Category: Morgan Kelly
House Supports U.S. Forces in Iraq
By Morgan Kelly
WASHINGTON – Hours after a bomb ripped through a hotel in central Baghdad , killing at least two dozen people, the House of Representatives passed a Republican resolution Wednesday praising U.S. forces in Iraq and declaring the world safer since the American-led invasion.
During heated debate, Democrats, who were not allowed to help write the resolution, accused Republicans of using the “politicized” resolution to distract Americans from the mounting cost of the war and the ongoing violence in Iraq . They said the resolution also was being used to vindicate President Bush at a time when his decision to invade Iraq is being questioned.
Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) said the resolution does not mention critical issues surrounding the war, such as a shortage of supplies for troops or inspectors’ failure to find weapons of mass destruction. It will do nothing, he said, to make troops safer.
“I only wish this House was considering today a truly bipartisan resolution to properly honor our troops,” Rep. McGovern said, adding that after one year and $120 billion of American money, the violence in Iraq persists. “This resolution is more about what the Republican leadership wants us to forget.”.
Rep. McGovern and several other Democrats wanted to add references to weapons of mass destruction, supply shortages and the pay gap between regular Army and reserve troops, but Republicans closed the bill to amendments.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Republicans were being protective about the resolution because they intend to use it as a campaign vehicle. As Friday’s first anniversary of the war approaches, the president and his reelection team have begun touting the war in speeches and at campaign events and featuring it in television ads.
“I think it’s a very outrageous attempt by Republicans to gain partisan points off the war,” Rep. Frank said. He said in an interview that Republicans were using the resolution to “confuse the issue” over the threat posed by deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein versus President Bush’s claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., who wanted to add an amendment requiring the president to give Congress an accurate assessment of “past and future commitments in Iraq ,” said he does not know of a single member of Congress who does not support U.S. troops, so there was no need for Republicans to exclude Democrats from the drafting process.
Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., defended the resolution, saying it simply was meant to honor U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and to commend the Iraqi people on moving toward democracy. Rep. Dreier said the resolution did not claim the world was free from terror, as Democrats implied.
But some Republicans, such as Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida , made the case that war had in fact made the world safer.
“Each time a dangerous madman is removed anywhere in the world, the world is safer,” Diaz-Balart said, saying that the people of Iraq certainly feel safer without Saddam Hussein.
Rep. Hastings fired back by asking if people in Spain , where terrorists blew up four trains last week, killing 200 people, felt safer.
Rep. Frank said Hussein’s ouster was a good thing. “He was a disaster for the people in Iraq, but I don’t think he was a threat” to the United States , he said.
On the House floor, the resolution drew out the bitterness between Republicans and Democrats that has defined this Congress, as members on both sides cheered their colleagues and booed those from the other side of the aisle.
Democrats gave Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a standing ovation after he said that the resolution should be withdrawn and rewritten with Democratic help.
Later, Democrats hissed at Rep. Dreier when he said that every Congress member should support the resolution to show unified support for U.S. troops. Republicans tried to drown them out with applause and hoots.
The resolution is purely symbolic and will not go to the Senate.
Economy Better, But Needs Work, says Greenspan
By Morgan Kelly
WASHINGTON -Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the House Financial Services Committee Wednesday that the economy is recovering, though the comeback is being held back by a lack of job growth and an increasing federal budget deficit.
Mr. Greenspan met with the panel to discuss the state of the economy and to urge Congress to prolong the economy's recent upturn by reducing the deficit and promoting free trade. Committee Democrats warned him that the Fed's policies would meet political resistance if American jobs and contracts continued to move overseas.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the committee's senior Democrat, said jobs are being lost because of globalization that sends jobs and contracts overseas, generating profits for U.S. companies while leaving American workers without jobs and benefits.
"There is a growing perception in the country that the benefits of recovery are being unequally shared," Rep. Frank said. "Our part is to contain excessive inequality."
He commended Mr. Greenspan for keeping interest rates at appropriate levels, but said that if "excessive inequality" persists as a result of lost jobs, Mr. Greenspan can expect "political resistance" to his policies.
Rep. Frank supports holding U.S. trading partners to environmental and labor standards equal to America's and providing health benefits to American workers who lose jobs because of trade.
"Overall, the economy has made impressive gains in output and real incomes," Mr. Greenspan said, adding that the economy has seen an increase in productivity, wages and household income despite only a slight increase in employment.
Three million jobs have been lost since 2001, and only 300,000 new jobs have been created in the last year. The unemployment rate continues to hover between five and six percent, nearly twice as high as it was in the late 1990s.
