WELL, LOOKIE HERE... Social Security Said to Go Broke in 2041
Mood:  suave
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

With 79-year old Margaret Valdez at his side, President Bush promotes his Social Security reforms to an audience at the Kiva Auditorium in Albuquerque, N.M., Tuesday, March 22, 2005. In a state with a large population of retirees, Bush wants to assure seniors that they will continue to receive their regular government checks, while he pushes for a system of private accounts which would enable younger workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes from Social Security deductions and into stock market investments to bankroll their retirement. \/

WASHINGTON - The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 - a year earlier than previously estimated - the trustees reported Wednesday. Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020.

The new projections made in the trustees annual report were certain to be cited by both sides in the massive battle to overhaul Social Security, which President Bush has made the top domestic priority of his second term.

The go-broke date for Medicare was delayed by one year, compared to the estimate that trustees gave a year ago.

The insolvency dates represent when both trust funds will have exhausted the government bonds that have been building up to take care of the pending retirement of 78 million baby boomers.

Equally important are when benefits paid to the elderly start exceeding the payroll taxes designated to support the two programs. That's when the government will have to increase its borrowing on financial markets, raise taxes or divert money from other government programs to sustain Medicare and Social Security at current levels.

For Medicare, the threshold when benefits exceed program income occurred last year. For Social Security, that threshold will be crossed in 2017, one year earlier than the 2018 date projected in last year's report.

That change is certain to be cited by the administration as a sign of the urgency to act to deal with Social Security's funding woes. Democrats argue that the real crisis is in Medicare and that the administration is ignoring the health care crisis.

Treasury Secretary John Snow, chairman of the six-member board of trustees for both programs, said the estimates "leave no question that Social Security reform is needed and it is needed soon. Reform of this system, for the sake of our children, grandchildren and the financial future of our country, is a very real and pressing matter."

The trustees said that Social Security's unfunded obligations total $4 trillion over the next 75 years, an increase from last year's projection of $3.7 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Snow said that to meet that shortfall, Social Security payroll taxes would have to be raised by 3.5 percentage points or benefits would have to be cut by 22 percent.

Bush has said he will not raise payroll taxes to deal with the funding problem although he has left the door open to raising the $90,000 cap on incomes subject to the payroll tax.

In the report, the trustees said that "the projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in timely way to allow for a gradual phasing of the necessary changes and to provide advanced notices to workers. The sooner adjustments are made, the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be."

^ House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., take part in a news conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday, March 16, 2005, on Social Security reform legislation.

My Way News ~ Associated Press ** Social Security Said to Go Broke in 2041

AND LIBERALS WONDER WHY THEY LOSE... how berkeley can you be?
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Funny Stuff

George Soros Funding 'Watchdog' Efforts To Attack Delay On Ethics
Mood:  spacey
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

House Republicans are taking the offensive in the burgeoning ethics war on Capitol Hill by circulating research that details links among Democrats, George Soros and government watchdog groups that have criticized Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and the House ethics process.

The research shows that members of these groups’ boards have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and political organizations and several of their staff members have previously worked for Democrats.

The groups have also accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Open Society Institute, an organization founded by Soros, who spent millions trying to defeat President Bush in last year’s election.

The emergence of the detailed research follows talking points that the Republican National Committee (RNC) distributed last week labeling four government watchdog groups as liberal and having "close ties to left wing leaders like George Soros."

Together, the documents indicate a concerted Republican effort to quell what has become a media feeding frenzy surrounding DeLay and allegations of his improper conduct.

Over a five-day span, ending last Thursday, TV and radio stations and print publications from around the country featured at least 290 stories either about a controversial junket he took to Scotland in 2000, his response to criticism about the propriety of that trip or his offer to discuss the matter with the House ethics committee, according to a survey. The articles by The Associated Press, Reuters, Knight Ridder and The Washington Post were picked up by news outlets around the country.

The latest spate of broadcasts and articles, a glut of the type of negative coverage that has plagued DeLay in recent years, likely explains why his name identification has risen from 46 percent to 76 percent between September 1999 and last month, according to several CNN/USA Today/ Gallup surveys of adults nationwide, cited by Democrats. During the same span, DeLay’s unfavorable ratings have swelled from 11 percent to 24 percent, according to the same surveys.

"The DeLay scandal is getting to the point where House Republicans just won’t be able to withstand much more," a Democratic aide said. "With every story that is written, it becomes more clear that House Republicans are risking their political futures by associating themselves with him. When literally hundreds of stories about the GOP leader’s shoddy ethics are appearing in nearly every local and regional paper across the country, you can’t blame voters for painting them all with the same brush."

