Campaign Puts New Strain on Secret Service
Big Field and Early Start Force Cuts in Other Efforts

The U.S. Secret Service expects to borrow more than 2,000 immigration officers and federal airport screeners next year to help guard an ever-expanding field of presidential candidates, while shifting 250 of its own agents from investigations to security details.

Burdened by the White House's wartime security needs, the persistent threat of terrorism and a field of at least 20 presidential contenders, the Secret Service was showing signs of strain even before the Department of Homeland Security ordered protection for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as of May 3, the earliest a candidate has ever been assigned protection in an election season.

Its $110 million-plus budget for campaign protection -- two-thirds more than the record $65 million it spent for the 2004 election -- was prepared when the service did not expect to be guarding Obama or anyone else until January. The agency has already been forced to scale back its efforts to battle counterfeiting and cybercrime.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration has doubled the number of officials granted Secret Service protection, from 26 to 54, including top White House aides such as the chief of staff and national and homeland security advisers.

As recently as the beginning of Bill Clinton's administration in 1993, no White House aides had such security details, although coverage had been extended before and was given later to national security advisers Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Lake and Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, said former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke.

For the complete article:
Link

Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Here's the problems with this plan.

No information about co-pays or co-insurance.
Nothing substantive about how much the working poor will have to contribute to their insurance premiums.
Nothing about how to reel in pharma costs.
No plan for helping people with health insurance, who can't afford the co-pays.
Equating people's health insurance with car insurance is just insulting to people.
Enforcement - How do you enforce the health insurance requirement?
This plan fails to realize the underpinnings of the uninsured.
Nothing about how the rules will be enforced upon insurance companies.
No mandate of what percentage of premuim payments must be spent on health care.
This plan only addresses the uninsured due to pre-existing condtitions and the uninsured due to poverty, but the assurances to the working poor that they will be able to "buy" coverage are anemic. The third category of the uninsured are the young, healthy individuals thinking they can beat fate. I suppose the threat of enforcement is something, but if you are single and healthy with no dependents - what will be a viable threat? Money?

Obama is optimistic that this plan will work. The face of it looks ok, but the devil is in the details.

Link

Given the Democratic collapse on Iraq, I have two questions about the group Third Way, which from what I understand gives more policy presentations to Democrats in Congress than any other think tank:

1. Why are all of the honorary chairs and vice-chairs of the group Democrats? Has this always been the case throughout the history of the group? Have any federally elected Republicans ever served in a prominent position in Third Way? I doubt it, because ever since I first heard President Clinton use the term "third way" about ten years ago, the only other Americans I have heard use the term are Democrats. So, if Third Way is just a bunch of Democrats, what exactly does this make them "third" from?

2. I am a lefty, a liberal, a progressive--whatever you want to call it. The point is that I use those terms to make it clear that I am not a moderate or a centrist in the spectrum of American politics. Given this, does Third Way consider conservatives and people like me to be equally wrong when it comes to public policy? The reason I ask this is because Third Way defines itself as "a non-profit, non-partisan strategy center for progressives." If they are progressives, once again, what exactly are they "third" from?

Five-year project aims to improve car crash, cardiac, other treatments

The federal government is undertaking the most ambitious set of studies ever mounted under a controversial arrangement that allows researchers to conduct some kinds of medical experiments without first getting the patients' permission.

The $50 million, five-year project, which will involve more than 20,000 patients in 11 sites in the United States and Canada, is designed to improve treatment after car accidents, shootings, cardiac arrest and other emergencies.

The three studies, organizers say, offer an unprecedented opportunity to find better ways to resuscitate people whose hearts suddenly stop, to stabilize patients who go into shock and to minimize damage from head injuries. Because such patients are usually unconscious at a time when every minute counts, it is often impossible to get consent from them or their families, the organizers say.

The project has been endorsed by many trauma experts and some bioethicists, but others question it. The harshest critics say the research violates fundamental ethical principles.