Mr. Greenspan said that the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest , the South and New England is the result of the country's shift from a labor-based economy to one dependent on the information and technology sectors.
Mr. Greenspan was most concerned about the federal budget deficit, saying that if not addressed now, it will be nearly impossible to control when the baby-boom generation retires and the ratio of workers to retirees will "fall substantially."
He criticized Congress for being more concerned about partisan advantage than reducing the deficit.
"The debate over budget priorities appears to be between those advocating additional tax cuts and those advocating increased spending," Mr. Greenspan said. "To date, no effective constituency has offered programs to balance the budget."
Democrats say the projected 2004 federal deficit of $521 billion will increase dramatically if Congress approves President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget proposal.
Committee members divided along party lines in comments on the economy and the president's economic policies.
Committee Chairman Michael Oxley (R-Ohio) was optimistic that 2.6 million jobs will be created this year, as the president and Republicans are projecting. He said that the economy is doing well considering the Sept. 11, 2001 , terrorist attacks, the Iraq war and corporate scandals, such as Enron.
Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) lambasted Mr. Greenspan for supporting policies that have accelerated the movement of U.S. jobs to foreign countries and for presiding over an economy in which the rich have grown richer and the poor poorer.
"I am always amazed by how your forecasts are so far removed from the reality that I see everyday in my state for middle-class people and what I see all over the country," Rep. Sanders said, citing a litany of problems from underpaid Wal-Mart employees to seniors fearing for their pensions.
Mr. Greenspan said the despair Rep. Sanders described is not due to the Fed's economic policies but to a lack of new jobs.
"My view is that the pattern is about to change," he said, adding, "I don't know when it's going to change."
New Bedford Development Fund Stays the Same: That’s the Problem
By Morgan Kelly
WASHINGTON- Although President Bush has proposed that the federal government spend the same amount of money on urban development projects next year as in 2004, New Bedford and other cities are being forced to pare back programs because of a rising tide of poverty, according to a city housing official.
The president proposed spending $4.3 billion for Community Development Block Grants, which help revitalize neighborhoods, expand affordable housing, create jobs and improve community services in cities with more than 50,000 people and high poverty rates. It is the same amount Congress appropriated for fiscal 2004, which began Oct. 1.
In the current fiscal year, New Bedford is slated to receive $3.5 million. Brian Sullivan, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which issues the grants, said New Bedford should expect the same amount in 2005.
But $3.5 million isn't what it used to be, said Patrick Sullivan, New Bedford's director of housing and community development. The city needs more money than it did before, he said.
According to the 2000 census, there were 18,500 people living below the poverty level in New Bedford, almost 13 percent more than in 1990. Sixty percent of New Bedford's homes were built before 1940, which is one qualification for receiving HUD grants. The homeless rate is rising, as are rents and home prices, making it harder to find affordable housing, New Bedford's Patrick Sullivan said.
New Bedford's grant dropped from nearly $3.6 million in 2003 to $3.5 million this year, Patrick Sullivan said. He said he expects it to drop further as more cities become eligible for the grants.
"The significant at-risk population is growing in this city and the money to help them is not growing," he said.
New Bedford traditionally has used its grants for economic development and to improve housing, sidewalks and parks. It has subsidized more than 40 nonprofit organizations and city projects.
Patrick Sullivan said the city receives requests for $5 million a year, but has only $3.5 million to disburse. Requests have increased significantly this year, largely because of escalating housing costs, he said.
The money doesn't go as far as it used to because of inflation, said Margy Waller, an economic expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington . The recent economic downturn forced state and local governments to rely more on federal grants, she said, making it crucial that those grants increase.
"Unless you adjust for inflation from year to year, it means a cut," Ms. Waller said.
The answer to New Bedford 's problems lies with Congress, which can add money to the president's proposed budget.
"Many of us will be pushing for it, but I'm not sure we'll be successful," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). There are four cities that receive grants in Frank's district, including New Bedford and Fall River .
Congress will be under increased pressure to hold down spending during an election year in which the federal deficit is projected to reach $521 billion. HUD's Brian Sullivan said that keeping the block grant money at its current level is a priority.
"Keeping funding stable is preferable to funding reductions," Brian Sullivan said. "Tell [New Bedford] to relax. We got them covered."
Patrick Sullivan hopes so.
"If this money ever gets cut further there's going to be some deep impacts in the community," he said without elaboration. The city, he said, requires "significant upkeep."