Last week’s focus on House ethics was spurred in part by a press conference held last Tuesday by members of the Congressional Ethics Coalition, a group of nine government watchdog groups. The conference was called to decry the immobilization of the House ethics panel, which has yet to organize because of objections by ranking Democrat Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) to changes House GOP leaders made to ethics procedure at the start of the new Congress. But watchdog groups also used the opportunity to attack DeLay.

Later that day, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered a resolution on the House floor calling for a bipartisan panel to review the chamber’s ethics procedures.

Republicans charge this and other evidence reveals a coordinated effort between House Democrats and government watchdog groups to damage DeLay and the GOP leadership politically. GOP aides point to a plan being crafted by Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-Ill.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to use ethics as a touchstone in races against DeLay and Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), as The Hill reported last week.

One target of Republican criticism is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group that last year assisted former Rep. Chris Bell (D-Texas) in drafting an ethics complaint against DeLay, which resulted in an admonishment of DeLay from the ethics committee. At last week’s press conference, Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said that DeLay should step down as majority leader.

From 1995 to 1998, CREW’s Sloan served as minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Before that, Sloan served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).

According to GOP research, Mark Penn, who had been a pollster for President Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, are on CREW’s board. Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman declined several requests to reveal the membership of CREW’s board, although she confirmed that Penn and Berger are members. Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating Bush in the presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a website that tracks fundraising.

CREW declined to respond to the RNC talking points or House GOP research.

Another target is Democracy 21, headed by Fred Wertheimer. GOP research showed that the group’s board of directors has given "tens of thousands to Democrats." A survey by The Hill of fundraising data on politicalmoneyline.com showed that three members of the group’s board, including Dick Clark, a former Democratic senator from Iowa, gave nearly $20,000 in contributions to Democrats since the beginning of the 2000 election cycle. Republicans received nothing from board members, according to the survey by The Hill.

Lexa Edsall, a consultant to the group, served in the Clinton administration, and Amanda Lewis, the communications director, worked for former Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo (N.Y.), according to the GOP research. Wertheimer confirmed the information about Edsall and Lewis, adding that Lewis worked as an intern at Cuomo’s law firm, suggesting that Republicans have left few stones unturned in their efforts to discredit the watchdog groups.

Democracy 21’s education fund also received a $50,000 grant from Soros’s institute in 2003, the most recent year for which data are available, according to a 990 form filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The GOP research paper states that the group has received $300,000 in total from the Open Society Institute.

Wertheimer responded by noting that he has in the past asked for a Justice Department investigation of President Clinton’s campaign finances and filed Federal Election Committee (FEC) complaints against former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

He also provided a letter from former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie for comments Wertheirmer filed with the FEC arguing for greater restriction of 527 political groups, which Democrats relied on in 2004.

The Hill ** Watchdogs in Soros's pocket: GOP

DNC Chair Coward Deanpeace Uses Scripture To Attack Republicans
Mood:  silly
Now Playing: Democrats must work in state to win it, Dean says
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Party chairman sees need for respecting South, values

If the Democrats want to win in Tennessee, the first thing they have to do is campaign here, Howard Dean told a packed house at Vanderbilt University last night.

Dean, national chairman of the Democratic Party, was greeted with a standing ovation from the largely student audience. He said that as the party moves forward it needs to show those who live south of the Mason-Dixon Line that it respects them and the values they hold.

"I don't believe in blue states or red states," the former 2004 presidential candidate said. "I believe in purple states — and some are more purple than others."

The remarks were delivered on the second night of the university's 41st Annual Impact Symposium, which focuses on a variety of topical issues.

This year it was differing "Visions of America." Monday night the featured speakers were the Rev. Al Sharpton, also a Democratic presidential contender, and conservative commentator Ann Coulter.

Dean's swing through Tennessee is part of a 50-state strategy to compete in Southern and Western states, places Democrats lost last year, come the 2008 election.

During a question-and-answer session with the media before his speech, Dean said he had not heard a state GOP radio commercial airing during his visit that pegged him as a "Northeastern liberal." It also labeled Dean and Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen as "peas in a pod."

"I've been called worse things than a liberal," Dean said. "The reason the Republicans call names is because they have nothing to say about balancing the budget, creating jobs or doing anything about health care or education."

In his speech, Dean told the audience how, under his leadership, the Democratic Party will be made stronger.

The party allowed its opponents too often to define debates and control issues, such as faith and family values, Dean said.

"We need to talk about values and not be afraid of them," he said, going on to make two biblical references.

In the first he said Jesus' directive to "love thy neighbor" didn't mean one could choose which ones to love. He then remarked that Republicans never brought up the scriptural verse saying it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.

"We should never let anybody tell us we don't respect faith," he said.

Dean said he wanted the audience to focus not only on national politics but also on state and local elections.

He urged every person present to run for office.

