Friday, February 04, 2005
State of Union: What to say. So many lies, the usual great ‘production values.’ To get through it:
1) I didn’t watch it
2) I found the humor.
This time it was easy to do the latter. Appointing Laura Bush to head the national effort to help youth stay out of gangs was just priceless; Catching the big shot in the asbestos industry in Laura’s box in the gallery while Junior talked of the need to stop “frivolous asbestos lawsuits” was equally entertaining, in a very dark kind of way.
By not watching it or hearing the conventional commentary, I missed Cokie Roberts squeal with delight over the hug moment, missed Bush’s kissing Lieberman, missed the heavily Republican ‘analysts’ assessing the speech. http://mediamatters.org/items/200502030009
Trash talking Iran:
Condi made clear that we’re not with the Europeans, then was forced this AM to add that an attack on Iraq “is not on the agenda.”
Less than a day after President Bush declared he was "working with European allies" to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would continue to rebuff European requests to participate directly in offering incentives for Iran to drop what is suspected of being a nuclear arms program.
Opening her first overseas trip as secretary, Ms. Rice also declared that the Tehran government's record on human rights was "something to be loathed" - a harsh comment that comes at a time when many European leaders have asked the United States to help lower tensions with Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/international/middleeast/04diplo.html?oref=login
Social Security: Let’s not forget that this is ALSO intended as a distraction from what really needs fixing- the existing budget/trade deficits, health care, Medicare.
Back to SS, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities warns of the massive debt to come, if…
Over the first ten years that the plan actually was in effect (2009-18), it would add more than $1 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add over $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add more than $4.5 trillion to the debt over its first 20 years.
· The reported $754 billion estimate is for 2006-15. The plan does not begin until 2009, however, and would be open that year only to somewhat older workers. It would not be until 2011 that all eligible participants could divert payroll tax revenue to the private accounts. Thus, only five full years of the plan are included in the White House’s $754 billion cost estimate.
· When estimates are generated for the first two decades that the plan would actually be in effect, the borrowing costs are seen to be much higher. http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec4.htm
Repubs Nervousness Continues: His tour ain’t working either.
Congressional Republicans are expressing doubt that President Bush's plan for personal accounts in Social Security can win approval, saying lawmakers fear the political consequences of voting major change to the popular retirement program. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_go_co/social_security
Shifting Rationale: Not emphasized in news accounts, save in the LA Times, was that the Administration is not claiming their social security “fix” will fix anything:
In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans."Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board." http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-speech3feb03,1,466993,print.story?coll=la-headlines-business
The b_______s at Enron: Finally revealed how they plotted to create the “Energy Crisis” of 2001
A Washington state utility released audiotapes Thursday that it said revealed bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. plotted to take a power plant off-line in 2001 to jack up electric prices in Western states.
That same day, shortages of power forced rolling blackouts in northern California that affected about 2 million customers.
Eric Christensen, the utility's assistant general counsel, said the tapes show Enron was planning to manipulate Western power markets as early as 1998 -- before California's deregulated energy market opened.
Others imply that Enron used similar tactics in Canada and that traders were aware the actions were illegal.
One Enron employee tells a colleague in another recorded conversation, "I'm just trying to be an honest camper so I only go to jail once." http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/enron.tapes/index.html
Gonzales: Demerits for Joe (Lieberman) who lauded him for his “independence of spirit”, voted for him. Credits to the NY Times editorial board for the following:
The confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general yesterday was depressing. The president deserves a great deal of leeway in choosing his own cabinet. But beyond his other failings, Mr. Gonzales has come to represent the administration's role in paving the way for the abuse and torture of prisoners by American soldiers and intelligence agents. Giving him the nation's top legal post is a terrible signal to send the rest of the world, and to American citizens concerned with human rights.
The 60-to-36 vote for confirmation was also preceded by a depressing debate. There was the usual comic opera of these Senate votes, with the president's party piously denouncing all opposition as outrageous politicking and the opposition piously denying it. But this debate had a sinister overtone as well: in a ham-handed way, the Republicans tried to portray a vote against Mr. Gonzales as an act of bigotry.
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, declaring that "I love the Hispanic people," warned that Hispanic Americans were "sensing there's something unfair going on." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/opinion/4fri1.html
The Pariah Speaks: Nader on the invasion/occupation, at Wesleyan, last week.
