The Blue State

House support for immigration bill may hinge on Hastert bribery probe

President Bush made a very compassionate gesture to House Speaker Dennis Hastert yesterday.  As the Speaker faced an almost certain Justice Department probe, Bush decided to cut his fellow Republican a break by ordering the Justice Department to seal for 45 days the documents seized from an FBI raid on the property of a Democratic Congressman involved in Jack Abramoff's bribery scandal -- which Hastert is likely part of.

Of course, there was much more to it than that.  Here is how we got to this point:

• May 20th: Democratic Congressman William Jefferson's property raided by FBI because he was connected to the Abramoff probe.
• May 23rd - 24th: House Speaker Dennis Hastert complained about the raid, citing too much Executive power over Congressional lawmakers -- while knowing that he too had connections with Abramoff.
• Late May 24th: Executive Branch sources told ABC News' blog that Hastert was also part of the Abramoff probe.
• Early May 25th: Hastert complained on the radio about both the Jefferson raid and how Administration officials tried to embarrass him by leaking information to ABC News.
• May 25th: Bush agreed to seal for 45 days the documents seized from William Jefferson's property.

What many political news and blog sites all over the internet have overlooked is how incredibly significant this is.  The question everyone is asking is exactly why would the Administration want to go after the House Speaker like this?  Even though Hastert did complain about the increase in Executive power because of the raid, the Administration would not have raised the ante on the Speaker if they did not want something from him.

44 days from now, the Justice Department will unseal the evidence found as a result of the raid on Jefferson's property.  The talk about Jefferson will mean everyone else being probed in the Abramoff scandal, such as Dennis Hastert, will face political trouble as a result.  In this election year, the Republicans cannot tolerate another member of their leadership being in trouble with the law.

Think about it though.  Bush has the upper hand on Hastert when it comes to controlling what happens in 44 days.  However, Hastert has the upper hand on Bush when it comes to immigration.  The Speaker is refusing to bring the comprehensive immigration bill, which the Senate approved last night, to the House floor unless a majority of House Republicans support it.  Both the Senate and the White House have asked the Speaker to lift that rule just once.  Hastert has refused.  But with the certain Abramoff probe looming 44 days from now, Bush has his trump card.

This evaluation of the situation would conclude that a Bush-Hastert deal is in the works.  Bush would have to protect Hastert from political trouble in exchange for the House Speaker agreeing to bring the immigration bill to a vote.  Protecting Hastert means that Bush would order the Justice Department to keep sealed anything that might hurt Hastert politically.  As a result, by the power invested in the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert would introduce the immigration bill regardless of how fussy things would get between himself and anti-immigration social conservatives like James Sensenbrenner.  The minority of Republicans in support of the bill would then vote with Democrats, ultimately resulting in the passage of the bill.

Putting it simply, the Republicans are desperate to pass the immigration bill featuring the guest worker program.  They need something to tell voters not to vote for an alternative this November.  Until now, there seemed to be no way that social conservatives in the House would budge on a guest worker program.  But because the Speaker of the House controls when bills can be introduced, the White House might use Hastert's possible political troubles as a bargaining chip to get him to act on immigration.

For political science students out there, such as myself, this is a prime example of power politics at its trickiest.  On a positive note for Democrats, a very decent immigration bill would get passed.  On the down-side, the Republicans would obtain their first major legislative victory since before the Social Security fallout last year.

Tony Snow being forced out, and racial controversy might follow him

It turns out that Fox News personality Tony Snow is being stabbed in the back by the very person that hired him.  White House sources told Reuters late Thursday night that the White House expects to get rid of their current Press Secretary sometime in the middle of next month.  White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolton, who was responsible for hiring Snow in the first place, is looking for "a more forceful spokesman on the economy."  Reuters elaborated on who is rumored to replace Tony Snow:

The White House is narrowing its choices for a possible successor,with David Mulford, the U.S. ambassador to India, seen as a strongcontender, the sources said.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrezand ex-Commerce chief Don Evans, a close friend of President George W.Bush, are also among those whose names have been circulating for theTreasury position. Other possible contenders who have been mentionedinclude Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and former Bush economic adviserStephen Friedman.

The U.S. media have been abuzz with speculation that JoshBolten, who took over in April as White House chief of staff, wanted toreplace Snow with someone who could be a more forceful spokesman on theeconomy, preferably someone from Wall Street.