"How many people in the audience think they can't be just as good a president as George W. Bush?" he said, prompting a wave of applause and laughter.

He encouraged those not able to run to donate "$10 or $15" to a political candidate they support or donate their time to a political campaign.

"It's not about Republicans and Democrats, but about democracy that works," he said. "I'd rather see someone go to work for a Republican campaign than sit on their butt."

Tennessean ** Democrats must work in state to win it, Dean says

Fallujah: From insurgent stronghold to 'safest city in Iraq'
Mood:  cool
Topic: News

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Piles of rubble still line the streets here, but a few shops have opened on the main drag, schools are finally in session and a compensation program to help families rebuild made some token initial payments this month.

Four months after the assault on Fallujah, in the center of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, American forces working to rebuild the city say they're seeing some progress, albeit limited, in a city that's still blockaded and under a curfew.

Even a little progress is an important development in a city that's been a major test for the American presence in Iraq. On March 31, 2004, four U.S. contractors were ambushed and killed here, setting off a battle when U.S. Marines tried unsuccessfully to dislodge the insurgent forces that had taken control of the city.

The second battle began in November, when U.S. Army and Marine units moved through the city, destroying buildings and killing hundreds of opponents.

Now the reconstruction effort faces a problem - how to get life back to normal while preventing another uprising. The American forces say they're insisting that the Iraqi government take the lead and they admit that the work ahead will be slow going.

A group of Iraqi men shoveling dirt and sand in a vacant lot said much about the effort. "They're making big piles into little piles," joked one Marine, as he guided a group of journalists on a tour of the city this week.

The Marines could do the job in a couple of hours with a front-end loader but prefer to pay military-age men to get it done with the tools they have - giving the men an alternative to working with the insurgents and a chance for Iraqis to lead the reconstruction effort.

"If we did everything, we could do this faster," said Master Sgt. Leon Brown, of the Army's 445th Battalion, a reservist from Milpitas, Calif. "But how are the Iraqi people going to feel confident about their country or their government?"

American forces claim that Fallujah is now "the safest city in Iraq" - an assertion that's impossible to verify, though it's clear that the once-terrifying insurgency has been seriously crippled, mounting only small, scattered attacks in the city.

"The city is relatively quiet," said Marine Col. Mark Gurganus, who recently took command of U.S. forces in Fallujah. The insurgents "are not getting in here in the numbers that can organize or with the quantity of weapons there were before."

He's not willing to consider lifting some of the security measures, however. The price of hastily loosening the semi-blockade or lifting the curfew would be too high, he said.

So while American forces spend $50,000 to rebuild and resupply the Jolan Medical Clinic, some women are still having their babies at home, unable to get to the clinic at night because of the curfew, according to clinic director Najim Abed.

And while Marine units adopt and help rebuild schools such as the Palestine School for Boys and Girls, some students aren't able to get through the checkpoints to make it into the city for class, said gym teacher Sulaiman A. Ali Al-Mohamadi.

The southern half of the city is still without electricity. Water service, though now extended to almost all areas, is limited because residents can't power the pumps that bring the water into their homes, said Navy Lt. Chris Lankford. Only 1,000 of the 13,000 telephone subscribers before the war have had their service restored.

For businesses, the security checkpoints on the perimeter of the city are a particular hardship. Fallujah used to be less than an hour's drive from Baghdad. Now, people wait for hours in line, submitting to searches and fingerprinting. Only Fallujah residents and contractors working on reconstruction projects can enter the city.

"Baghdad is the source of the goods we need," said spice dealer Haji Abbas. "I was going and coming from Baghdad almost daily. Now I can't. The checkpoints and the long lines make transportation costs extremely high and this makes my spice prices relatively high ... and Fallujah residents need money to fix their homes. The last thing they need is a shortage of goods and high prices."

Some are happy for a break in the violence, even at the price of their freedom.

"The security is good," said Thaira Thalid Abbas, 58, a mother of nine, as she waited with some 30 others for a compensation check for damage done to her home during the assault. "We go to sleep without worrying about it."

So far, only 40 families have received compensation payments, out of an estimated 25,000 who suffered damages. American officials say the program is being run by the local government, which is still in disarray.

"I think it's going very well," said Deputy Mayor Ali Hussein. "It will be better in the future. This is just the beginning. Maybe after two or three months everything will be okay."

He said the security measures are an inconvenience but are still necessary.

"We don't want it to all start again," he said.

Others are frustrated.

"We can't do business here," said Ali Muhammed Hussein, as he waited with his elderly father to receive a compensation check. "It's the safest city in Iraq because it's a prison."