Memorial Chapel was filled to capacity Friday night as Ralph Nader and Patti Smith advocated an end to the war in Iraq and encouraged students to become more politically active. Their visit was the first of a series of events sponsored by WesPEACE to promote sustained opposition to the war in Iraq. Smith, a renowned poet and musician, began the event. She spoke with a mix of candor and humor, urging the audience to protest the Bush administration. "We must be willing to stand up and fight," Smith said. "We need to fight the Bush administration's policies. We have a document called the Declaration of Independence, which is too hot for them to handle. It counsels us to be vigilant." Nader wasted no time in giving his opinion about the current state of our government. "We are gathered here to discuss this criminal, unconstitutional war, which if put into context, the context of the last 30 years, is a reflection of corporate power," Nader said.According to Nader the "corporate machine" is constantly present in our everyday lives— in the media, what we wear, how we think, and even what we consider values. He also highlighted what he considers a growing disparity between America's upper and lower classes. "We need to relearn what civic freedom means," Nader said. "It is a fundamental freedom, meaning that elections are not for sale, that the environment, children, and politicians should be off-limits to commercialism." He added that students should e-mail their representatives with concerns and suggestions. He emphasized that the most daunting aspect of current American politics is that there has been almost no public reaction to what he thinks is a dangerous concentration of power."[The current administration] is using the flag as a gag in people's mouths," Nader said. "We're down to a one-party dominated system. And when your own election becomes selection, the next step is coronation." He then turned to the topic of the war in Iraq. According to Nader, the war is unconstitutional because Congress is the only body that is able to declare war. Following Sept. 11, 2001, Congress surrendered this right to Bush in the War Resolution Act. According to Nader, the best way to end the war in Iraq is through a withdrawal over the next six months, followed by six months of humanitarian aid and international peacekeeping. "But for this to happen, people have to want it to," he said. "This can be accomplished through the use of public education, marches, sit-ins, and even just interrupting meeting, making your dissention known." Many students agreed with his message and were glad for the opportunity to hear him speak. http://www.wesleyanargus.com/article.php?article_id=679
The Iraqi election figures: B.S.? Now that the headlines are written, doubt builds as to what happened on this ‘historic’ day. Aside from the Sunnis not participating and the Shiite religious parties getting 80+ of the votes, the level of participation apparently was less than claimed.
Everyone, of course, is thrilled that so many Iraqis turned out to vote, in the face of threats and intimidation, on Sunday. But in hailing, and at times gushing, over the turnout, has the American media (as it did two years ago in the hyping of Saddam's WMDs) forgotten core journalistic principles in regard to fact-checking and weighing partisan assertions? It appears so. For days, the press repeated, as gospel, assertions offered by an election official that 8 million Iraqis went to the polls on Sunday, an impressive 57% turnout rate. I questioned those figures as early as last Sunday, and offered the detailed analysis below on Wednesday. Now, John Burns and Dexter Filkins of The New York Times report in Friday's paper that Iraqi election officials have quietly "backtracked, saying that the 8 million estimate had been reached hastily on the basis of telephone reports from polling stations across the country and that the figure could change." http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000788083
Chomsky on Iraq’s future
…it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that's something that goes back to biblical times. What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They're going to have to rearm to confront Israel - which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here's the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington - and probably 10 Downing street in London - that here you might get a substantial Shi'ite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the US outposts that are there to try to make sure that the US controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That's kind of next to inconceivable. What I've just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: "Uh well, okay, we'll let them have a government, but we're not going to pay any attention to what they say." In fact, the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we're keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow. And the propaganda is very evident right in these articles. You can even write the commentary now: we just have to do it because we have to accomplish our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq. If they have an elected government that doesn't understand that, well, what can we do with these dumb Arabs, you know? Actually that's very common because look, after all, the US has overthrown democracy after democracy, because the people don't understand. They follow the wrong course. So therefore, following the mission of establishing democracy, we've got to overthrow their governments. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB04Ak05.html
Conservative Qualms with Bush Fiscal Policy: The Cato Institute:
If we compare the three-year percentage change in real spending during Reagan and Bush's first terms, President Bush comes out as a profligate spender on his own and as compared to Reagan. Under President Bush, real total outlays are estimated to increase by 13.5 percent as opposed to 6.8 percent under Reagan. More importantly, total real discretionary outlays are set to increase by 19.5 percent under the Bush administration while they increased by only 2.8 percent under Reagan.
And it gets worse. Discretionary spending is divided into two parts: defense spending and non-defense spending. When President Reagan pursued his defense buildup, he increased real defense discretionary outlays by 19.2 percent while cutting non-defense discretionary outlays by 13.5 percent. However, if estimates hold, President Bush will have increased real defense discretionary outlays by 21.2 percent-but non-defense discretionary outlays will have risen by 18 percent.
Discretionary spending numbers are telling because they are determined in the annual appropriations process where the President has the most influence. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/dehaven-030326.html
Ethics Cleaning House: While we were ‘elsewhere’, Hastert pulled this off. Those that resisted the ongoing protection of Tom DeLay were ousted. The new chairman is Rep. Doc Hastings, the committee's second-ranking Republican. He was named by House Speaker Hastert to take the gavel from Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.).
In addition, Hastert appointed three new members to the panel, including two — Reps. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — whose political action committees have contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund. That’s right; he appointed people to the ethics committee who contributed to DeLay’s defense against ethics charges by that committee. Wow.
Rep. Kenny Hulshof was removed from the House ethics committee Wednesday, a rebuke the Missouri lawmaker said was directly related to his role in the panel’s admonishment last fall of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Hulshof, R-Columbia, said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision to yank him from the committee, a move made by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and announced Wednesday morning at a meeting of the House Republican conference.“I believe the decision was a direct result of our work in the last session,” Hulshof said in an interview, “particularly my chairing the investigative subcommittee” that examined ethics charges against DeLay, R-Texas, in the 108th Congress.Hulshof said his opposition to recent proposed changes of the GOP’s ethics standards may also played a role in his removal.The DeLay brouhaha stems to last October when the ethics committee admonished DeLay for pressuring then-Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., to vote in favor of a GOP-backed prescription drug bill by offering to endorse Smith’s son in exchange for a yes vote on the bill. The committee said DeLay had not broken any laws or House rules but that he had gone “beyond the boundaries” of party discipline. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/BC750EE4190C5CB186256F9C0080D64E?OpenDocument&Headline=Rep.+Hulshof+removed+from+House+ethics+committee
-R
1) I didn’t watch it
2) I found the humor.
This time it was easy to do the latter. Appointing Laura Bush to head the national effort to help youth stay out of gangs was just priceless; Catching the big shot in the asbestos industry in Laura’s box in the gallery while Junior talked of the need to stop “frivolous asbestos lawsuits” was equally entertaining, in a very dark kind of way.
By not watching it or hearing the conventional commentary, I missed Cokie Roberts squeal with delight over the hug moment, missed Bush’s kissing Lieberman, missed the heavily Republican ‘analysts’ assessing the speech. http://mediamatters.org/items/200502030009
Trash talking Iran:
Condi made clear that we’re not with the Europeans, then was forced this AM to add that an attack on Iraq “is not on the agenda.”
Less than a day after President Bush declared he was "working with European allies" to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States would continue to rebuff European requests to participate directly in offering incentives for Iran to drop what is suspected of being a nuclear arms program.
Opening her first overseas trip as secretary, Ms. Rice also declared that the Tehran government's record on human rights was "something to be loathed" - a harsh comment that comes at a time when many European leaders have asked the United States to help lower tensions with Iran. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/international/middleeast/04diplo.html?oref=login
Social Security: Let’s not forget that this is ALSO intended as a distraction from what really needs fixing- the existing budget/trade deficits, health care, Medicare.
Back to SS, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities warns of the massive debt to come, if…
Over the first ten years that the plan actually was in effect (2009-18), it would add more than $1 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add over $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add more than $4.5 trillion to the debt over its first 20 years.
· The reported $754 billion estimate is for 2006-15. The plan does not begin until 2009, however, and would be open that year only to somewhat older workers. It would not be until 2011 that all eligible participants could divert payroll tax revenue to the private accounts. Thus, only five full years of the plan are included in the White House’s $754 billion cost estimate.
· When estimates are generated for the first two decades that the plan would actually be in effect, the borrowing costs are seen to be much higher. http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-05socsec4.htm
Repubs Nervousness Continues: His tour ain’t working either.