As if the latest round of tax cuts for the wealthy did not push Bush even further into bed with Wall Street bosses, the President now wants to cuddle up to big business even more by making one of them his next Press Secretary.

When it comes to Tony Snow, the former Fox News commentator has something else to worry about as well.  DeWayne Wickham of the Gannett News Service is calling on Mr. Snow to apologize to black Americans for unknowingly using a racial slur during his first press briefing.  The phrase "tar baby," which Snow used to dodge a question about the NSA wiretap program, is a slur sometimes used to describe blacks with darker skin.  "I don’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program," Snow said.  In his piece, Wickham did not conclude that Snow meant it to be racial; nonetheless, he did want Snow to correctly clarify himself to the black community since a number of blacks were deeply offended by it.

From a personal standpoint, I am actually surprised that the White House would want to get rid of a well-spoken word-smith like Snow.  He is the polar opposite of Scott McClellan, whose persuasive ability rivaled "Baghdad Bob."  Why is Josh Bolton giving up on his own choice for Press Secretary less than one month after he took the job?  Was there a fight between the two?  Or, quite simply, is Bolton still tinkering with staff changes to find the perfect team to bring up his boss's poll numbers?  If he is still tinkering, then it adds legitimacy to the worry among many GOP strategists that the White House does not have a clearly defined plan for their party heading into this fall's midterm election.  That is good news for Democrats.

FCC wants to stop product placement that goes undisclosed to viewers

I won't jump to conclusions yet.  But so far, this looks like great news on the media front.  The Center for Media and Democracy published a study last month about how 77 news stations across the country show advertisements disguised as real news without informing viewers that what they were seeing was product placement.

Bloomberg News reports today that the FCC is launching a federal probe into how dozens of these stations engage in what you and I would call "fake news":

Federal Communications CommissionChairman Kevin Martin ordered a probe of dozens of televisionstations after a report found they aired advertisements as ifthey were news reports, people familiar with the inquiry said.         

The April report by the non-profit Center for Media andDemocracy found at least 77 stations, including 23 affiliates ofWalt Disney Co.'s ABC network and seven Sinclair Broadcast GroupInc. stations, ignored an FCC warning to disclose sponsors. Themaximum fine for each violation is $32,500, rising to $325,000for multiple infractions, said FCC spokesman Clyde Ensslin.         

``If the investigation leads to significant fines, the FCCcould cause stations to put disclosures in place that makeclearer the corporate role in local news,'' said analyst BlairLevin of Stifel Nicolaus & Co. in Washington. ``It depends howhard Martin wants to push it.''         

The Washington-based FCC warned TV stations in April 2005they may be fined for airing news stories provided by thegovernment and companies without disclosing who made them. Theagency had received complaints about the use of videos providedby the Bush administration about topics including militarysuccess in Iraq.         

Since then, 69 stations have aired so-called video newsreleases and eight showed satellite media tours, which involve ascripted interview with an author or expert promoting a productsuch as a book, the Madison, Wisconsin-based research group foundin April.

I strongly suggest that you all read the book Breaking Up America: Advertisers and the New Media.  Part of the book explains how ever since the invention of the remote control and the VCR, networks have had to find new ways of getting revenue since people often tune out the commercials.  Their answer came in the form of product placement, where companies would advertise during shows and not just during commercials, making viewers more likely to watch them.  Reality television shows, such as CBS' Survivor and MTV's The Real World, do it all the time.

These 77 news stations that are now involved in the probe tried to take product placement one step further.  This involved companies that created their own news stories about a product, paid news stations to air them, and also paid news stations not to tell viewers that what they were watching was actually a commercial and not real news.

Hopefully the FCC holds true to its word and cracks down on this kind of disinformation.  Although, I would not be surprised if Bush's big donors eventually step in and try to halt the investigation.

Gonzales stops oversight into his own role in rubber-stamping White House NSA policy

More than ever, especially after the poor planning for hurricane Katrina and the strategic blunder of a war in Iraq, we are learning a lot about how a bunch of allied, power-hungry micro-managers are a whole lot more damaging to this country than having a level-headed, efficiently funded bureaucracy with checks to prevent an abuse power.

