Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
A couple months back the neocon media was saying that those who were not "with us" in Iraq were not entitled to benefit from the spoils of war. Now that the situation has turned to guerilla warfare & a chaotic quagmire, the Bush Boys are singing a different tune.
I actually saw a house that was duct taped & plastic sheathed. Psycho stuff! :)
We have "nothing to fear"?? Only they are using "fear" to advance their far-right agenda.
Remember "duct tape & plastic sheething?? It's a wonder they could have issued that "warning" with a straight face...
More revisionism -- till no one knows the truth!..
"Those who fail to learn from (revisionist??) history are doomed to repeat it"... ??
Brain, regarding revisionism -- the other night I saw Ol'Ollie rewrite the story of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
And so soon!!... Revision is a problem, but maybe to revise is human....
"Those who fail to learn from (revisionist??) history are doomed to repeat it"... ??
Pentagon's Total Information Awareness (TIA):
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/PrivacyList.cfm?c=130
Very scary... Is this why the neocon media and conservative pundits keep reiterating there is "no Constitutional right to privacy" (on the heels of the SC sodomy ruling)??...
Maybe the real "enemy" is the enemy within.....
Those who take freedoms for granted are damned to loose them & complacency is a dangerous thing.....
This one is interesting in retrospect or historical context (especially as it relates to the French) -- and being mindful of the fact that presidential speech writers choose their words very, very cautiously and intentionally...
Europe cringes at Bush 'crusade' against terrorists
By Peter Ford / Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 19, 2001 edition
PARIS -
As Europeans wait to see how the United States is planning to retaliate for last week's attacks on Washington and New York, there is growing anxiety here about the tone of American war rhetoric.
President Bush's reference to a "crusade" against terrorism, which passed almost unnoticed by Americans, rang alarm bells in Europe. It raised fears that the terrorist attacks could spark a 'clash of civilizations' between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust.
"We have to avoid a clash of civilizations at all costs," French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine said on Sunday. "One has to avoid falling into this huge trap, this monstrous trap" which he said had been "conceived by the instigators of the assault."
On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.
His use of the word "crusade," said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, "was most unfortunate", "It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world," by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years.
Bush sought to calm American Muslims' fears of a backlash against them on Monday by appearing at an Islamic center in Washington. There he assured Americans that "the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about."
But his earlier comments, declaring a war between good and evil, shocked Europeans. "If this 'war' takes a form that affronts moderate Arab opinion, if it has the air of a clash of civilizations, there is a strong risk that it will contribute to Osama bin Laden's goal: a conflict between the Arab-Muslim world and the West," warned the Paris daily Le Monde on Tuesday in an editorial.
"Bush is walking a fine line," suggested Dominique Moisi, a political analyst with the French Institute for International Relations, the country's top foreign policy think tank. "The same black and white language he uses to rally Americans behind him is just the sort of language that risks splitting the international coalition he is trying to build.
"This confusion between politics and religion...risks encouraging a clash of civilizations in a religious sense, which is very dangerous," he added.
On Monday, Taliban deputy leader Mohammed Hasan Akhund warned his fellow Afghans to prepare for 'Jihad' - holy war - against America, if US forces attack Afghanistan.
While almost every world leader agrees with Washington that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center were evil, not all of those leaders - especially in the Middle East - identify the United States with good.
British prime minister Tony Blair has gone out of his way this week to make it clear that the battle against terrorists is a battle not between Christians and Muslims, but between civilized values and fanaticism. In that battle, he said Monday "the vast majority of decent law-abiding Muslims" opposed fanaticism.
It is their support for Washington's war that could be undermined by the sort of language on the president's lips, warns Hussein Amin, a former Egyptian ambassador who now lectures on international affairs. "The whole tone is that of one civilization against another," he finds. "It is a superior way of speaking and I fear the consequences - the world being divided into two between those who think themselves superior" and the rest.
Moderate Muslim opinion could also easily be swayed against America, predicted Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, head of the Muslim Parliament in Britain, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations. "If they end up killing innocent civilians it will be very unfair," Dr. Siddiqui said. "The problems will arise if people see that justice has not been done."
