criminals and they are all thieves," said Judge Greg Mathis, the star of the syndicated television program "The Judge Mathis Show."

Mathis made his remarks to an enthusiastic crowd assembled in Atlanta to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Participants are launching a two-year campaign to extend and strengthen key aspects of the act when it expires in 2007.

"It is indeed criminal to steal an election and within two years run up a federal deficit of half-a-trillion dollars, send our young people over to Iraq to die for an unjust war. What they are doing is criminal," Mathis said to loud cheers.

The march was sponsored by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and included leaders from the National Urban League, The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the NAACP, and the AFL-CIO.

Entertainer/activist Harry Belafonte also used charged rhetoric during the march when he referred to black members of the Bush administration as "black tyrants."

Mathis, whose speech drew the largest and most raucous reception from the crowd, also chastised the Supreme Court for its role in the 2000 presidential recount.

"[The] Supreme Court was an accomplice to the biggest election crime in history in 2000. And I call it a crime because indeed that is exactly what it was," he said to applause.

The Bush administration was equated with past policies of slavery and segregation and labeled "the enemy of our (black America's) progress" by Mathis.

"They shot and missed when they enslaved, segregated and oppressed our people. They shot and missed when they stole the past two presidential elections. They shot and missed when they denied our right to vote," Mathis said.

An extension and strengthening of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is imperative to ensure black Americans the right to vote, according to Mathis. "The enemy of democracy continues to attack voting rights here, while they try to fight for democracy in Iraq," he said.

'Intimidation and discrepancies'Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California appeared at the march and noted that minorities may not have had full voting rights in the last two presidential elections.

"Some changes have to be made so we don't have a repeat of 2000 and 2004 where there was intimidation and discrepancies at the polls," Pelosi told Cybercast News Service during the voting rights march.

"In the state of Ohio, where they had fewer voting booths and long lines in minority neighborhoods and no lines and many voting booths in white neighborhoods, that the balance is not what it should have been," she added.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) echoed the accusation of many at the march that Bush was an illegitimate president.

"The last two elections were stolen. They were stolen and so we will not rest until we reclaim our democracy and this is what today is all about," Lee told the crowd gathered.

Lee also called the war in Iraq "unnecessary, immoral and illegal" and added "our nation was lied to in order to justify this invasion and occupation."

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) made it clear who the marchers were directing their anger at on Saturday.

"We are here to take on President Bush, [Vice President] Dick Cheney. We are here to take on [House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay. We are here to take on the new appointee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts," Waters said from the podium to cheers from the crowd.

'Cause Mother Earth so much pain'

Musician Stevie Wonder addressed the marchers demanding that the Voting Rights Act be extended and strengthened.

"Having to demand that we have a bill that will guarantee the voting rights of all American citizens forever is ridiculous," Wonder said. He also read the lyrics of an upcoming song to be released in September.

"At this time we have a choice to make. Father God is watching while we cause Mother Earth so much pain. It's such a shame. Not enough money for the young, the old, the poor, but for war there is always more," Wonder said.

The Bush administration was also targeted by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who declared that the president's "record against human rights, civil rights, economic rights, is absolutely terrible."

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said America was being ruled by the "Bush mentality," where "crony capitalism" was supreme.

Jesse Jackson said the Voting Rights Act extension is critical because "the same old enemies of civil rights and voting rights will always keep up their ugly activities.

"Race baiters and discriminators may go underground, but they never move out of town," Jackson said.

The organizers of Saturday's march want to strengthen and preserve Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which maintains that states with a discriminatory past must submit all changes in voting procedures to the U.S. Department of Justice for approval in order to ensure the changes do not have racially discriminatory effects or purposes.

While the Bush administration and House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) have indicated that they would support full reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act provisions in 2007, the organizers of Saturday's march believe they must begin acting now to ensure their goals.

"Kevin- would you please put links up when you quote things so we can have the opportunity to see where they came from and perhaps read the entire article/source. It would be greatly appreciated." by Marty

So far Kevin's supportive information is weak, lacks basis, etc., so he is finding it difficult to find valid information to work with to condemn the "Bush Administration" or to defend the many misfits in positions of leadership in our own community!

....so much for Congressman Charles Rangle, who is yet one more of our own Black elected leadership whose credibility is fit for the toilet!

....This must be the problem in that far too many Black people, especially as it pertains to the so-called Black middleclass honor individuals unworthy of praise such as Congresswoman Maxine "Kerosene" Waters, "no good serving foreign interests at the expense of South Central Los Angeles, Compton, etc.," illegal immigrant Merv Dymally, etc., etc., whose treasonous, un-American, illegal, unethical, and/or incompetent actions maintain poverty over business growth within inner cities across the Great US of A.

....be it incessant rambling, a broken record, or in this instance the truth, the Bush Administration is not Responsible for the Demise of the Black Community! Just proves that it is a waste of my valuable time responding to likes of Kevin41, Huey, etc., etc.....

......Furthermore, Hollywood actors, such as Michael Moore, Judge Greg Mathis, Harry Belafonte, etc., and/or actresses are not in any regard a good representation or substitute for the voice of the People!

...and why any Black man or woman in poverty from the inner-city would praise a Michael Moore is beyond me. Michael Moore used the support of Black people to move from a status of being already wealthy to a position of even greater affluence, behind the message of the very erroneous "Fahrenheit 911". That so-called Black middle-class who financed, supported, or who praise the likes of a deceitful liberal Caucasian in a Michael Moore must be functionally illiterate!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton