Bush Administration

It's a term that is often tossed about in political debates: "The Richest 1% of America." You often hear those words coming out of a Democrat's mouth when describing who George W. Bush's tax cuts have benefited over the past few years. Well, now comes word from the Wall Street Journal that those Democrats might just be right. It seems that the richest 1% have been doing disproportionately well under GWB:

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

In other words, if you're in the bottom 99% of the country, you've been getting a raw deal. Further rubbing salt in the economic wound is the finding that the richest 1% now account for 22% of our national adjusted gross income. You might be asking yourself, when does the trickle down part actually start.

As was artfully covered by my colleague Mark Impomeni, the Bush Administration's "third way" in Iraq, "a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" (I think that was one of my performance objectives for my day job) has raised some questions about how a "time horizon" is different from a "timeline".

The author of this stirring prose must have been a project manager in a prior life. This PMO term is defined as "A time horizon, also known as a planning horizon, is a fixed point of time in the future at which point certain processes will be evaluated or assumed to end. It is necessary in an accounting, finance or risk management regime to assign such a fixed horizon time so that alternatives can be evaluated for performance over the same period of time".

Now remember that a timeline is very bad and a time horizon is very good. Now on to the giggles from Scarborough and crowd, to the dismay of former Bush admin Secretary of State Andrew Card. The fun starts about 2 minutes in.

David Knowles reported earlier that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki endorsed Barack Obama's plans for Iraq, but he had some unexpected help in getting the message out: The White House. From ABC's Political Punch:

The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."

...The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.

I guess if someone in the White House is going to hit the wrong button, this is the one to hit.

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor gleefully forwarded the report of the White House gaffe to its press distribution list.

Earlier today, the campaign sent this statement on Maliki's endorsement, from Susan Rice:

The Bush Administration and the Iraqi government announced an agreement today that sets up a dialog between the two nations on a "general time horizon" for the U.S troop presence in Iraq. The Administration chose its wording carefully, and says that the language of the agreement does not commit the United States to an arbitrary timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stressed the any withdrawals under the agreement would be based upon an assessment of conditions on the ground, and not on political considerations.

"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground. All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that."

Another White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, called the goals of the agreement "aspirational," and placed the focus of the deal not on U.S. troop withdrawals, but on Iraqi troop performance. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be," he said.

The agreement comes in the context of continuing negotiations over a final status of forces agreement between Iraq and the United States. Such an agreement would govern the conditions under which the U.S. could maintain bases and a troop presence in Iraq after the United Nations mandate authorizing the current U.S. presence expires at the end of the year. Iraq, responding to domestic political considerations, has been driving a hard bargain in the talks, seeking a one year agreement and holding fast to its demands, such as to have American contractors who may commit crimes during their stay subjected to Iraqi, not U.S. civilian, law.

Admiral Michael Mullen said today that he expects to be able to recommend troop reductions in Iraq this fall, as security gains from the troop surge continue to hold. Mullen made his comments in a Pentagon press conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the occasion of the removal of the last of five additional brigades ordered into Iraq as a part of the surge. The withdrawal of the third infantry division's second brigade officially ended the surge, and went little noticed in the mainstream press, itself an indication of the strategy's effectiveness.

Mullen said that any additional troop withdrawals would be dependent on conditions on the ground in Iraq, but that the trend was looking good for reductions.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is reversible - it has not, and it is not. But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions."

Now that the surge has ended, Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus will evaluate the ability of Iraqis to hold the security gains for the next 45 days. That would put a decision on troop withdrawals sometime after Labor Day, the traditional start of the presidential election season.

The surge has been an unquestionable success, resulting in dramatic reductions in violence, a greatly enhanced Iraqi Army and police force, and the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Military planners are now turning their attention to Afghanistan, where a stubborn insurgency, fueled by cross-border attacks from Taliban militants seeking sanctuary in Pakistan, is increasing pressure on U.S., Afghan, and NATO forces. An increase in troop levels seems warranted in that country. With Gen. Petraeus the new head of U.S. Central Command, which has jurisdiction over the Afghan war, any change in strategy there will likely closely resemble the troop surge in Iraq.

Tsk, tsk, President Bush, for grounding another one of your administration officials from testifying about Plamegate.

Bush has once again asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House Government Oversight Committee subpoena for material on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Panel Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., held off a contempt vote for Mukasey, but not for too long. He last week told Karl Rove he couldn't testify, either.

Waxman's committee wants documents of FBI interviews of Vice President Dick Cheney over the Plame affair. It also would like to see documents involving conversations between special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Cheney, and notes from the 2003 State of the Union address, during which Bush uttered those "16 words" about Saddam Hussein allegedly trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger. Waxman asked for the documents over a year ago, then subpoenaed them when the White House ignored the request.

Waxman rejected Mukasey's suggestion that Cheney's FBI interview on the CIA leak should be protected by the privilege claim - and therefore not turned over to the panel.

"We'll act in the reasonable and appropriate period of time," Waxman, D-Calif., said. This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person ... If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?"

Karl Rove's no-show before a House subcommittee over the politicization of the Bush Justice Department has more than a few Democrats peeved.

Local Democrats in Virginia are calling on U.S Rep. Thelma Drake, R-Va., to cancel her sold-out Friday fundraiser at Ruth's Chris Steak House in Virginia Beach with Rove as the featured guest because the former Bush adviser defied the congressional subpoena last week, The Virginian-Pilot reports.

Drake's campaign manager blasted the action as "partisan political theater."

"We have rules, and there are consequences for people who don't follow rules," said state Delegate Bobby Mathieson, D-Virginia Beach.

Delegate Joe Bouchard, D-Virginia Beach, said Rove appearing at a Drake event showed that "she is appearing to endorse his defiance of Congress."

Drake campaign manager Corry Bliss welcomed Rove. "Instead of working on a comprehensive solution to the energy crisis... Democrats would rather engage in partisan political issues on inside the Beltway issues than address high gas and food prices."

A spokesman for Drake's opponent, Glenn Nye, said, "It's disappointing that Thelma Drake would bring Karl Rove here to eat steak and continue to play Washington partisan political games."

President Bush intends to lift an executive ban on oil drilling in the outer continental shelf, rescinding an Executive Order originally signed by his father. While lifting the ban will not result in new drilling in the short term, it will put pressure on Congress to do more to increase the supply of oil as gas prices continue to rise. The offshore drilling ban comes in two parts. The executive ban which the president is ending, and an annual Congressional ban on appropriating monies to the Interior Department for processing of offshore drilling leases. Congress has renewed the prohibition every year since 1981.

That portion of the offshore drilling ban is set to expire at the end of this current fiscal year, September 30. So, for drilling to be finally approved all Congress has to do is nothing. Congress can choose to allow drilling without taking a vote by simply allowing the ban to lapse. But Democrats have been vocal about their opposition to increased offshore drilling, preferring to spend money on alternative fuels and energy sources. They argue that drilling will not bring new oil to the market for 7-10 years, and thus will not have much of an impact on prices.

But that analysis ignores the fact that alternatives to gasoline will also not be ready to meet market demand for the same 7-10 years. It also discounts the role of speculation in the price of oil. Oil traders have been bidding up the price of oil based on a perception that there is not enough supply to meet demand. An announcement from the United States that it is ready to fully develop all of its oil resources will calm those supply shortage fears, perhaps lowering the price of oil futures and resulting in a corresponding drop in pump prices. The president's action today is the first step in signaling that world supplies of oil will increases in coming years. That presents Democrats with an election year test. If Democrats in Congress are as uncomfortable with high gas prices as their constituents are, they will choose to let the offshore drilling ban expire at the end of September.

The president made the official announcement in a Rose Garden appearance at 1:30.

The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department announced plans today to throw troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a lifeline, granting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York authority to lend money to the companies for the first time. The companies were created by the federal government to broaden access to home ownership. Both have since transitioned from government owned to privately owned companies. Together, they hold or guarantee $5.3 trillion in mortgage debt, nearly half of the outstanding mortgages in the United States. A loan backed by either Fannie or Freddie implicitly carries a federal guarantee, potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for the debt if the companies fail.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson downplayed the possibility of a takeover of either mortgage guarantor, saying that Fannie and Freddie play a vital role in the housing market.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. Their support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction."

Shares of both companies are down close to 75% since the beginning of the year, raising concern amongst investors that neither company would have enough cash available to back all the loans they hold, should they come due.

Did blogging about the U.S. Attorneys purge get a long time University of Alabama employee fired? Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story reports that Roger Shuler, who has followed the saga on his blog for over a year, believes he was fired from his job for blogging about Alabama U.S. Attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary.

For the last 12 years Shuler worked as an editor for the University of Alabama Birmingham publications office before he was fired in May over a billing dispute that was unrelated to blogging. Harper's Magazine writer Scott Horton, who covers the vast scandal, told Raw Story, "Shuler's problem arose not because he blogged nor because he did so from his workplace, because it's clear he didn't. His problem came from the fact that he wrote critical, well received insights targeting a number of very powerful figures in Alabama."

In February, 60 minutes aired (not in parts of Alabama) a feature on Karl Rove's role in former Governor Don Siegelman's prosecution. Suspicions that the politicization of the Justice Department, questionable prosecutions and the purge of several U.S. Attorneys were connected led to a subpoena from a House subcommittee that Rove failed to honor yesterday. Siegelman took to the blogs today demanding Rove be held in contempt for failing to appear and he may get his wish if a determined John Conyers has anything to say about it.