French President Jacques Chirac, who arrived in Washington Tuesday, and Mr. Blair, who will see Bush Thursday, are expected to offer Europe's solidarity, but to stop short of offering Washington a blank check. If European help is needed, Europeans want to be in on the planning, officials here say.
www.csmonitor.com / Copyright © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
WMDs Hidden in Alaska Wilderness Area, Bush says
Posted by washingtonpest on 2003/6/30 10:24:47 (190 reads)
Halliburton Poised to Bravely Defend America from Stockpile
NewsHax wire -- President Bush today said the CIA has strong evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
On the basis of that information, Bush said he has ordered the Halliburton Co. to use its sophisticated excavation and extraction equipment to conduct an extensive search of the area.
"We must make sure that there are no smoking guns filled with nuclear mushrooms where the deer and the antelope play," said the cliche-challenged president.
Bush brushed aside suggestions that there might be ulterior motives involved in allowing Halliburton -- a company that services the petroleum industry -- to drill for WMDs in the ANWR, for which the industry has unsuccessfully battled environmentalists for permission to conduct oil exploration.
"It's not about oil, it's about terrorism... and the safety of the American people... and bears. Right Dick?" snapped Bush, who was joined at the announcement by Vice President Richard Cheney. Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, responded: "Big time," before returning to an undisclosed location.
A Freedom of Information Act request for the CIA documents cited by the President showed they were prepared by the Cheney Intelligence Agency, not the Central Intelligence Agency. When asked about the nomenclature, a White House spokesman responded: "Same thing... by the way, did we mention there were some really scary bears up there?"
Anthrax Investigators Arrest 12 Fish Found in Drained Maryland Pond
Posted by Big Brother on 2003/6/29 20:42:54 (145 reads)
NewsHax wire -- FBI investigators have announced the arrest of 12 suspects following the conclusion of their month long search of Fredericks pond, which was drained to facilitate the search for clues in the still unsolved anthrax case of 2001. Taken into custody after the search were 12 fish, a bicycle, and an old can of Pennzoil, who were arrested for failing to cooperate with investigators routine questioning, and for providing answers that interrogators deemed "a little fishy." None of the suspects were able to explain their presence in the pond or produce a valid ID, leading to their detention as potentially hostile material witnesses in the case.
The fish have steadfastly denied any involvement in the attacks.
The FBI began draining the one-acre, 1.45 million gallon pond in the Frederick Municipal Forest, located near Frederick, MD on June 9. Investigators were seeking clues that could lead to an arrest in the nations September, 2001 anthrax attacks, which killed five people and sickened 17 others -all infected by anthrax bacteria sent through the mail- although thousands and perhaps millions remained sickened still by frequent, piercing radio broadcasts of the heavy metal band Anthrax all throughout the 90's.
The pond is of interest because it lies roughly eight miles from the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, one of the nation’s top anthrax research centers. It is just one of several ponds searched by divers after FBI officials received a tip that a permanent resident of the pond may have witnessed or participated in the disposal of the hazardous substance. The tip came from Steven J. Hatfill, who told authorities that he knows as much about the anthrax killer as "the average fish."
Hatfill has been described by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft as a “person of interest” in the case. His apartment was next to Maryland in nearby Maine, and he was also once seen buying a loaf of bread, a potential source of ingrediants to manufacture the virus.
http://www.newshax.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=347
NewsHax, "Unfair & Unbalanced"... :)
Greg, You are being trolled. We've all been there, done that with yayaa. Best to hit the ignore feature and fugettaboutit... :)
Fox, "Fair & Balanced" is still saying Germany & France are entitled to no spoils of war because they did not support Bush's war... Neocon media really is rather GROSS!!
Brain, Maybe just a bandage or bad meds for a situation that continues to be critical...
The truth will come out. The Brits will "dig"...
This is why Reps insist on "closed door" hearings.
They were "dancing" - but now it seems the "dancing" may have been staged..
You know - a photo opp - like Bush, the fighter pilot... :)
CT, It would seem you are "over the edge" with this one....
** I never accused you of any "injustice" relating to the 6.5mil Poles, or otherwise....
** Nor have I ever advocated censorship, ever.
I said comparing our invasion of Iraq to Hitler's invasion of Poland did an injustice to the Polish people and their history. There is no comparison between our situation in Iraq and the terror and mass murder experienced by the Polish people during WW2. Hitler perpetrated the greatest atrocities ever. George Bush is no Hitler! But you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and to make whatever historical "revisions" you see fit...