Today, we were reminded once again why having a small group of people with a large amount of power runs the risk of allowing potential abuses within the system.  A report in the National Journal explains how Alberto Gonzales squashed an effort by his own Justice Department to investigate his weak, rubber-stamp oversight into Bush's warrantless domestic spy program:

An internal Justice Department inquiry into whether department officials -- including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft-- acted properly in approving and overseeing the Bush administration'sdomestic eavesdropping program was stymied because investigators weredenied security clearances to do their work. The investigators,however, were only seeking information and documents relating to theNational Security Agency's surveillance program that were already inthe Justice Department's possession, two senior government officialssaid in interviews.

It is pretty obvious why President Bush keeps nominating his special counsels, such as Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales, for all these high posts.  They are 'yes sir' people with lasting loyalties to the President.  A patronage system like that only invites the possibility of having our Executive Branch being run by a group of allied individuals that make rubber stamping White House policy a higher priority than enforcing the law.

There is nothing wrong with the Executive Branch having their own ideological view about how to fight the war on terrorism.  But to prevent both internal and external oversight into the manner by which the Executive Branch routinely carries out that ideology goes against the very principles that our government was founded upon.

Enron's Lay and Skilling to spend time in the big house

I am on my lunch break in between classes, and heard the news that Enron CEO Ken Lay and his patron Jeffrey Skilling were just found guilty on 19 of the 28 accounts.  Lay was also found guilty on four accounts of bank fraud.

The Washington Post has more on the Enron trial:

Both men remain free on bond. Lake set their sentencing for Sept. 11.

Skilling,52, and Lay, 64, once stood near the pinnacle of American business, asthe energy trading powerhouse they created out of a stodgy pipelinecompany grew to become the nation's seventh largest public company. Buttheir fortunes collapsed in a heap along with the business in December2001.

Now the two men, who together invested close to $70 millionin their defense, face the possibility of spending the rest of theirlives in prison and living in history as the ringleaders of a fraud ata company whose name became synonymous with accounting tricks andrule-breaking.

Enron's bankruptcy filing cost thousands ofworkers their jobs, spooked investors into doubting the integrity ofthe stock market and spurred lawmakers to enact the most significantchanges to corporate practices in more than 70 years. The verdict comesat the very moment business groups are seeking to overturn thosechanges in the courts and within federal agencies.

This gives hope to the belief that in America no one is above the law, no matter how much money they have or who their friends are.  Most of all, this sends a message to corporate America that putting illegal stock moves ahead of workers has its price -- and that price is the big house.

(There is another scheduled post coming at 2:14 PM ET)

Contradicting Democracy: Rumsfeld's Pentagon to merely oversee disinformation campaign in Iraq

Finally, after months and months of debating inside the Pentagon, the defense agency issued a report insisting that it should no longer pay Iraqi journalists to insert propaganda into Iraqi newspapers because it goes against the democratic belief in free press.

But then the report contradicted itself by concluding that private companies head the disinformation effort instead:

According to a summary of the investigation led byRear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, the Pentagon failed to consider whetherthe payments would "undermine the concept of a free press in Iraq," andmust now implement procedures to "ensure proper oversight" of theprivate contractors leading the propaganda effort.

This appears to be a reference to the Lincoln Group,a Washington-based firm that, according to press reports last fall, waspaid to plant articles in Iraqi newspapers without revealing thestories were written by the military. The Lincoln Group also paid someIraqi journalists directly for favorable press.

The mere "oversight of contractors leading the propaganda effort" is another way of saying that the propaganda effort will continue.  The bottom line is that our tax dollars will continue to fund disinformation efforts in what we are trying to make a thriving democracy -- what a paradox!

Sadly, the Pentagon leadership fails to understand what makes a democracy in the first place.  A democracy starts from the ground-up, not from the disinformants-down.  When you get into the position of trying to convince a country to become a democracy, you know that you are in real trouble.  If Donald Rumsfeld ever read the great political philosopher John Locke, he would have learned that the most successful civil government is not one where the consent to rule is merely supplied, but instead it is one where the consent to rule is demanded by the people.

Abramoff snitched on Hastert

We all pretty much knew that there was some deeper reason as to why Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert came to the defense of a Democratic Congressman William Jefferson, whose property was raided because he illegally took a bribe from an undercover FBI informant.  Think about it: with all the hyper-partisanship in today's political era, why would a Republican Speaker, whose party is facing the possibility of an election defeat this November, help a Democrat facing an ethical scandal?

Hastert tried to give the excuse that he opposed the search because it demonstrated a dangerous increase in Executive power.  But if that was the case, then how come he was not up in arms when the USA Today story broke the story that telephone companies handed over to the NSA personal phone information of millions of Americans?  Consistency has often been an issue with this GOP majority.  So there had to have been some sort of deeper motive that pushed Hastert to condemn these kinds of government raids, like the kind against Rep. Jefferson.

Late last night, we got our answer.  Brian Ross of ABC News broke the story that Dennis Hastert himself is under investigation for links to Jack Abramoff, who is in the midst of a bribery scandal:

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three yearsago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on anIndian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

Theother tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff whoreportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part ofhis plea agreement with the government.

The letter was writtenshortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned byAbramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at thetime.

Almost immediately after this story broke, the Justice Department issued a denial that Speaker Hastert was under investigation:

"The story is wrong. Hastert is not under investigation."

Then ABC News issued a second report elaborating on the investigation a bit more.  It turns out that Abramoff snitched on Hastert:

Despite a flat denial from the Department of Justice, federal lawenforcement sources tonight said ABC News accurately reported thatSpeaker of the House Dennis Hastert is "in the mix" in the FBIinvestigation of corruption in Congress.

Speaker Hastert said tonight the story was "absolutely untrue" and has demanded ABC News retract its story.

Law enforcement sources told ABC News that convicted lobbyist JackAbramoff has provided information to the FBI about Hastert and anumber of other members of Congress that have broadened the scope ofthe investigation. Sources would not divulge details of the Abramoff’sinformation.

Therefore, don't expect this Congressional bribery investigation to end with the Speaker.  Being that this Abramoff investigation is on the mind of Hastert, it certainly does explain why he reacted so aggressively against the government raid on William Jefferson's property.  It was not the well-being of the constitution that Hastert was worried about, it was himself.

Cheney to make cameo, and why Libby is screwed

While prosecutors familiar with the investigation told Hardball's David Schuster yesterday that that Karl Rove would have been cleared weeks ago had he been innocent, there is also fresh news on the Scooter Libby front.  Word late yesterday that Dick Cheney might testify in the CIA leak case circulated throughout Washington faster than Jeff Gannon could interrupt a White House press conference.  In a filing in court yesterday, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald noted that Cheney's actions in the days leading up to the leak are very important in determining whether Libby lied to federal officials:

Libby "shared the interests of his superior and was subject to hisdirection," the prosecutor wrote. "Therefore, the state of mind of thevice president as communicated to (the) defendant is directly relevantto the issue of whether (the) defendant knowingly made false statementsto federal agents and the grand jury regarding when and how he learnedabout (Plame's) employment and what he said to reporters regarding thisissue."

In looking at this statement closely, what Fitzgerald wrote about Cheney was very significant.  If Libby lied to federal agents and the grand jury partly because Libby was "subject to his (Cheney's) direction," then this really puts Cheney in a huge predicament.  In other words, the Vice President will likely play a huge role in the trial.

But Cheney's situation is not even close to as stressful as what Libby is going through.  The New York Daily News reports that Patrick Fitzgerald will call two CIA officials as witnesses because they have unmistakable proof that Scooter Libby did lie to both federal officials and the grand jury.  Read this carefully:

Both CIA officials - including a top architect of the 2003 Iraqinvasion - discussed Plame with Libby a month before columnist RobertNovak blew her cover in July 2003, prosecutors charge.

Libby has said journalists told him about Plame - not Cheney or the six witnesses named so far by prosecutors.

In other words, Libby had already testified under oath before this year that reporters were the ones that told him the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.  However, these two witnesses will testify that they talked to Libby about Plame before Libby talked with reporters, proving that Libby lied.  Oops!

Study: Senate immigration proposal would save U.S. Treasury $32 billion

A study put together by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows how the Senate's bipartisan comprehensive immigration package, which would give undocumented workers a path to citizenship, would actually be a net positive for the U.S. Treasury. 

The progressive think-tank CBPP did an analysis of that CBO study, and showed the economic benefits of the guest-worker program between the year 2007 and 2016:

                                           

Table 1:     Effects of Senate     Immigration Bill, 2007-2016             (billions of dollars)
Increases in Income and Payroll Taxes	62.1
Outlays for Refundable Credits	-29.4
Net Effect	32.7
Source:  Congressional     Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation

The CBPP elaborated further:

The CBO cost estimates show that, as a group, the new population of legal immigrants would pay more than twice as much in income and payroll taxes as they would receive in refundable credits.  In fact, the increase in revenues due to bringing these new filers into the tax system would exceed the total increase in costs for federal benefit programs that CBO projects would result from the legislation (including costs in the Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other federal programs).

