Congressman Boustany tries to have it both ways...

In Breaking news, Congressman Boustany is trying to calm the flames beneath his feet with regards to the tainted money he has accepted from Ney, Cunningham and Delay. In a press release today the Congressman states:

"These contributions were lawfully made, properly donated and reported, and have
in no way influenced my decision making," Boustany, R-Lafayette, said in a press
release. "My decisions have been and will continue to be made in the best
interest of the 7th Congressional District. However, some are attempting to use
the issue of these funds to question my integrity."

I could have respected him if he would have kept with his statement he made on Wednesday night, basically that these people have only been indicted and that doesn't mean there was a crime and besides that money was accurately reported.

OR I could have respected him even MORE if he would have said - "To assure my constituents and to avoid any appearance of impropriety I am donating this money."

Instead the congressman seems to want to have it both ways. In a classic Karl Rove move he blames all of this on "some are attempting to use the issue..." rather than placing blame those who are currently being investigated. Ofcourse he nor his party could do ANYTHING wrong, ever. (One is reminded of the now famous question of the President when asked what he would do differently - and he claimed nothing.)

We had hoped that during the Congressman's campaign that his words were true - infact that is why many democrats voted for him... that he was an independent thinker and that he would always do what is right for Louisiana's 7th no matter what his party says. Well one year down in the Congressman's term and 99% of the time he has voted with Delay - so here is yet another person who has sold his soul to the highest bidder.

I think it is time for a change... we can't take another year like this one, Mr. Boustany.

Well, At Least We're Protecting the Brave Members of Operation Essential Photo-Op!

While Congressmen in search of stirring photos for their re-election campaigns got to wear "full-body armor" during their swings through the war zone, according to Charles Boustany, apparently soldiers actually engaged in the fighting are getting short shrift when it comes to the armor they wear.

Here's the lead paragraph of the New York Times article on the subject:

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

Apparently, the Army has a similar problem:

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army was deciding among various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers, adding that they hoped to issue contracts this month.

The lack of responsiveness has resulted in a significant number of deaths:

Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.

The data is not new and has been known inside the Pentagon for quite some time:

The Pentagon has been collecting the data on wounds since the beginning of the war in March 2003 in part to determine the effectiveness of body armor. The military's medical examiner, Dr. Craig T. Mallak, told a military panel in 2003 that the information "screams to be published." But it would take nearly two years.

The Marine Corps said it asked for the data in August 2004; but it needed to pay the medical examiner $107,000 to have the data analyzed. Marine officials said financing and other delays had resulted in the study's not starting until December 2004. It finally began receiving the information by June 2005. The shortfalls in bulletproof vests are just one of the armor problems the Pentagon continues to struggle with as the war in Iraq approaches the three-year mark, The Times has found in a continuing examination of the military procurement system.

The production of a new armored truck called the Cougar, which military officials said had so far withstood every insurgent attack, has fallen three months behind schedule. The small company making the truck has been beset by a host of production and legal problems.

And the Humvees still aren't safe:

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still relying on another small factory in Ohio to armor all of the military's principal transport trucks, the Humvee, and it remains backlogged with orders. The factory, owned by Armor Holdings, increased production in December after reports in The Times about delays drew criticism from Congress. But the Marine Corps said it was still waiting for about 2,000 of these vehicles to replace other Humvees in Iraq that are more lightly armored, and did not expect final delivery until June.

This might help explain why support for the Bush administration's war of choice in Iraq has lost support within the military.

Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job! You, too, Rummy!

Boustany: "I would vote to repeal Minimum Wage..."

Greetings All,

Last night Anthony Fazzio, Frank Flynn, Gobb Williams, Richard Warren and I attended a town hall meeting hosted by Congressman Charles Boustany. To say the meeting was heated would be an understatement in my view. The most upset and angry I have seen a politician for some time was the congressman when pressed on Minimum Wage and a "livable wage".

The entire exchange started when a very concerned citizen spoke up and shared her problems with the current state of affairs for the working poor and middle class, stating that it was getting harder and harder to get by and asked what the congressman was doing to help. The congressman then went on to describe the help in ways of Mortgage help for Hurricane victims and the like. Portia Evans, local talk show host, asked him about "regular people" who do not have a mortgage they rented and there is little or no help for them after January 15th.