We are several days into this debate, and obviously we will not agree. Perhaps it's best if you "Move On" rather than post ad nauseum at 5 a.m.??... There is no need to twist what I said...
Regards... :)
Why is the "right" is always bellowing about welfare moms and needy kids -
society's most under privileged and vulnerable?..
Yet the same knuckle-heads never say boo about men being more responsible husbands & fathers... They talk about personal responsibility and legislating responsibility... But focus on single women & children... Why is that??...
Why not start with tough statutes for "deadbeat dads" or deadbeat non-custodial parents, and set reasonable child support rates, with enforcement and tough penalties for deadbeat parents? Legislate and enforce financial responsibility, at least...
Do conservatives support this, or do they prefer spewing simplistic rhetoric about single mothers & needy children,
and Roe v. Wade??...
Anti-deadbeat parent statutes IS one way we CAN legislate "personal responsibility"!!...
BTW, Regarding that "knuckle-head" who commented on welfare mothers "making good" probably has no children and can not speak from experience... But any single parent who succeeds personally and parentally has my utmost respect. Parental success is life's GREATEST success!!... :)
"exempting U.S. citizens from prosecution by the International Criminal Court" ICC:
U.S. May Cut Aid Over ICC Immunity
About 35 Nations Could Lose Funds
The Bush administration, intent on exempting U.S. citizens from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, is drawing fresh accusations of diplomatic heavy-handedness by threatening to cut off military aid to dozens of allies that refuse to sign immunity deals with the United States.
A deadline for cooperation expired at midnight, freezing money not yet spent this year by about 35 countries and putting the countries on notice that they could be denied millions for military equipment and training programs in the next budget year if they do not comply with U.S. wishes.
President Bush and his aides are reviewing projects in a number of countries for waivers that could be announced soon. Other nations, including the NATO allies, receive automatic exemptions. But a fierce struggle is underway -- with the United States facing off against much of Europe -- that has led to bad feelings and leaves some small countries feeling squeezed.
It hardly seems fair, a Lithuanian government official said, to face an aid cutoff over the international court issue despite "standing along with the United States in your fight against terrorism and sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq." Lithuania is one of seven countries expected to join NATO next year and needs U.S. funding to upgrade its military.
Croatia has a more complex problem, a diplomat said yesterday. U.S. authorities for years have been pressing the Zagreb government to surrender Croatians for war crimes prosecutions at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. The issue is politically divisive in a country where certain active political groups believe the matter should be settled at home.
At the same time, the Bush administration is demanding a written promise -- known as an Article 98 agreement -- from Croatia that no Americans charged in the future with war crimes or other grave offenses would be extradited to the new International Criminal Court. The Croatian government, which has sent suspects to The Hague, is mindful of elections at the end of the year.
"Signing Article 98 would strengthen these forces and undermine the credibility of the government to cooperate with The Hague," said Ivan Grdesic, Croatia's ambassador to the United States. "If we sign this Article 98, we will in the eyes and minds of the Croatian voters be acting on double standards."
The Bush administration withdrew its signature last year from the treaty that created the court -- ratified by more than 90 countries -- and embarked on a vast diplomatic campaign to persuade nearly 180 countries to sign the immunity pledges. U.S. officials argued that Americans need protection from politically motivated prosecutions at the court, which opened for business July 1, 2002.
To press its point, the Bush administration threatened to shut down U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide until the United Nations provided immunity to Americans. The Security Council granted the demand, then extended it for another year June 12. Secretary General Kofi Annan criticized the resolution. France, Germany and Syria abstained, contending that the exemption weakens the court.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday that the immunity agreements "will be a significant and pressing matter in our relations with every state." As for the countries that have not signed agreements and receive U.S. military aid, Boucher said, officials will evaluate programs and decide whether they are "sufficiently important to our interests" for Bush to grant a waiver.
The immediate effect of the midnight deadline is limited. The budget year is only three months from completion, and most money has been spent. A State Department spokesman said $63.9 million in financing for military equipment remains unused by 35 countries that have not signed the agreement and do not have an automatic waiver. An additional $613,000 in education and training money is unspent.
Countries exempted from the punishment ordered by Congress include the 18 other NATO members, Israel, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan. Administration officials have said privately that other waivers will not come easily. One reason is that governments that took political flak for signing the deals oppose granting the same benefits to others for doing nothing.
"You don't want to give a free ride to people who don't want to sign," a senior U.S. official said. "You want to keep the incentive and the pressure up, and you want to make sure that those who did take some heat for signing get a better deal from us than those who didn't."
But with barely 50 countries acceding to the U.S. request despite the large-scale diplomatic campaign, the administration is putting out the message that negotiations will continue. "Our embassies and negotiating teams stand ready to work with interested governments," Boucher said.
"We're applying the law," said Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, "but we're doing it in a way that continues the conversation."
The conversation has not always been friendly. Few of the closest U.S. allies have signed, and the Bush administration effort has led to further tension in Europe, where the European Union is pressing its members and aspirants to keep faith with the court. One official said that U.S. authorities "made clear directly to the French" that they consider such tactics inappropriate.
The contest is viewed so competitively in some quarters that one U.S. official said the signatures of Albania, Romania, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Article 98 agreements represented "defeats" for European opponents of the American effort.
Many countries remain on the fence. Among the countries that will present strong cases for a waiver are Colombia, a major recipient of military aid as an ally in the international counter-drug fight, and the seven countries picked to become NATO's next members.
"That money is very important," said Rihards Mucins , a senior Latvian diplomat. "We are in a stage where we have to be more prepared for being a NATO member. If that money is cut now . . . we would lose time in preparing ourselves."
Mucins said Latvia expects to sign "in the context of a broader European and American understanding." The Lithuanian official said the greatest frustration is to be "put in a position to choose between the United States and Europe. That is the worst."
Croatian ambassador Grdesic said the estimated $5 million to $15 million in military equipment his government might lose is only part of the story. He said his country's best relations with the United States come from dozens of Croatian military officers studying here. As a country that signed the Rome Treaty creating the international court, he says his government is paying an ironic price.
"We were one of the first countries to join it, exactly because we wanted to prove our strong resolve to handle the war crimes issue at home," Grdesic said. "Many of these new countries are, as they say, between a hard place and a rock."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
"Waging war without cause is subject to prosecution at the International War Crimes ..."
A CRACK IN BUSH'S FACADE
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/030630/7/4jscz.h...
THEY IMPEACH MURDERERS, DON'T THEY?
Mon Jun 16, 1:47 PM ET Add Op/Ed
By Ted Rall
Bush Must Step Down
NEW YORK--George W. Bush told us that Iraq (news - web sites) and Al Qaeda were working together. They weren't. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had had something to do with 9/11. It hadn't. He claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) possessed banned weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. As our allies watched in horror and disgust, Bush conned us into a one-sided war of aggression that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, destroyed billions of dollars in Iraqi infrastructure, cost tens of billions of dollars, cost the lives of American soldiers, and transformed our international image as the world's shining beacon of freedom into that of a marauding police state. Presidents Nixon and Clinton rightly faced impeachment for comparatively trivial offenses; if we hope to restore our nation's honor, George W. Bush too must face a president's gravest political sanction.
As the Bush Administration sold Congress and the public on the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein last winter, White House flack Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) assured the American people: "The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense would not assert as plainly and vocally as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." That's unambiguous rhetoric. But since allied occupation forces have failed to find WMDs, Bush is backtracking: "I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program," the C-in-C now says.
What's next? Claiming that Saddam had WMDs because, you know, you could just feel it?
A ferocious power struggle is taking place between Langley and the White House. "It's hard to tell if there was a breakdown in intelligence or a breakdown in the way intelligence was used," says Michele Flournoy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. No it's not. Career analysts at the Central and Defense Intelligence Agencies, furious at Bush for sticking them with the blame for the weapons scandal, are leaking prewar memoranda that indicate that the Administration covered up the spooks' assessments, making the case for war with a pile of lies constructed on a bedrock of oil-fueled greed.
A September 2002 DIA study said that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons," but Bush ignored the report--and told us the exact opposite. After Bush used the discovery of two alleged mobile weapons labs to claim "we found the weapons of mass destruction," CIA (news - web sites) "dissenters" shot back that Bush had lied about their reports and that they "doubted the trailers were used to make germ agents, not[ing] that the plants lacked gear for steam sterilization, which is typically necessary for making bioweapons." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld parried: "Any indication or allegation that the intelligence was in any way politicized, of course, is just false on its face...We haven't found Saddam Hussein either, but no one's doubting that he was there." Rummy also floated the CIA-debunked tale of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
Both factions are missing the point.
Calling for a full Congressional investigation, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) of the Armed Services Committee, says: "I think that the nation's credibility is on the line, as well as Bush's." But not even the discovery of a vast WMD arsenal should save Bush now. Assuming that one accepts preemption as a legitimate cause for war--and one ought not--you must possess airtight substantiation that a nation poses an imminent and significant threat before you drop bombs on its cities. Evidence that falls short of 100 percent proof, presented in advance, doesn't pass the pre-empt test.
Bush claimed to have that proof. He said that Iraq could deploy its biological and chemical weapons with just 45 minutes notice. He painted gruesome pictures of American cities in ruins, their debris irradiated by an Iraqi "dirty bomb." It was all a bald-faced lie, and lying presidents get impeached.
George W. Bush, like Richard Nixon, "endeavor[ed] to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites)." George W. Bush, like Richard Nixon, "[made] or caus[ed] to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States." (The legalese comes from the first Article of Impeachment against Nixon, passed by the House Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) on July 27, 1974. Faced with certain impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned two weeks later.)
In the words of Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s 1998 impeachment, George W. Bush "has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."
Nixon and Clinton escaped criminal prosecution for burglary, perjury and obstruction of justice. George W. Bush, however, stands accused as the greatest mass murderer in American history. The Lexington Institute estimates that the U.S. killed between 15,000 and 20,000 Iraqi troops during the fraudulently justified invasion of Iraq, plus 10,000 to 15,000 wounded. More than 150 U.S. soldiers were killed, plus more than 500 injured. A new Associated Press study of Iraqi civilian casualties confirms at least 3,240 deaths. Although Bush, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell (news - web sites) and Condoleeza Rice denied such legal niceties to the concentration-camp inmates captured in their illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), these high-ranking Administration henchmen should be quickly turned over--after impeachment proceedings for what might properly be called Slaughtergate--to an international tribunal for prosecution of war crimes.
Anything less would be anti-American.
(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan," an analysis of the underreported Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project and the real motivations behind the war on terrorism. Ordering information is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.)
Talk about a 'weak rebuttal' (& grammar)!.. LOL :)
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1157069
The State Fiscal Crisis Continues
National Governors Association, Hall of States
Information Servics
(Editor's Note: The following is a Perspective by Raymond C. Scheppach, Executive Director of the National Governors Association.)
The State Fiscal Crisis Continues
A Perspective by Raymond C. Scheppach, Executive Director of the National Governors Association
While there are some unique, state-specific reasons for the current fiscal crisis, the overriding causes are a rapid, deep, and long decline in state revenues and the accelerated rate of health care spending increases. The problem surfaced during the last two quarters of 2001 when states saw a small reduction in revenues. By the first quarter of 2002 revenue declines accelerated with a plunge of 7.8 percent, followed by a 10.4 percent reduction in the second quarter.
Revenues have yet to rebound. Growth in the last two quarters of 2002 was only about 2 percent. Not only was the decline deep and long by historical standards, but it was across the board in terms of revenue sources: personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, and even sales taxes. There was virtually no growth in sales tax revenues for five quarters between the second quarter of 2001 and the second quarter of 2002. Corporate taxes declined for seven straight quarters and personal income taxes fell 22.3 percent in the second quarter of 2002.
The Boom Becomes a Bust
For nearly 25 years the average increase in state spending was 6.5 percent per year. The rate stayed at 6.5 percent during the "boom period" of 1995-2001. However, instead of increasing the rate of spending during the boom period, states cut taxes by $33 billion and set aside huge rainy day funds-$48.8 billion or 10.4 percent of spending in 2000, the highest rainy day fund level in 22 years.
Starting with a 3.1 percent decline in the third calendar quarter of 2001, total state revenues declined dramatically for the next four straight quarters. (By the third quarter of 2002, state revenue growth turned positive but only slightly.) Not only did states witness significant declines in revenue, but the explosion in state health care costs, which represent 30 percent of state budgets, accelerated to a double digit pace.
The latest Fiscal Survey of the States indicates the combination of plunging revenues and the explosion in health care costs have forced states to make major spending reductions for the last three years. These spending cuts are the largest in the 27-year history of the Fiscal Survey. Actual state spending growth was up only 1.3 percent and 0.3 percent in 2002 and 2003 respectively, and is expected to be down 0.1 percent in 2004. It also forced states to increase revenues by $8.3 billion in 2003 and governors are proposing revenue increases of $17.5 billion in 2004. End-of-year balances also declined to 0.3 percent of spending in 2003.
The Economy and Health Care
The magnitude of the revenue decline is related not only to the underlying economic base in the states, but also to the impact of huge decrease in capital gains tax revenues on state budgets. For example, the states with the most significant decline in personal income tax revenues were California, with its 25.6 percent in 2002, and five Northeastern states, which witnessed declines of 14-18 percent. States in the Southeast and Southwest witnessed much smaller declines of less than 5 percent with six states actually seeing small increases. The major contributors to the decline in state personal income taxes were the collapse of the high technology industry, its related stock options, and the bursting of the stock market bubble.
Health care represents about 30 percent of the state budget, while Medicaid represents about 20 percent. While in the early 1990s Medicaid growth was very high, the rate of growth fell to just 3.3 percent by 1996. The rate of growth increased dramatically to an average of 9 percent in 2000 and then jumped again to 13.1 percent in 2002. Unfortunately this explosion took place at the same time that revenues were collapsing. States have limited ability to control the cost of Medicaid or other health care costs such as the cost of drugs or increased co-payments. Double digit cost increases are a national problem affecting all health care purchasers-the private sector, the federal government and non-profit organizations. All states can do is reduce provider payments, restrict eligibility, or reduce benefits.
Medicaid as a percentage of a state budget differs substantially from state to state-from a high of 30 percent to a low of 8.7 percent. The far Western and Northeastern states are facing the worst budget problems. These states have a high percentage of their budget consumed by Medicaid spending and have experienced the deepest plunge in revenues. Ultimately, the impact of health care on the fiscal position of states depends on two major factors: the percentage of a state's budget spent on Medicaid and the underlying health care marketplace.
© Copyright 2003, Crosswalk.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Use.
A real Catch 22 for women & children, isn't it?..
How does that "describe most households in NJ"?
You said:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1156921
Please explain. I live in NJ and need to understand... Thank you! :)
"Killing"?.. I thought you CONS preferred the term "collateral damage"?...
"Supply Side Economics" - referred to as "Voodoo Economics" by George, Sr...
What does young Dubya know about business anyway??..
Has day ever "worked a day" in his "f-ing life"?? At least young Kennedy was honest about his "employment history"...
I know young Dubya scammed an oil company, and was basically a "figure head" governor in TX, went AWOL while dating Julie Nixon, and was a mediocre student - at best, but has Dubya every really "worked a day" in his life - much less grew or managed a business?...
Prescott bankrolled the Nazis, Neal scammed Silverado, and Jeb - who knows??... Have any of these guys ever ran a successful, legitimate business?...
The Bush Family: A True American Political Dynasty!...
Doesn't the fed gov "have a fiscal responsibility to live with in there means"??...
Reality Check: The states are ALL insolvent -- some worse than others... So to those who cheer the "Bush tax cut",
save your money!! You will need it to pay escalating property taxes...
"Economic Stimulus"?? I think NOT - with BIG gov!...
The CONS love to respond "personal responsibility" for all social problems. Of course, many problems are due to a lack of responsibility, and in a perfect world all parents would be responsible. But how does "personal responsibility" help the millions of children who are very needy or neglected?..
It's easy to say "personal responsibility" from the comfort of our pretty homes. But the reality is we have too may children, who thru no fault of their own, have no one who cares or is responsible? We have too many needy kids...