Of course, being that the Congressional Budget Office is trusted by both parties, this adds legitimacy to critics that have questioned the conservative Heritage Foundation for recently releasing a faulty statistical report about how the guest-worker program will increase the number of immigrants by 103 million.  The Brookings Institution explained how the Heritage Foundation report was skewed:

To reach 103 million, Rector "assumes the maximums, pulls out all thestops for every loophole, possibility, and makes some assumptions -some unrealistic - about how many family members will be brought in,"said William Frey, a demographer for the Brookings Institution, acenter-left policy-research center. "It's widely unrealistic. Youcannot assume the maximum numbers for some of the provisions. He(Rector) is pushing it to the extremes."

The Congressional Budget Office says the number will be more like 8 million new immigrants by 2016, not 103 million.

(Maybe it's just me, but I think that I would rather trust the Congressional Budget Office over some conservative think tank that adjusts their facts to fit an already established agenda.  Gee, that reminds me of a foreign policy I know!)

Senate GOP digging own party an election year grave on new immigration proposal

There is no magical answer to find some common-ground solution between the House and Senate regarding a comprehensive immigration bill.  House Republican Rep. Jeff Blake of Arizona told a group of conservative bloggers yesterday that he predicted the House will not support any bill that allows possible citizenship for illegal immigrants.

In knowing that both chambers of Congress need to approve any bill before it heads to the President for signing, then one might ask with all the House opposition to a citizenship bill why the Senate is proposing just that?  The Senate is expected to vote tomorrow on a bill that, as explained in the Washington Times, would grant certain citizenship rights for more than 10 million illegal immigrants.  The Senate bill would also protect employers who hire illegal immigrants from penalties, and increase by 2 million the number of foreigners per year that can be allowed to enter this country legally.  Even if the Senate passes the measure, it heads to the House where, as expected, it will not pass.

After three straight impressive, well-disciplined election cycles for the Republicans -- 2000, 2002 and 2004 -- most pundits question this almost mindless immigration strategy.  This bill will not pass the House.  Why are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot?  Even more importantly, why all of a sudden is there so much disorganization on the part of the GOP?

Many would attribute this disorganization to President Bush's low poll numbers.  Because this is an election year, the House GOP would rather distance themselves from a President whose approval rating is in the low-30s.  In other words, the scandals that are plaguing every corner of the GOP establishment are creating an election year culture on Capitol Hill that I would call an "every man for himself" strategy.  No GOP House member wants all that corruption baggage.  Many House Republicans, especially those above the Mason-Dixon, will run as independent Republicans in an attempt to try to make themselves look disconnected from the Washington establishment.

This strategy is being played out in the current immigration debate, and it is being met by sharp opposition by Republicans over at the Senate.  Republican Senator Lindsay Graham knows this strategy, and took a rhetorical shot at the House Republicans, warning them that if they do not pass the immigration bill that the Senate wants, then they will no longer be in majority:

"I don't want my own party to marginalize the president on an issue ofgreat national importance," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a keybacker of the Senate compromise. "We have the White House, we have theSenate and we have the House. If we can't solve this problem becauseit's politically too hard for us, people are going to turn to anothergroup to solve this problem."

This is very significant.  What we are seeing here is an intra-Republican strategy being invoked, where the Republican Senate leadership is trying to scare the Republican House about the November election in order to get them to favor a more comprehensive immigration package.

The problem, obviously, is that the House Republicans are already scared about the election.  They know that if they support any bill with "citizenship" in it, their anti-immigration conservative constituents will either not show up at the polls or vote for another party.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert has a rule that he will never bring a bill to the floor unless he knows that it has the support of a majority of Republicans -- which is exactly why a Senate comprehensive immigration bill that favors citizenship will not pass.  Democratic Senator Dick Durbin put it best:

"If Speaker Hastert insists on the 'majority of the majority,' [immigration reform] is dead."

With the House not budging, the Senate Republicans are digging an even bigger hole for their party this election year by sending the Republican-controlled House a bill that will not even reach the floor.