Congressional Republicans are expressing doubt that President Bush's plan for personal accounts in Social Security can win approval, saying lawmakers fear the political consequences of voting major change to the popular retirement program. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_go_co/social_security
Shifting Rationale: Not emphasized in news accounts, save in the LA Times, was that the Administration is not claiming their social security “fix” will fix anything:
In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans."Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board." http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-speech3feb03,1,466993,print.story?coll=la-headlines-business
The b_______s at Enron: Finally revealed how they plotted to create the “Energy Crisis” of 2001
A Washington state utility released audiotapes Thursday that it said revealed bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. plotted to take a power plant off-line in 2001 to jack up electric prices in Western states.
That same day, shortages of power forced rolling blackouts in northern California that affected about 2 million customers.
Eric Christensen, the utility's assistant general counsel, said the tapes show Enron was planning to manipulate Western power markets as early as 1998 -- before California's deregulated energy market opened.
Others imply that Enron used similar tactics in Canada and that traders were aware the actions were illegal.
One Enron employee tells a colleague in another recorded conversation, "I'm just trying to be an honest camper so I only go to jail once." http://us.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/enron.tapes/index.html
Gonzales: Demerits for Joe (Lieberman) who lauded him for his “independence of spirit”, voted for him. Credits to the NY Times editorial board for the following:
The confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general yesterday was depressing. The president deserves a great deal of leeway in choosing his own cabinet. But beyond his other failings, Mr. Gonzales has come to represent the administration's role in paving the way for the abuse and torture of prisoners by American soldiers and intelligence agents. Giving him the nation's top legal post is a terrible signal to send the rest of the world, and to American citizens concerned with human rights.
The 60-to-36 vote for confirmation was also preceded by a depressing debate. There was the usual comic opera of these Senate votes, with the president's party piously denouncing all opposition as outrageous politicking and the opposition piously denying it. But this debate had a sinister overtone as well: in a ham-handed way, the Republicans tried to portray a vote against Mr. Gonzales as an act of bigotry.
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, declaring that "I love the Hispanic people," warned that Hispanic Americans were "sensing there's something unfair going on." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/04/opinion/4fri1.html
The Pariah Speaks: Nader on the invasion/occupation, at Wesleyan, last week.
Memorial Chapel was filled to capacity Friday night as Ralph Nader and Patti Smith advocated an end to the war in Iraq and encouraged students to become more politically active. Their visit was the first of a series of events sponsored by WesPEACE to promote sustained opposition to the war in Iraq. Smith, a renowned poet and musician, began the event. She spoke with a mix of candor and humor, urging the audience to protest the Bush administration. "We must be willing to stand up and fight," Smith said. "We need to fight the Bush administration's policies. We have a document called the Declaration of Independence, which is too hot for them to handle. It counsels us to be vigilant." Nader wasted no time in giving his opinion about the current state of our government. "We are gathered here to discuss this criminal, unconstitutional war, which if put into context, the context of the last 30 years, is a reflection of corporate power," Nader said.According to Nader the "corporate machine" is constantly present in our everyday lives— in the media, what we wear, how we think, and even what we consider values. He also highlighted what he considers a growing disparity between America's upper and lower classes. "We need to relearn what civic freedom means," Nader said. "It is a fundamental freedom, meaning that elections are not for sale, that the environment, children, and politicians should be off-limits to commercialism." He added that students should e-mail their representatives with concerns and suggestions. He emphasized that the most daunting aspect of current American politics is that there has been almost no public reaction to what he thinks is a dangerous concentration of power."[The current administration] is using the flag as a gag in people's mouths," Nader said. "We're down to a one-party dominated system. And when your own election becomes selection, the next step is coronation." He then turned to the topic of the war in Iraq. According to Nader, the war is unconstitutional because Congress is the only body that is able to declare war. Following Sept. 11, 2001, Congress surrendered this right to Bush in the War Resolution Act. According to Nader, the best way to end the war in Iraq is through a withdrawal over the next six months, followed by six months of humanitarian aid and international peacekeeping. "But for this to happen, people have to want it to," he said. "This can be accomplished through the use of public education, marches, sit-ins, and even just interrupting meeting, making your dissention known." Many students agreed with his message and were glad for the opportunity to hear him speak. http://www.wesleyanargus.com/article.php?article_id=679
The Iraqi election figures: B.S.? Now that the headlines are written, doubt builds as to what happened on this ‘historic’ day. Aside from the Sunnis not participating and the Shiite religious parties getting 80+ of the votes, the level of participation apparently was less than claimed.