Anthony Fazzio peppered the congressman with questions regarding minimum wage and kept pressing the congressman on his stance on the minimum wage as it currently stands, and in between his answers Richard Warren stood up and made the point that the congressman just received a "cost of living" increase to his salary, but Anthony Fazzio would not let it go here. He pressed the congressman and first the congressman stated to us that he didn't know what the right "number" for minimum wage should be even pushing the question on to the Audience asking all of us - what should it be? But Fazzio shot back with "We know that $5.15 is not enough" - Noticeably angry the congressman tried yet again to change the subject and Fazzio was not having that. Finally backed into a wall, his face noticeably red the congressman stated he didn't support a minimum wage, that he believed in a free market and if given the chance he would vote to repeal the minimum wage statute. Well you could have heard a feather drop in the room.

It is worth noting that all during this exchange the majority of the room was clapping to Fazzio and Warren's points and there was only a small handful of folks who seemed to support the congressman's position on this.

Here is the exchange as reported by Jan Risher in The Daily Advertiser:

Anthony Fazzio and at least three other participants asked Boustany about the possibility of his supporting an increase in minimum wage, but Boustany avoided a commitment either way on the issue until Fazzio pressed the issue.
"Minimum wage is really a bad term. We need to call it a living wage," Fazzio said. "Would you vote to support an $8 minimum wage?"
"Will that be enough next week?" Boustany said.
"We know that $5.15 is not enough," Fazzio said.
Fazzio said that the working poor do not have a lobbyist in Washington looking out for their needs and asked again if Boustany would support an increase in minimum wage.
"I'm going to tell you right now, I won't support an increase in minimum wage," Boustany said. "If you want higher wages, you get rid of minimum wage. I'll vote to get rid of it if it comes up. I believe in the free market."
"What the free market has gotten us is CAFTA and NAFTA," Fazzio said.
"And shafta," someone exclaimed in the row behind Fazzio.
Boustany said companies go overseas because of corporate taxes.
"They're going over there for cheap wages," Fazzio said.
The small crowd broke into spontaneous applause several times during the exchange.

Lastly - we also pushed the congressman on Ethics. Frank Flynn pressed the Congressman with a direct question of "Will you return the money from Abramoff" and the congressman gleefully announced that he hasn't accepted any money from him and that he has a full time accountant trying to make sure he stays completely clean. (it is worth mentioning at this point that over half of the congressman's campaign war chest is made up of donations from "Special interest" PAC's). However, not wanting to let this go I stood up as Boustany seemed to be trying to tell the crowd that his campaign money was completely clean, I stood and specifically asked him of the $25,000 donation he received from ARMPAC (Americans for a Republican Majority lead by indicted Tom Delay). The congressman's answer was quite shocking, at least to me. He stated that "an indictment did not mean the person was guilty" and that that money was clearly in the last election process. I pointed out to him that the Bush Administration just yesterday announced that they have returned their money by ways of a donation to the American Heart Association. He claimed to know nothing about this, but held on to the "there has been no conviction, so there is no reason why he would return any moneys.

The above link is the article that appeared in today's Newspaper. It is my intention to not let these topics die, we must stand up and get answers and let the congressman know he is not above reproach and that his constituents are NOT happy with his voting record. We must also keep exposing these issues. The Minimum Wage issue is huge here, and this hits everyone's pocket book. Given that, we are going to insure that this message gets trumpeted.

The ground is right for a candidate now in the 7th... Who is going to step up? Either way we are going to insure the congressman does not have it easy. It is clear the crowd turned on him, as are the people of the 7th.

Onward...

Lobbying Plan Was Central to GOP's Political Strategy - Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times places admitted felon Jack Abramoff's corrupt operation squarely at the center of Republican plans to cement their hold on the legislative process in Washington.

Here are the first three paragraphs:

WASHINGTON — The corruption investigation surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff shows the significant political risk that Republican leaders took when they adopted what had once seemed a brilliant strategy for dominating Washington: turning the K Street lobbying corridor into a cog of the GOP political machine.

Abramoff thrived in the political climate fostered by GOP leaders, including Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who have methodically tried to tighten the links between the party in Congress and business lobbyists, through what has become known as the "K Street Project."