The organizers said the studies are going forward only after an exhaustive scientific and ethical review by the National Institutes of Health, which authorized the funding in 2004, and the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the first phase about a year ago and the second phase six months ago.

The first experiments, involving nearly 6,000 patients, focus on people who are in shock or have suffered head injuries from a car crash, a fall or some other trauma.

Four years ago, the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus began looking for a television outlet to co-sponsor and broadcast a presidential debate to address the concerns of minority voters.

Only one news channel made an acceptable proposal, and an unlikely channel at that: Fox News, in what some Democrats viewed as an effort to associate itself with a group that could help it make good on its claim of presenting "fair and balanced" news coverage.

But now that relationship is being shaken by the decision of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina to shun the debate, a move that has exposed fault lines among two major constituencies of the Democratic Party. While the withdrawal by the candidates frustrated members of the black caucus, it mollified liberals who had objected to the involvement of Fox News, whose programming includes some of the most conservative and pro-Republican commentary on the air.

The sensitivities surrounding the issue were evident this week when a spokeswoman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said Mr. Richardson would not participate in the debate, which is scheduled for September. But only a few hours later, the spokeswoman phoned the reporter to say that she had misspoken, and that Mr. Richardson had yet to decide. In the interim the reporter had sought a response from the caucus on Mr. Richardson's apparent withdrawal.

Meanwhile, members of the caucus have been pushing back, with press secretaries for caucus members getting "talking points on how to cast the debate in a positive light," as one staff member explained it.

The Cell Phones for Soldiers program was started in April of 2004 by 13-year-old Brittany Bergquist and her 12-year-old brother Robbie of Norwell, Massachusetts.

After hearing a news report about a local soldier who ran up a massive phone bill calling home from Iraq, they decided they wanted to do something to help. Brittany and Robbie donated their piggy bank money, collected snack money from their friends at school, and with $21.00, they went to the bank to open an account. The South Shore Savings Bank of Hanover, Massachusetts donated $500.00 to help them get started.

Their goal is to help our soldiers serving overseas call home. They hope to provide as many soldiers as possible with prepaid calling cards for now with an ultimate goal of providing banks of satellite phones, video phones and VOIP communications. Through generous donations and the recycling of used cell phones from drop-off sites across the country, they have already distributed thousands of calling cards to soldiers in Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Jim Kelly, Pro Football Hall of Fame quarterback of the Buffalo Bills, is a proud sponsor of Cell Phones for Soldiers. With Jim's help, not only will you be helping soldiers call home, you will be saving money at the same time.

"Yesterday two more families were notified that a beloved family member was killed in the line of duty in Iraq."

Isaoshy Uruo said he just couldn't bear to hear the details of his son's death, which marks the 21st casualty for the Micronesia region in the ongoing war on terror.

"All I remember hearing them say was, 'Sorry, we understand how you feel,'" Isaoshy Uruo said yesterday as he held his head and rubbed his eyes.

"Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling â€" and expected to rise in coming months."

"In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year. And with the Baghdad security operation now 3 1/2 months old, even President Bush has predicted a difficult summer for U.S. forces."

"It could be a bloody â€" it could be a very difficult August," he said last week.

U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus on Saturday acknowledged the increase in casualties as a result of the American surge in forces to regain control of Baghdad.

"We're doing heavy fighting. This is a fight. There's a war on out there," he told reporters at al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards released the following statement today following Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney's comments on the Bush doctrine of a "Global War on Terror."

"George Bush has made America less safe and less respected in the world. The Republican candidates are now trying to double down on his failed foreign policy.


They just don't get it. George Bush's strategy is a failure - the threat of terrorism has increased. We don't need more political huffing and puffing, we need a smart strategy that uses American power to stop terrorists from hurting us and to stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place.


That's why I laid out a comprehensive plan to build a strong military focused on protecting Americans and to use all the tools available to us to defeat terror groups and restore our moral leadership."