Everyone, of course, is thrilled that so many Iraqis turned out to vote, in the face of threats and intimidation, on Sunday. But in hailing, and at times gushing, over the turnout, has the American media (as it did two years ago in the hyping of Saddam's WMDs) forgotten core journalistic principles in regard to fact-checking and weighing partisan assertions? It appears so. For days, the press repeated, as gospel, assertions offered by an election official that 8 million Iraqis went to the polls on Sunday, an impressive 57% turnout rate. I questioned those figures as early as last Sunday, and offered the detailed analysis below on Wednesday. Now, John Burns and Dexter Filkins of The New York Times report in Friday's paper that Iraqi election officials have quietly "backtracked, saying that the 8 million estimate had been reached hastily on the basis of telephone reports from polling stations across the country and that the figure could change." http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000788083
Chomsky on Iraq’s future
…it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that's something that goes back to biblical times. What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They're going to have to rearm to confront Israel - which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here's the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington - and probably 10 Downing street in London - that here you might get a substantial Shi'ite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the US outposts that are there to try to make sure that the US controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That's kind of next to inconceivable. What I've just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: "Uh well, okay, we'll let them have a government, but we're not going to pay any attention to what they say." In fact, the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we're keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow. And the propaganda is very evident right in these articles. You can even write the commentary now: we just have to do it because we have to accomplish our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq. If they have an elected government that doesn't understand that, well, what can we do with these dumb Arabs, you know? Actually that's very common because look, after all, the US has overthrown democracy after democracy, because the people don't understand. They follow the wrong course. So therefore, following the mission of establishing democracy, we've got to overthrow their governments. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB04Ak05.html
Conservative Qualms with Bush Fiscal Policy: The Cato Institute:
If we compare the three-year percentage change in real spending during Reagan and Bush's first terms, President Bush comes out as a profligate spender on his own and as compared to Reagan. Under President Bush, real total outlays are estimated to increase by 13.5 percent as opposed to 6.8 percent under Reagan. More importantly, total real discretionary outlays are set to increase by 19.5 percent under the Bush administration while they increased by only 2.8 percent under Reagan.
And it gets worse. Discretionary spending is divided into two parts: defense spending and non-defense spending. When President Reagan pursued his defense buildup, he increased real defense discretionary outlays by 19.2 percent while cutting non-defense discretionary outlays by 13.5 percent. However, if estimates hold, President Bush will have increased real defense discretionary outlays by 21.2 percent-but non-defense discretionary outlays will have risen by 18 percent.
Discretionary spending numbers are telling because they are determined in the annual appropriations process where the President has the most influence. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/dehaven-030326.html
Ethics Cleaning House: While we were ‘elsewhere’, Hastert pulled this off. Those that resisted the ongoing protection of Tom DeLay were ousted. The new chairman is Rep. Doc Hastings, the committee's second-ranking Republican. He was named by House Speaker Hastert to take the gavel from Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.).
In addition, Hastert appointed three new members to the panel, including two — Reps. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.) — whose political action committees have contributed to DeLay's legal defense fund. That’s right; he appointed people to the ethics committee who contributed to DeLay’s defense against ethics charges by that committee. Wow.
Rep. Kenny Hulshof was removed from the House ethics committee Wednesday, a rebuke the Missouri lawmaker said was directly related to his role in the panel’s admonishment last fall of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Hulshof, R-Columbia, said he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision to yank him from the committee, a move made by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and announced Wednesday morning at a meeting of the House Republican conference.“I believe the decision was a direct result of our work in the last session,” Hulshof said in an interview, “particularly my chairing the investigative subcommittee” that examined ethics charges against DeLay, R-Texas, in the 108th Congress.Hulshof said his opposition to recent proposed changes of the GOP’s ethics standards may also played a role in his removal.The DeLay brouhaha stems to last October when the ethics committee admonished DeLay for pressuring then-Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., to vote in favor of a GOP-backed prescription drug bill by offering to endorse Smith’s son in exchange for a yes vote on the bill. The committee said DeLay had not broken any laws or House rules but that he had gone “beyond the boundaries” of party discipline. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/BC750EE4190C5CB186256F9C0080D64E?OpenDocument&Headline=Rep.+Hulshof+removed+from+House+ethics+committee
-R