Doesn't what "describe most households in N.J.?"...
As long as they can spin "recovery" thru the next election...
Nothing else matters!!...
local police and firemen are being laid off due to lack of funding..............What does that have to do with "Homeland Security"?
You can't be serious?.. Are you ???
And where are they laying-off fireman and police?.....I think you post more lies than truths.
The states are broke. What do you think is going to happen??
The public sector is in an absolute fiscal crisis. Fortunately, the fed gov has Easy Al. The states are not so lucky...
What "recovery"??...
NJ is housing some of it's foster children in mental institutions for lack of foster families. What a TRAGIC situation...
Report: U-S 'dangerously' not ready for another terror attack
{But we had billions to "liberate" the Iraqi people - because Saddam posed such an urgent threat to the US...}
Washington-AP -- If the U-S is ever hit again the way it was nearly two years ago on September eleventh, a new report says the nation will be "dangerously unprepared."
An advocacy group says police, fire, public health and other first responders don't have the money, equipment or training that they need. The Council on Foreign Relations goes on to say that the federal government needs to spend another 98 (b) billion dollars at the local level, on top of the 27 (b) billion dollars planned.
A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security calls the council's recommendation "grossly inflated" and also says officials already have implemented or are in the process of putting into effect other suggestions in the report.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Agreed!
recall should be reserved for situations of complete incompetance or dishonesty.
LOL! Funny!! :0}
Grassroots... For the People, By the People...
What a novel concept!!.. Let's hope it works... :~}
The political ploy being to dump the D-Gov...
Davis really did inherit a bad situation - the burst bubble and recession, and that very costly energy scam...
I remember when Davis said the energy crisis was a manufactured scam, way before the ENE blow-up was even suspect.
All the cons called him whacko, socialist, liberal, nuts, etc... But Davis was right... ENE shareholders, the SEC, and justice dept should have listened...
"Kenny Boy" is working on his golf game these days ???.. :)
Did you see Ollie's "War Stories, Operation Iraqi Freedom"? It is a revision in progress.
Watching "history in the making" really is an amazing thing....
If California is the world's 6th largest economy, what are the implications of it's bankruptcy??...
Calif. Near Financial Disaster
Hours Remain to Solve $38 Billion Shortfall
California state Sens. James L. Brulte (R), left, and John Burton (D) confront each other after the Senate's defeat of a Democratic budget bill last week. (Rich Pedroncelli -- AP)
By Rene Sanchez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 30, 2003; Page A01
LOS ANGELES -- Any day now, community colleges here may begin telling faculty members that they cannot be paid and students that summer classes are canceled.
Nursing homes are losing so much state aid that many soon may have to shut down or limit their services, a prospect that has elderly residents confused and frightened.
As many as 30,000 government workers who had been expecting pay raises in the fall are instead receiving formal notices warning that they could lose their jobs by then, because the state is broke.
This is life in California, on the brink of a fiscal disaster.
The nation's most populous state, home to one of the world's largest economies, has been staring in disbelief at the same dire predicament for months: a $38 billion deficit, the largest shortfall in its history and an extreme example of the budget woes afflicting many states. But now it has only hours left to solve the problem.
State lawmakers have until midnight to reach a compromise with Gov. Gray Davis (D) on a budget that would wipe out the enormous deficit, but the odds of that happening appear slim. And without a deal, the state will be bound by law to begin cutting off billions of dollars in payments to its agencies and its contractors in July -- and could run out of money by August.
"It looks bleak," said Perry Kenny, president of the California State Employees Association, which represents more than 100,000 government workers. "This is the biggest hole we've ever been in, and no one can seem to find a way out. We're all sweating bullets here."
For weeks, the state's budget has been hostage to an intensely partisan political war over taxes and spending that is now getting even more bitter and complicated because of a Republican-led campaign to recall Davis from office. Organizers of that movement have collected nearly 400,000 voter petitions in favor of ousting the governor, and political strategists in both parties say a recall election, which would be unprecedented, is looking ever more likely.
Davis and the Democrats who control both houses of California's legislature cannot get their way on the budget because state law requires a two-thirds majority vote for it to be approved. They need a few Republican lawmakers to support their plan, which they say must include new taxes in order to save public schools and other vital programs from ruin.