GOP leaders, seeking to harness the financial and political support of K Street, urged lobbyists to support their conservative agenda, give heavily to Republican politicians and hire Republicans for top trade association jobs. Abramoff obliged on every front, and his tentacles of influence reached deep into the upper echelons of Congress and the Bush administration.

The article goes on to report that some Republicans are proposing making a push for ethics reform in the hopes of repairing the damage done to their party by this scandal! The phrase "re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind for some reason.

Abramoff was a Republican operative before he became a corrupt lobbyist and one need do no more than follow the money to see where his allegiance was:

According to a study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, 296 members of Congress since 1999 have received contributions from Abramoff, his Indian tribe clients or SunCruz Casinos. Abramoff and his wife contributed $204,253 — all of it to Republicans.

In addition, Abramoff also leaned on his Indian clients to give to key lawmakers. The center found that Abramoff's clients gave almost $4.2 million, more than half to Republicans.

Republicans who took money from Abramoff and his clients are now scrambling to give it back or away. They can run but they can't hide.

This scandal is about money and power. The Republicans have had power and accumulated a lot of money. Abramoff was their key player who epitomized what the K Street Project was all about.

It's too late to run and it's too late to hide. It's all falling apart now. Abramoff knows his operation and he's been talking to prosecutors for 18 months.

SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY BY RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE

Save Social Security by Raising the Minimum Wage to $8 per hour
By G Edward Cook
Created 2006-01-03 02:58
Save Social Security by Raising the MinimumWage!!
Raising the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $8.00 could notonly help millions of Americans but could save our Social Security.
I feel the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is immoral. A personworking forty hours per week, 52 weeks a year clears almost enough topay for medical insurance for his family. This is a disgrace! Theminimum wage hasn't gone up in years. We need to raise the minimumwage to $8.00 per hour over three years then raise it another 25 centsper hour each year thereafter.
Raising the minimum wage to $8.00 would sure up social securitybecause of the added taxes paid to the Social Security Fund. Thisamount would be more than you would think.
A worker earning the minimum wage of $8.00 would contribute anextra $712.28 per year to the Social Security fund. The worker wouldpay $364.14 and his employer would pay the same. The worker wouldstill clear an increase of over $100 per week in his paycheck.
The government is saying our Social Security Trust Fund will run outin about forty years. I have estimated the extra money collected by allthe people working for minimum wage and the extra earned by thoseearning less than $8.00 per hour over the next 40 years along with a verymodest interest would equal trillions of dollars.
Thanks for your support,G Edward Cook

Panic on the Potomac as Vitter Patron Abramoff Cops a Plea!

"That giant sucking sound," as Ross Perot used to say, was the collective gasp emanating from congressional districts across the country today as Indian Scammer extraordinaire and now admitted felon Jack Abramoff copped a plea in federal court.

Abramoff and the scandal that emerged from his dealings with Indian tribes owning casinos, has deep roots in Louisiana. And, while Slate lists a number of prominent Republicans (and one Democrat) who have a lot to be worried about, Louisiana Senator David Vitter will no doubt have to pony up with more detailed and more believable explanations of how it came to be that Abramoff hosted a fund-raiser for the then-Congressman in appreciation for Vitter's helping one of Abramoff's clients. After all, before today, Abramoff was just alleged to be dirty. Now, he's confessed that his operation was corrupt and that it had very long tentacles.

Vitter's defense, thus far, is that he was a rube. That is, Abramoff and Ralph Reed 'played' him by using his strong anti-gambling sentiments to oppose an Indian casino license in Louisiana in a way that benefited their clients.

The fund-raiser that Abramoff hosted at his restaurant in 'appreciation' for Vitter's loyalty was legitimate, Vitter claims — except that Abramoff's restaurant never billed the Vitter campaign for the food, beverages and service. It wasn't until the scandal took on serious implications last year that Vitter got around to insisting that the bill be paid.

Turns out that hosting fund-raisers at his restaurant and not making the politician pay the bill was part of Abramoff's modus operandi.

What's that old rule? 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me?' Well, Senator, what is it?

Charlie Boustany's recent partner in Operation Essential Campaign Photo-Op, Ohio Republican Bob Ney, is in water so hot that all its missing is the salt, pepper, potatoes and corn to be officially declared a "boil."

