The Administration

Six years ago the United States attacked, invaded and consequently occupied Iraq at the great expense of the blood and treasure of the people of the United States and Iraq. The terms and dates of a total U.S. pullout have been so conditional and so qualified, that no one can say for sure when the occupation will end.

At such a grim anniversary, it is timely to recount the reasons we went to war. The Bush administration, operating in a climate of fear and the collective anger generated by 9/11, created a false cause for war against Iraq and then sold it to the Congress and the American people. They told us Iraq helped plan 9/11. They told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They told us terrorists would attack us unless we attacked first. They promised the war would be short and cheap; that we would be greeted as liberators. None of these assertions were true. The architects of the war inside the Bush administration should be investigated and prosecuted by the Justice Department for deliberately misrepresenting a cause for war against Iraq. Read more...

The Big Question is a feature where influential lawmakers, pundits and interest group leaders give their answers to a question that’s driving discussion in news circles around the country.

Some responses are gathered via e-mail, while others are gathered in person via tape recorder.

Today’s Big Question is:

Should Geithner go?

See responses below from Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Connie Mackey, Dean Baker, Dr. Larry J. Sabato, and Dr. Herbert London.

Read the last Big Question here.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) said:

No. I think he’s doing a very good job. I thought his Mortgage Foreclosure Plan was excellent.

Rep. John Campbell (R-Ca) said:

I’m not ready to call for his resignation.  I think the problem is that we have’nt seen a plan and that’s what we need.  What we have is a crisis of confidence.  If he was to leave now, the confidence of the American people would plummet and there would be even more disarray. Read the full response here.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said:

No. Like the President said last night on Jay Leno, Geithner has a lot on his plate.  He’s got economy problems, foreclosure problems and world prolems. Read the full response here.

Connie Mackey, President of the FRCAction PAC, said:

Timothy Geithner should resign quicker than you can say “heck of a job Brownie.” His mere confirmation after being exposed as a tax cheat was a travesty, does the President and the Senate believe that they are above the laws they inflict on us common people? Now the Democrats in Congress express false outrage over the bonuses despite all of them voting for the stimulus bill that guaranteed AIG executives would get their bonuses... Read the full response here.

Dean Baker, Co-Director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said:

It’s pretty obvious that the financial bailout has not gone well thus far. Clearly the administration has to take it in a different direction.

The goal cannot be to placate Wall Street and leave the status quo in place. Read the full response here.

Larry Sabato, Director of the Center for Politics, said:

The timing is wrong. It’s too soon, and not that much would be gained by Geithner’s departure now. In fact, a resignation would contribute to an air of crisis. Just imagine the screaming headlines on TV. Read the full response here.

Dr. Herbert London, President of the Hudson Institute, said:

Yes. In my judgemnt he seems incapable of adopting a policy to stablize the banking industry, has not established a context for regulatory reform, hasn’t found the appropriate staff associates and seems like a deer caught in the headlights when he is on TV.

Today is a day of celebration.  A four year nightmare has finally come to an end for  Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were unjustly prosecuted and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in federal prison, for shooting and wounding an illegal alien drug smuggler along the Texas/Mexico border in 2005.  The outrage over their convictions and subsequent incarceration reverberated throughout America and across party lines.

For over 2 ½ years, dozens of Members of Congress and millions of Americans rallied in support of the agents. Many of us, myself included, believed Ramos and Compean deserved a full pardon from President Bush. It was clear to most that these men were the victims of an overzealous prosecutor who inexplicably decided to take the word of a drug smuggler over two veteran border patrol agents when he claimed he was unarmed while smuggling over a million dollars worth of drugs.  The U.S. Attorney’s office made the decision to grant immunity to the illegal alien drug smuggler, provided free medical care for his injuries and issued unconditional border crossing cards permitting him to come and go between Juarez, Mexico and El Paso, TX freely.  It later turned out, the government’s star witness and “victim” Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, continued to smuggle drugs while waiting to testify against Ramos and Compean.  The U.S. Attorney’s office knew about the subsequent transgressions but successfully petitioned the trial judge to seal the evidence from the jury claiming the information “was not relevant.”  So much for a fair trial. Read more...

President Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of 'change.' Two months into his Presidency, it is clear that this 'change' pertains to the way Washington governs U.S. marijuana policy.

Yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reaffirmed that he will not authorize federal justice resources to target or prosecute medical cannabis users or providers that are compliant with state law. Holder's statements clarify remarks he made last month when he said that the Justice Department would uphold President Obama's campaign pledge not to use the power of the federal government to circumvent state medical marijuana laws. Read more...

The Hill's Jim Mills and White House Reporter Sam Youngman weigh in on what to expect from President Obama's appearance on 'The Tonight Show,' and what this means for his administration.

As White House efforts to manage the financial bailout seemingly spin out-of-control, another crisis of major proportions is brewing behind the scenes. In a surprise move announced last week, the Obama administration revealed that it is seriously considering releasing terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay into the United States.

The announcement comes as the administration struggles with what to do with detainees housed at the facility after President Barack Obama’s decision in late January to close the prison within a year. Nearly two months after the president’s choice, the administration has yet to present Congress with a credible plan that closes the prison and ensures the safety of American lives. As the clock ticks down on the president’s self-imposed deadline, the administration is seemingly being forced to address the Guantanamo issue on an ad hoc basis, driven by liberal public opinion and increasing European demands. Read more...