State Dems React to Bush’s Budget
By Morgan Kelly
WASHINGTON- Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., blasted President Bush Wednesday for cutting back low-income housing programs in his 2005 budget proposal.
"[The] budget proposal once again demonstrates that the Bush administration is primarily concerned about the well-being of the rich and is trying to reduce the unmanageable deficit on the backs of the poor," Rep. Frank said in a statement.
Rep. Frank was especially angered by the president's proposed reform of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 voucher program, which pays 70 percent of a qualified family's rent. The current "unit-based" system gives vouchers to local housing authorities based on the number of low-income homes in the area. The president proposes "dollar-based" funding, which would give a set amount to housing authorities regardless of the number of people in need of housing.
The proposal cuts the current Section 8 program and forces local housing authorities to "pick and choose among their low-income clientele," kicking many recipients out of the program, Rep. Frank said.
HUD spokeswoman Donna White said the proposed change is needed to rein in a system whirling out of control financially.
"We're trying to address the spiraling cost of running the program," Ms. White said, who added that the cost of each voucher has increased by 20 percent in the last two years. "If it continues to grow in that way it will drain from other HUD programs."
Although the president proposes cutting Section 8, HUD's overall budget is slated to go up 3 percent to $31.3 billion.
If program costs are rising, it is because rent prices are climbing, including those in New Bedford , said Joseph Finnerty, executive director of the New Bedford Housing Authority. Some 1,600 families participate in New Bedford 's Section 8 voucher program, with 1,000 families on the waiting list.
Currently, the housing authority receives enough money for all the families and can apply for more if needed. But under the president's proposal, the authority would have to ration out the cash as rents increase and reduce the number of families it can help.
"We're not going to throw people out, but ration out the money and just not reissue" vouchers as people leave the program, Mr. Finnerty said. If Congress approves the president's proposal, "it's going to be a hard year," he added.
Rep. Frank said the cutbacks and policy changes represent the president's malice toward the poor.
"[The administration] has relentlessly made war upon poor people, refusing to fund new affordable housing, failing to preserve existing housing, presiding over an increase in homelessness and slashing programs for low-income people, the elderly and the disabled," Rep. Frank said.
Rep. Frank's comments echo a theme of robust disapproval of the president's budget proposals by others in the Massachusetts congressional delegation.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement the proposed budget was "the most anti-family, anti-worker, anti-health care, anti-education budget in modern times." He added that it "doesn't deserve to pass."
Of the several problems Sen. Kennedy cited, the most significant were the president's plans for education and health care funding, initiatives Sen. Kennedy initially supported but later turned against when he felt betrayed by the president.
"[The president] proposed to underfund his signature education initiative [the No Child Left Behind Act] by $9.4 billion," Sen. Kennedy said. "Over 4.6 million will be left behind."
On health care, "the president has proposed a smoke and mirrors budget--long on rhetoric and short on real resources to meet the needs of the American people," Sen. Kennedy continued. The president, for example, proposed $20 billion less for health care than in the current year, despite his pledge to cover the uninsured, Sen. Kennedy said.
In a statement from the presidential campaign trail, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., also accused the president of underfunding his education and health care initiatives. He added: "With George Bush in the White House, we have been losing two jobs every minute. With this new budget, every minute we will be adding $1 billion to our deficit."
President’s Clear Skies Not Dead Yet
By Morgan Kelly
WASHINGTON -When President Bush left his Clear Skies initiative out of his State of the Union address last week, many people thought it was because the proposal to reduce air pollution was clearly dead.
Even Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who chairs the Senate subcommittee charged with reviewing the Clear Skies Initiative, said as much after the State of the Union speech. "Clear Skies isn't going to pass," he said in an interview. "The votes aren't there."
But Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House's Council on Environmental Quality, said the Clear Skies initiative-introduced in February 2002--is quite healthy.
"We're working with Congress to get it done this year," she said.
The President continues to lobby Congress for a law, though lawmakers failed to pass his proposal last year. In the meantime, the administration has proposed a regulation, the Interstate Air Quality Rule, that is essentially the same as Clear Skies but would not require congressional approval.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the rule last month, and public hearings are planned for next month. It would regulate emissions in Massachusetts as well as 28 other states and the District of Columbia .
"We still want legislation, because it allows national coverage" Ms. Perino said. "This will help us get states and counties in most desperate need of emission control while we continue to work on passing Clear Skies."
Clear Skies is meant to expand on the 14-year-old Acid Rain Program by capping emissions on the most destructive pollutants -sulfur dioxide, smog causing nitrogen oxide and mercury- reducing the current amount factories can produce by 70 percent by 2018.
