| |
|
Friday, August 15, 2003
|
|
Off on vacation!
I will post again on the 25th.
6:04:05 AM 
|
|
Supporting our troops - not!
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.
Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation.
Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.
Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year [Out of the $4 billion a month we are spending on Iraq]. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months.
A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report. Link
I guess that because Dubya can't do a photo op with them while they are in Iraq, it is time for this administration to shaft them.
6:02:47 AM
|
|
Dubya does like lawsuits!
Attorneys general in two New England states suggested Monday that the White House is behind a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate a federal report on global warming.
Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, both Democrats, also asked U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft for an investigation.
Rowe and Blumenthal said they want to know whether White House officials working at the Council on Environmental Quality solicited a lawsuit filed by a conservative Washington think tank to discredit a 2000 report that documents the dangers of global warming.
The lawsuit was filed last week by the Competitive Enterprise Institute against the White House Office on Science and Technology.
Blumenthal said a June 2002 e-mail between a CEI executive and White House staffers "indicates a secret initiative by the administration to invite and orchestrate a lawsuit against itself to discredit an official United States government report on global warming dangers."
Such action, Blumenthal said, could constitute improper and possibly illegal conduct.
Rowe said the idea the administration is inviting a lawsuit from a special interest group in order to undermine the federal government’s own work under an international treaty "is very troubling."
Dana Perino, spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, dismissed assertions that the lawsuit was contrived as "100 percent false and absurd."
Perino added that the White House, which released copies of the e-mail in response to a Freedon of Information Act request, has been "perfectly forthcoming" about its communications with CEI.
A message left with the Justice Department was not immediately returned Monday afternoon.
The CEI’s lawsuit argues that the National Assessment of Climate Variability and Change and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Action Report of 2002 should be invalidated.
The latter report includes references to the National Assessment and documents similar likely impacts, Rowe and Blumenthal say in a letter to Ashcroft. Link
"Improper and possibly illegal conduct"? I am sure all those right-wing pundits who thundered about no one is above the law will be all over this one.
5:58:14 AM
|
|
The California deficit
What's greater, this year's projected California deficit or California's share, according to its share of national population, of the projected Federal deficit this year?
Answer:
Latest Projected Federal Budget Deficit:
401 Billion
California's Budget Deficit:
38.2 Billion
US Population (2001 estimate, US Census):
284,796,887
California Population (2001 Estimate):
34,501,130
Happy Fun Calculation Time:
34,501,130/284,796,887 = 12.1% of US population
401,000,000,000 x 0.121 = 48 Billion = California's share of the Federal Deficit.
Bonus answer:
According to the Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org), California paid $255.8 billion in Federal taxes last year -- more than any other state -- but got back only $195.6 billion in Federal spending. The difference -- a whopping $60.2 billion -- left the state never to be seen again.
From Eschaton
5:50:35 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Unrelated Disney.
Last update: 8/29/2003; 6:17:35 AM.
|
|
|