Boustany's own patron, Congressman Tom DeLay, figures to be next in line behind Ney in terms of being a target. The mess DeLay is in with Abramoff in Washington makes his troubles in Texas seem trifling. The Texas indictment only cost DeLay his majority leadership. Abramoff may have the information that puts DeLay in prison.

Bobby Jindal's ideological patron, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform is also in trouble, thanks to his years of close dealings with Abramoff. If Norquist goes to jail, Jindal will have to come up with another grandstand type ploy to win attention when he runs for governor next time — unless Norquist will run his no-tax pledge operation from prison. Maybe a green palm for having been so close to so corrupt a figure?

Louisiana Republican Fourth District Congressman Jim McCrery was the 11th largest congressional beneficiary of campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients. No word tonight on whether McCrery is going to try to give the money back or not.

The facts will show that the vast majority of Abramoff's money went to Republican members of congress and their campaigns, and to causes tied to Republicans. Some Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Abramoff now, but it appears to be several years too late. I forget: does the white smoke mean a congressman is burning the money or does it signal he/she is giving it to charity?

For full reports on Abramoff's plea and its implications, look here, here, here, and here.

This scandal is about greed, sure. But it is also about the corruption that dominant power brings with it. Republicans, remember, won control of the House of Representatives running against the corruption of the Democratic majority in that chamber. That corruption of a couple of leaders of that body looks pretty venal when compared to this. Their corruption today is as complete as their hold on the levers of power in the federal government: the House, Senate and White House all under the control of a party that committed itself to trying to change the game so that they would retain power for decades to come.

The corruption that will be uncovered in the Abramoff operation is systemic. It is the logical result to a system where big money dominated everything: the election process (it costs at least a million dollars to run for — and win — a seat in Congress these days); the legislative process (lobbyists have been writing laws in Congressional committees since 1995 when Newt Gingrich became Speaker), and the traditional media (Peter Jennings left a $50 million estate to his family when he died; wonder what circles he ran in?).

All of which is to say that if there is any doubt as to why government does not work for the people who work in this country, grab a newspaper account of this scandal and read it. Politicians of all stripes want your vote, but they don't want — and can't hear — your voice because money doesn't talk, it screams. And it's been absolutely wailing in Washington.

Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. If we want our government to work for us again, we — your and I — must throw out of the Capital the lobbyists and the politicians who are in their pockets!

THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Boustany Puts Party Before Principle With Iraq Spin

Congressman Charles Boustany just returned from Operation Essential Campaign Photo Op in Iraq and, on cue, gave The Daily Advertiser a breathless "everything's coming up roses" perspective on the war we're waging there.

Seems the fact that he and his fellow Congressmen had to wear full body armor the entire time there and the fact that it was not safe enough for him to travel between cities by land didn't strike him as running counter to his own assessment!

Hey, why are Congressmen getting the full body armor and not the soldiers?

While Charlie was busy drinking the Defense Department Kool Aid and declaring that he wasn't scared to be there, Military Times was reporting that the war is not wearing well within the U.S. Military itself. Only 54 percent of active duty military give President Bush favorable ratings for his leadership in the Iraq war.

As for Boustany's touting of U.S. successes in Iraq, we can prepare to freeze the list. Apparently, the Bush administration is declaring rebuilding Iraq another "mission accomplished." The Washington Post reports that the administration is not going to request any additional dollars to rebuild the country we broke, in Colin Powell's famous (but inaccurate) Pottery Barn anology. No, not going to rebuild it. Not going to even leave a reasonable facsimile in our wake. This does not bode well for the 'other' major reconstruction process — the U.S. Northern Gulf Coast. The Bush administration apparently suffers from attention deficit disorder.

And, sticking to his party line script, Boustany tries to make the carnage all seem worth, well, the carnage. Perhaps the Congressman should consider the views of this father of a Marine killed in Iraq.

And while Boustany is all for wars in support of the myth of building democracy elsewhere, he does not particularly upset with President Bush's decision to shred the actual Constitution here in a sustained, illegal, and unconstitutional campaign of eavesdropping on communications of U.S. citizens conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). Oh, and those eavesdropped conversations were shared with other agencies.

One wishes that Congressman Boustany would take his oath to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States almost as seriously as he takes his blood oath to follow his party's political lie.

That's not a typo.