President Bush said in a speech in September that Clear Skies would work with very little government enforcement.
"Instead of government telling utilities where and how to cut pollution, we will tell them how much to cut and when we expect progress to be made," the President said.
The plan calls for a "cap-and-trade" system in which factories that produce beneath their pollution ceiling can sell the leftover emissions to factories that have not met their goals.
But it's the lack of enforcement and the selling of pollution that draw criticism from environmental groups that say Clear Skies allows factories to do nothing about pollution until the last minute. Further, the 2018 deadline set for reducing emissions under Clear Skies is significantly longer than the 2009 deadline imposed by the Clean Air Act, which was enacted in 1970.
The National Environmental Trust, a Washington interest group, estimates Clear Skies' deadline extension would actually increase dangerous pollutants in the air by some 42 million tons by 2020.
An increase in pollution means trouble for already polluted industrial areas like Southeastern Massachusetts , home to Somerset's Brayton Point power plant, the largest and most polluting fossil-fuel producer in New England .
"It's very distressing," said Seth Kaplan, of the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy group in New England .
Though Massachusetts ' anti-pollution laws are stronger than federal laws, the latter act as a crutch if state laws are ever weakened, Mr. Kaplan said. President Bush's proposals threaten to weaken that crutch, which "just makes it all the more important that the state regulations hold up," he said.
Mr. Kaplan said he is worried that President Bush's proposals would permit the far larger plants in the Midwest to produce more pollutants that would blow into New England , which he called the "tailpipe of America ."
"It's a package of bad ideas that allows for continued pollution to blow in from the West and allows states that are slipshod on regulations to continue to be so," he said. "What happens in other states is directly relevant to New England ."
Ms. Perino dismissed the criticism.
"The Clear Skies Initiative had in mind communities like [ New Bedford ] when it was created," she said. "If you looked at the policy and look at how the standards work, it is unprecedented what we're doing."
So far, neither initiative has much support among Republicans or Democrats in Washington .
"I don't think it's a good idea and I don't think it's going anywhere," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "I'm concerned about it if it passed, but it's not going to pass."
But expect that to change, Ms. Perino said, adding, "This is a presidential priority."
Frank Focuses on Good and Bad of Globalization
By Morgan Kelly
WASHINGTON - Globalization is a good idea poorly executed, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, said in Switzerland last week at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting of politicians, educators and businessmen who discuss ways to expand the economic benefits of globalization.
The meeting's theme was corporate social responsibility, and Rep. Frank, who supports the benefits globalization brings to poor countries, had a basic message: more Americans would support the global economy if there were higher international environmental and labor standards and more assistance for those losing their jobs because of globalization.
"Nobody tells the working class, 'You're going to be the ones to sacrifice for these countries,' " he said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. Globalization's impact, he added "could be improved by requiring and following minimum standards for labor and environment. There also needs to be a universal system of health benefits."
American workers are hurt by lower environmental and labor regulations in developing nations such as China and India that reduce operating costs and attract American businesses overseas, Rep. Frank said.
President Bush is not putting enough pressure on foreign countries to raise their standards, said Rep. Frank, who is the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.
Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, disagreed, saying the President has done a lot to persuade foreign competitors to improve environmental standards, including pledging $500 million over the next four years to help developing nations with environmental improvement.
"We are working with those countries so they can grow and improve the way of life for their citizens and develop economically without having negative consequences on the environment," Ms. Perino said.
The fact remains that American industrial areas like the South Coast have lost thousands of jobs to cheaper foreign markets because of globalization.
"It's had a very negative effect in southeast Massachusetts ," Rep. Frank said. "The garment textile industries in Fall River-New Bedford have been lost to foreign trade."
The South Coast has lost several thousand jobs in the last 20 years, said Paul Vigeant, executive director of the South Coast Development Partnership, an organization that promotes the South Coast as a business location. Many have been lost to foreign countries with cheaper labor, especially in the garment industry, which requires low-capitol and unskilled labor.
But, Mr. Vigeant said the region's textile industry-not including garment manufacturing-has grown and is stable. In other areas, the South Coast is shedding its industrial skin and moving toward more service jobs-from medicine and legal services to food and personal service. Mr. Vigeant's partnership is promoting life-science industry and marine science research development.
"New opportunities are evolving in our region every day," Mr. Vigeant said. "People forget that New Bedford 's economy was at the top of the world stockpile. I don't think it's unreasonable to think we can have that name in the world again."