Update [2007-5-24 20:47:29 by Jerome Armstrong]:The Senate voted. Near the very end, Barack Obama voted no, as expected. Two votes later, Hillary Clinton voted no too, as expected. A few votes later, and the tally was announced, 80 voting yes, 14 voting no.

Support the troops, End the war!

Speak out in public
Send out troops a taste of home
Gather local voices to end the war
Pray
Contact Congress and the President
Welcome home a Vet
Be Seen
Say Thank You
Help an Injured Vet
Candlelight vigil
Register your own action.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards released the following statement about Ann Coulter's recent comments saying that a Newsweek poll showing Senator Obama leading Republican candidates was made up and might help Al Qaeda.

"Just when we thought Ann Coulter couldn't take the politics of personal destruction any lower, she proved us wrong. Her outrageous comments are inexcusable and should not be tolerated in the public dialogue.

"This is the latest example of how the political doctrine of Bush's Global War on Terror has created a climate where people think it's okay to use the threat of terrorism as a guise for hateful political attacks. There is no superior 'Republican' way to fight terrorism. The exercise of raw power alone does not make you a world leader, and will not make us secure. Our capacity to lead requires that we be strong - and that we have the moral authority to do it."

A service station that offered discounted gas to senior citizens and people supporting youth sports has been ordered by the state to raise its prices. Center City BP owner Raj Bhandari has been offering senior citizens a 2 cent per gallon price break and discount cards that let sports boosters pay 3 cents less per gallon.

But the state
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals are too good: They violate Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price.

Bhandari said he received a letter from the state auditor in late April saying the state would sue him if he did not raise his prices. The state could penalize him for each discounted gallon he sold, with the fine determined by a judge.

MORE SURGE?

"Pentagon prepares 35,000 troops for Iraq"

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Tuesday alerted more than 35,000 Army soldiers that they could be sent to Iraq this fall. In Congress, House Democrats defiantly pushed a plan to limit war funding to two-month installments.

The deployment orders signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates would allow commanders to maintain the buildup of troops through the end of the year if needed. President Bush has ordered nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to quell a spike in violence, particularly in and around Baghdad. There are currently about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the orders do not mean the military has decided to maintain the increased force levels through December. The Pentagon "has been very clear that a decision about the duration of the surge will depend on conditions on the ground," he said.

The announcement comes as Bush is under increasing pressure to pull troops out of Iraq. Bush last week vetoed $124.2 billion legislation that would have funded the war while requiring troops to start coming home this fall. According to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll released Tuesday, just over half of Americans disapproved of the veto.

Detroit, Michigan - On Saturday, April 21st, 2007, Senator John Edwards delivered the keynote address at the Michigan Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner and announced his opposition to the South Korea trade deal. The Bush administration is finalizing details of the agreement and is expected to submit it to Congress for approval later this spring. Edwards released the following statement:

"I believe in trade deals that make sense for American workers. But that does not include a trade deal with a country that refuses to open its market to American cars. We buy 100 times more cars from South Korea than they buy from us.

"A trade agreement with South Korea needs to start with their willingness to open their market to American automobiles and other U.S. products and agree to trade fairly. It must also include strong labor and environmental standards and lift up workers in both countries.

"Instead of stubbornly pursuing policies that put Americans out of work, the Administration should focus on making sure new agreements include real labor and environmental protections and should enforce our rights under existing trade agreements. And the Congress should make it clear to the President that it will override any agreement that does not protect American jobs and American interests."

Some of Edwards' specific objections to the proposed trade agreement are:

- While the agreement would immediately eliminate U.S. tariffs on Korean vehicles, it leaves in place a discriminatory tax based on engine size that disproportionately affects American cars.

- Workers in South Korea lack many basic rights. "South Korea is a country where hundreds of workers are thrown in jail each year for attempting to exercise basic labor rights," said Edwards.

- The agreement creates the possibility of providing free access for manufacturing imports made in North Korean industrial zones, where the workers earn less than 10 percent of what South Koreans earn.

- The agreement opens up American markets to Korean agricultural imports, but does not allow American beef into Korea.