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. When our economy has the flu -– as it does now -– small businesses get pneumonia. But when given a shot, small firms are essential tools to our nation’s economic recovery.

President Obama knows this. That is why earlier this week he set in motion a bold plan to get our economy back on track. The plan takes immediate steps to increase entrepreneurs’ access to capital, which has dried up because of a frozen secondary market that is discouraging banks from making new loans. Read more...

The layoffs announced by Caterpillar today proves the promises that CAT would not proceed with planned layoffs and rehire workers if the so-called economic stimulus plan passed were inaccurate.

Congress did pass the stimulus bill and the President got everything he wanted from Congress. Yet, these additional layoffs confirm CAT workers were misused by the Administration as justification for the stimulus bill. Read more...

The Big Question is a feature where influential lawmakers, pundits and interest group leaders give their answers to a question that’s driving discussion in news circles around the country.

Some responses are gathered via e-mail, while others are gathered in person via tape recorder.

Today’s Big Question is:

Was Congress naive to think that the bailouts it approved would not be used in part for executives’ compensation and bonuses?

See responses below from Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.),  Dean Baker, Melanie Sloan, William Redpath, Leo W. Gerard, Celinda Lake, Daniel J. Mitchell, Nathan Henderson-James, Larry Sabato, and Tom McClusky.

Read the last Big Question here.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said:

I think it’s another example of why we shouldn’t be partners with companies.  It amazes me when people are surprised that the companies use the bailout money for the bonuses for its executives. Read the full response here.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said:

No, because we did anticipate it and we told Paulson not to allow it to happen.

Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said:

Quite frankly, I am a little surprised to see the President and his Treasury Secretary so outraged by the paying of these bonuses when they had the opportunity to prevent it before they gave AIG the latest installment of taxpayer money. Read the full response here.

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said:

I don’t think they were naive, I think they were ill-informed on what the bailout money would be used for.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said:

I don’t think we were naive, we underestimated a culture of entitlement.

Sen Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said:

No, but we have to impose some accountability that wasn’t there before.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said:

I think we placed our confidence in the administrators of the program to make sure that the bailout would be effectively used.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said:

No, I don’t think it was. This is a pretty extraordinary time in the history of our country from an economic standpoint. You would think that any business that wants to be successful is going to use good business practices, and good business practices don’t include giving out huge bonuses in a time when you’re company’s not doing well. Read the full response here.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) said:

No. I think it was the fact that the companies should have known better.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said:

Yes.

Dean Baker, Co-Director at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, said:

No they were not naive. Congress knew the money would be used in part for executives’ compensation and bonuses. That is what many of us were yelling at them at the time they passed the bailout without any serious restrictions. Read the full response here.

Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said:

Congress was not naïve, there simply has not been the political will to reign in corporate compensation. Despite the well-documented greed of many of the companies reaping the benefit of taxpayer funds and the endless reports about over-paid executives, too many members of Congress have been cowed by baseless threats that talented executives will desert their posts if faced with diminished compensation. Read the full response here.

William Redpath, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, said:

Of course. Cash is fungible.

Leo W. Gerard, president, United Steelworkers International, said:

Congress should have specifically written its expectations into directives before giving any CEO of a failed financial firm taxpayer dollars.  Instead, Congress foolishly trusted CEOs to behave responsibly, thus exhibiting once again the same recklessness it did when it deregulated the nation’s financial markets. Read the full response here.

Celinda Lake, president, Lake Research Partners, said:

Hard to imagine that corporate executives would be this out of touch and greedy when they are rekying on public dollars. These have to be some of the most selfish and shortsighted decisions we have seen in a while from corporate america and that’s saying a lot.

Daniel J. Mitchell, Senior Fellow, The Cato Institute, said:

Congress was not naive. Politicians pretended that the bailout was to increase lending in the economy, but the real purpose of the bailout was to give unearned wealth to the financial services industry. The industry had spent years distributing campaign cash to politicians from both parties, and the bailout was an opportunity to get a good “return” on that investment. Read the full response here.

Nathan Henderson-James, Online Communications for ACORN, said:

They weren’t naïve, but they should have known better. This kind of behavior by Wall Street executives highlights exactly how important it is to have strong explicit language regulating the financial industry. Their persistence in paying extravagant bonuses, especially in the face of the worst economy in almost four generations, shows how Wall Street financiers still see themselves as masters of the universe, doing what they want, when they want to do it. Read the full response here.

Larry Sabato, Director at the Center for Politics, said:

Maybe a few senior legislators knew or strongly suspected that executive compensation would consume some rescue cash. But I’ll bet that even jaded, long-serving members of Congress could not have imagined that AIG (and others) would be this tone deaf to the popular outcry. Read the full response here.

Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President of FRC Action, said:

Naive? To put it mildly. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the solution to every problem is to throw more taxpayer money at it, with no internal structure to fix the root problem. I’m reminded of the old anti-drug PSAs from the 1980 where the teenage son, confronted by his father with some drugs the parent had found responds with the mantra “I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!” Read the full response here.

Despite his repeated pledges, first on the campaign trail last fall and then again in his address to the Congress last month, President Obama is once again talking about tax increases that will firmly impact America’s struggling middle class. For instance, his budget includes a cap on the mortgage interest deduction, a limit on charitable donation deductions, and a newly created tax on carbon emissions that could cost the average American family about $4,000 a year. Read more...