The Corrupt, Greedy, and Evil Republican Party: Scandals, War on the Poor, Torture by Americans

The ruling Republican Party is corrupt and rotten to the core:

quote

The other cloud on Republican horizon

GOP leaders and activists are beleaguered by alleged ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

By Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Of all the pending controversies in Washington, few may be as perilous for the Republican majority as the one swirling around former powerhouse lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

At issue: Did he bilk, with partner Michael Scanlon, six Indian tribes of at least $80 million, evade taxes, and violate lobbyist disclosure rules? Mr. Abramoff has been indicted on fraud charges in Florida in a case related to his $147.5 million purchase of a gambling casino. He also faces probes by two Senate panels and a federal grand jury, which may yield criminal charges.

But what gives this scandal so much scope is the number of members of Congress, federal officials, and top conservative activists it potentially involves. More than just the saga of a rogue lobbyist, it opens a window on a high-stakes, high-fee lobbyist culture that is transforming Beltway business.

"We don't know yet how big a genuine scandal it may be. But with more indictments expected in six to eight months, it creates a perfect storm for the Bush administration. Endemic corruption plus public unhappiness over other policies: It's a very combustible combination," says Norman Ornstein, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Insbreastute, a generally conservative think tank in Washington.

According to e-mails and congressional testimony, Mr. Abramoff used his contacts with top Republicans like former House majority leader Tom DeLay to extract huge fees from clients, especially Indian tribes involved with casino gambling. He contributed vast sums to friends in politics and charities, and served as a conduit for money to GOP candidates.

But until recent investigations, first launched by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, few knew the scale of the Abramoff operation, which could draw members of Congress and former Bush administration officials into criminal probes related to dealings with Abramoff.

"The story is alarming in its depth and breadth of potential wrongdoing," said Sen. John McCain (R) of Ariz., who chairs the Indian Affairs panel.

On Thursday, the committee will question Italia Federici, a former aide to Interior Secretary Gale Norton, on her ties to Abramoff. According to testimony and e-mails, Ms. Federici, the president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), helped Abramoff make contacts within the Interior Department on behalf of tribal clients, who later donated some $250,000 to CREA.

"There has been no evidence to suggest that Secretary Norton knew of, much less sanctioned, Mr. Abramoff or anyone else using her name in seeking fees and donations from native Americans," said Senator McCain at the Nov. 2 hearing.

Still, even the hint of an Abramoff connection is creating problems for members of Congress. Earlier this month, the Justice Department subpoenaed documents from GOP Rep. Bob Ney, whom Abramoff tapped to help an Indian tribe open a gambling casino. Mr. Ney's spokesman says that the Ohio lawmaker has not been told that he is a target of the investigation.

Earlier this year, David Safavian, former chief of staff of the General Services Administration, was charged with making false statements and obstructing justice in connection with a golf trip that Abramoff organized for lawmakers, including Representatives DeLay and Ney, in 2002. Mr. Safavian has pleaded not guilty.

In response, GOP lawmakers say Abramoff overstated his clout with them in a bid to win big fees. "Abramoff is taking credit for things he did not accomplish, and suddenly everyone is taking what he has written in e-mail as gospel," says Don Stewart, a spokesman for Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas.

On Saturday, the Dallas Morning News published e-mails between Abramoff and former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed, who reportedly was paid at least $4 million to block casino proposals that would have competed with casinos owned by Abramoff's tribal clients.

The e-mails, dating from 2001, discuss getting Mr. Cornyn, then Texas attorney general, to block a competing casino. But by then, Senator Cornyn had already filed a lawsuit to block the casino and "didn't need any help" from Abramoff and Reed," says Mr. Stewart.

The appearance of ties to Abramoff is derailing careers. Timothy Flanigan, a senior lawyer at Tyco International, a former lobbying client of Abramoff, withdrew his nomination as deputy attorney general last month.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

end quote

Of course when it's time to tighten our belts to fix the Bush fiscal mess, greedbag Republicans say poor women and children first:

quote

November 14th, 2005 1:31 pm

Poor families face pain of cutbacks

By Pamela Brogan Gannett News

WASHINGTON - The cuts that Congress is looking to make in an array of social programs would hit many low-income children in multiple ways, taking away money for everything from food stamps to child-care benefits.

"The same poor kids keep getting hit, program by program," said Deborah Stein, director of policy and advocacy for Voices for America's Children, a child-advocacy group with 60 state and local organizations.

A plan being considered by lawmakers in the House would cut $51 billion in spending. The cuts would affect six million children across the country, including many who now benefit from two or more programs - Medicaid, child-support enforcement, food stamps, welfare and child care.

Veronica Rosa's 7-month-old son, Octavio, is a case in point.

Rosa, a 21-year-old single mother from Detroit, earns about $13,000 annually. She's a member of the Army Reserve who also works part time at an agency that provides mental-health, housing and other social services to local residents. She also attends Eastern Michigan University.

Under the House plan, Rosa might end up paying higher premiums and co-payments for the Medicaid services her son receives. She also would find it more difficult to find subsidized day care for him, something she has been trying to obtain for four months already.

That's because the House bill wouldn't provide enough money to cover child-care costs for the working poor or for welfare recipients who would be required to work more in return for benefits.

"This makes me very upset," Rosa said. "I feel like the system is trying to make the working poor fail."