But Republicans are refusing to consider any tax increase, which they say would harm California's already weak economy, and are demanding deeper cuts in government spending.
There is no end in sight to the impasse, which California voters are watching with increasing exasperation. Polls show that public support for Davis has plummeted below 25 percent, and that two-thirds of voters are dismayed with the legislature.
Republican lawmakers say they will not budge from their stand on the budget because they are fed up with Davis's governing style.
"He and his allies have gotten the last three budgets they wanted and we're nearly bankrupt," said James L. Brulte, the Republican leader in the state Senate, who has threatened to work against the reelection of any GOP colleague who sides with Davis in the budget battle. "Somebody has to stand up and say enough is enough. That's what Republicans in California are doing."
But Democrats see other motives. Some are accusing GOP lawmakers of deliberately dragging their feet on the budget in the hope that will hurt Davis politically and strengthen the recall campaign.
"It's hard to take Republicans seriously when they say they want a real solution to this budget crisis at the same time some of them are openly backing the recall," said Roger Salazar, a political adviser to Davis. "They are putting important state programs at risk just out of pure political spite."
Democrats have retreated recently from some tax proposals but are insisting on a half-cent sales tax increase. Several dozen Democratic legislators even barnstormed Republican districts around the state last week to plead for support but got mostly hostile receptions.
Davis, who left the state this weekend to attend his mother's 80th birthday celebration in New York, is still expressing optimism that a budget deal can be reached soon, if not by tonight's constitutional deadline.
"I am doing everything I can to encourage, cajole, persuade, guilt-trip and all the things you do to try to make this happen," he told reporters last week.
California's $38 billion deficit is larger than the entire annual budget of any other state except New York. It represents about one-third of the state's annual spending.
As in many other states, the shortfall is largely the result of the national economic downturn -- which has been especially severe in Silicon Valley, an engine of California's $1.3 trillion economy. Soaring health care costs for the poor and new expenses for homeland security are other contributing factors. Republicans here also contend that Davis, who was narrowly elected to a second term in November, has spent recklessly while in office and relied on accounting gimmicks to balance the budget last year.
California, which had a $9 billion budget surplus three years ago, is constantly caught in boom-or-bust economic cycles. In the early 1990s, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson had to raise taxes and cut spending to erase a $14 billion deficit. Escaping this crisis will be far more difficult and painful.
To close the $38 billion deficit, state leaders have approved $7 billion in cuts affecting virtually every government program. They have borrowed $11 billion to keep California solvent through the summer. Earlier this month, risking the wrath of voters, they tripled the annual state tax on vehicles, a $136 increase for most motorists. But that still is not enough to balance the budget.
Now, with time to find a solution running out, state Controller Steve Westly is warning that as early as Tuesday more than a billion dollars in payments due to state agencies, medical providers and private companies that contract with California must be stopped.
"This is going to be real hurt for the state of California," he told reporters a few days ago, "and the problem gets worse every day we go without a budget."
Some public institutions already are reeling. The Los Angeles Community College District, which enrolls 130,000 students, has been forced to eliminate classes and lay off some of its faculty, and is on the verge of raising tuition by more than 50 percent because of the budget crisis. Thousands of students have dropped out because of cutbacks this year, college officials say, and more are likely to leave if additional classes are canceled.
Mark Drummond, the chancellor of the district, said that its network of colleges has enough money to operate until August, but would not be able to pay its vendors or its faculty if the state is still engulfed in deficits by then.
"We could have to turn off the lights and tell everybody to go home," Drummond said.
Nursing homes are suffering the same plight. Some already have stopped receiving all the payments they had been expecting from the state and are cutting back services to their residents and turning away new patients. If more cuts are approved, or if the budget gridlock doesn't end soon, dozens of homes could go bankrupt and close.
Betsy Hite, spokeswoman for the California Association of Health Facilities, said many elderly residents are baffled and despondent over the looming hardships.
"They see what's going on in the newspapers and on TV," she said. "Their perspective is, why are they doing this to us? What did we do?
"If I were a betting person, I wouldn't bet we're going to be fine," Hite added. "The gap is just too huge."
Special correspondent Kimberly Edds contributed to this report.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company