Child advocates say at least $1 out of every $5 that would be cut under the House bill targets programs that benefit low-income children.

Stein described the plan as "composite misery" for kids who would see benefits in several areas reduced or eliminated.

"They can't get food stamps, can't see a doctor, and their parents have to work more and can't get child care," she said.

House Republican leaders delayed a vote on the budget plan Thursday after it became clear they didn't have enough support to pbutt it.

The Senate has pbutted a plan aimed at saving $35 billion. That plan largely avoids cuts and cost increases on beneficiaries of social programs. It's too early to say what will happen with either budget-cutting bill.

House Majority Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., defended the proposed reductions in social programs.

The budget package is "about more than reducing social programs," Blunt said. "It is about strengthening those programs."

He said GOP lawmakers targeted "the most egregious examples of waste and poorly run programs and tried to make those programs run better."

But Mary Smink, 39, of Toms River, N.J., doesn't see her own circumstances getting better if Blunt and other House lawmakers get their way.

Smink, whose entire family lives on about $10,000 a year in welfare benefits, would like to return to work as nurse. But that could hurt her family in three ways if the House bill becomes law.

First, she would have to find child care for her 8-year-old son. Her daughters, who live with her but attend high school, would have to find child care for their sons as well.

House lawmakers "are pinning women to welfare" by not providing enough money to cover child-care benefits for the working poor, Smink said.

"I don't know how they come up with these ideas," Smink said. "A woman is not going to work if she doesn't have child care."

In addition, if Smink gets a job, she might have to pay premiums and co-payments for her family's health care.

"I couldn't afford that," she said.

Currently, New Jersey doesn't require the working poor on Medicaid to pay those fees.

Finally, Smink's daughters would have a harder time under the House bill obtaining child support from the fathers of their children.

The bill would cut child-support enforcement programs by $5 billion over five years. That would reduce payments to children from deadbeat parents by $7.9 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

"It's just ridiculous to cut a program that helps people stay off welfare," Smink said. "I'm not going to be able to afford a lawyer."

James Davy, commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Human Services, said the House proposals "would have a devastating impact on children and families in America."

"It's anti-children and anti-family," he said. "I would almost call it mean-spirited."

end quote

The Republicans are literally evil:

quote:

A betrayal of our most precious values

11-12-2005 By LEONARD PITTS

Well, I guess that settles that.

"We do not torture," President Bush said on Monday. Never mind all those torture pictures from Abu Ghraib. Never mind all those torture stories from Guantanamo Bay. Never mind the 2002 Justice Department memo that sought to justify torture. Never mind reports of U.S. officials sending detainees to other countries for torture. Never mind privates Cheney lobbying to exempt the CIA from rules prohibiting torture.

"We do not torture," said the president. And that's that, right? I mean, if you can't believe the Bush administration, who can you believe? No torture. Period, end of sentence.

But . . . What does it say to you that the claim even has to be made?

Bush spoke in Panama on the last day of a five-day swing through Latin America to promote free trade. He was addressing controversy over secret CIA prisons in foreign countries. America, Bush reminded us in case it had slipped our minds in the 20 minutes since he last reminded us, is at war.

Guess that would explain all the dead people. And yes, war is not a nice business under the best of circumstances. It is less so when you fight a stateless enemy that strikes from shadows.

But we've been at war before, nasty, brutish wars, one war with civilization itself on the line, yet somehow we always managed to be the good guy. That is not to say our soldiers and sailors and fliers were always good, immune from committing atrocities. It is not to say our officials were always good, untouched by dirty deeds done in clandestine ways. Finally, it is not to say our cause was always good, free from the taint of imperialism or expedience.

But we - the collective we, the official we, the face shown in light of day we - were the good guys.

It occurs to me that maybe I've larded that statement with so many caveats as to drain it of meaning. I'm not trying to be cute. Rather, I'm trying not to sound naive while at the same time getting at something important:

We were the nation of moral authority, the nation of moral high ground, the nation that lectured other nations about human rights. And you know what? People believed us. They rush to our shores because there is freedom here, yes; because there is opportunity here, yes; but also because we stood for something, which was more than the tin-pot tyrants who ran their countries could ever say.

What a difference a presidency makes. "We do not torture," he says.

When I heard that, my first thought was a one-liner: he's been torturing me for years. But you know, this just ain't funny.

In the name of fighting terror, we have terrorized, and in the name of defending our values, we have betrayed them. We have imprisoned Muslims in America and refused to say if we had them, why we had them, or even to provide them attorneys. We have pbutted laws making it easier for government to snoop into what you read, who you talk to, where you go. We have equated dissent with lack of patriotism, disagreement with treason. And we have tortured.

Yes, Bush says we don't do that kind of thing but, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, who you going to believe, him or your lying eyes?

We ignore our lying eyes, I think, because we are afraid, because we saw what happened Sept. 11 and we never want to see it again. I'd never suggest we ought not fear terrorism. But we should also fear the nation we are becoming in response. We should fear the fact that we have abrogated moral authority, retreated from moral high ground, become like those we once chastised.

"We do not torture," says the president. I can remember when that went without saying.

Miami Herald

end quote

Put into simple, but accurate terms:

Republicans are bad people and they are turning America into a bad nation.

ClbuttWarz