Duluth News Tribune ~ Knight Ridder ** Fallujah: From insurgent stronghold to 'safest city in Iraq'

IRS Investigating Florida Church That Hosted Lurch Heinz Kerry
Mood:  d'oh
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

A Liberty City church's tax-exempt status is in jeopardy as the IRS has launched a probe into a visit by former candidate John Kerry last fall. Some wonder if the probe is politically motivated.

The IRS has notified a Liberty City church that it is under investigation for possibly engaging in political activity - putting its tax-exempt status into question.

The probe is related to an appearance last October by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and several black leaders, including U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The reason for the investigation, an IRS official wrote in a 10-page letter obtained by The Herald, is that "a reasonable belief exists that Friendship Missionary Baptist Church has engaged in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church."

Rev. Gaston Smith took a break from the revelry and worship of Palm Sunday services to inform the congregation about the inquiry. He said visits by political candidates are nothing new, and that the 75-year-old church did not violate U.S. tax code, as suggested in the letter. He has hired former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis to defend the church in the inquiry.

"This is not about politics. It's about principles," Smith said. Silence fell over the congregation as he spoke.

The inquiry raises serious questions about whether the predominantly black church can keep its tax-exempt status. If it fails, members and contributors could not deduct tithes and other gifts, upon which churches heavily rely to operate.

Both men predicted Friendship, 740 NW 58th St., would prevail.

Addressing the congregation, Lewis said that after being contacted by Smith, it took him "about a second" to take the case. He said he took the case pro bono.

"It is important that the church be able to remain a tax-exempt organization," Lewis said. "I have faith in our government. I have faith in the IRS as well."

Federal tax law prohibits churches from participating in political campaigns. Beyond the legal questions, the inquiry is likely to energize the debate raised last fall about the role of churches during national elections. Watchdog groups complained to the IRS shortly after Kerry's visit to Friendship, saying that it amounted to a "rally."

PROBE QUESTIONED

Although both Smith and Lewis discounted that the letter was politically motivated, some in the audience did not. They wondered if similar letters were sent to any church that hosted President Bush.

It is not clear whose complaint triggered the IRS investigation, nor is it known if other churches are under investigation related to the 2004 campaign cycle.

An IRS spokesman could not be reached for comment. Federal law forbids the agency from speaking about an investigation or say if the letter even exists.

Meek, the statewide chairman of Kerry's failed presidential campaign, said the complaints came from outsider groups that may specifically be targeting black churches. He said two other Miami-area churches received inquiry notices last year, but declined to name them or discuss the probes.

"I would like for these groups to show their face. What they're doing is launching complaints against African-American churches in Florida, which is very unfortunate, and in some cases embarrassing for the institution," Meek said.

Last year, the IRS was decried for investigating whether a speech by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond last summer criticizing the Bush administration violated tax law.

Bond said he felt the probe was politically motivated and meant to have a chilling effect on the NAACP and its efforts to register black voters.

Included with the letter is a 21-item questionnaire that the church must answer regarding the circumstances leading up to and during Kerry's appearance.

Among the questions: Did the pastor endorse Kerry or oppose another presidential candidate? Did the church coordinate the event with the Kerry campaign? Were contributions solicited on behalf of the campaign?

"We are not scared of anything because God has not given us a spirit of fear," Smith told his congregation.

IRS officials wrote that their concerns were based on an Oct. 13 news report in a tax publication that reported Friendship hosted a "rally" on behalf of Kerry.

'During the service, the church's pastor . . . introduced Kerry as `the next president of the United States' and told the crowd that 'to bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has sent John Kerry,' " the report said.

An article published in The Herald on Oct. 22 quoted Smith as saying, "to bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry."

Nothing the preacher did or said should affect the church's tax-exempt status, Lewis said. "Everything he and the church did was in accord with the law."

'WASN'T A RALLY'

Larry Lawton, a church deacon, said the October service was nothing out of the ordinary.

The service lineup was pretty much the same: Praise and worship, followed by Smith's sermon and altar call. He said Kerry spoke for maybe five minutes, followed by two each for the two civil rights leaders.

"It wasn't a rally. We had church, and like the pastor said, we had two people to come up that day and get saved," Lawton said.

Smith and other members pointed out that the week before, Miami-Dade mayoral candidates Jimmy Morales, a Democrat, and Carlos Alvarez, a Republican who later was elected, made a campaign stop.

Kerry's visit was covered by national media, and drew several complaints from the watchdog group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which said Kerry's appearance was "a clear case of a church hosting a partisan political rally."

The letter almost certainly will fuel the growing debate over how far churches - and their leaders - can get involved in political activity.

Miami Herald ~ Knight Ridder ** IRS probes politics at church

ACLU Ready to Sue Americans Who Patrol Borders
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: ACLU to keep tabs on protest
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

The American Civil Liberties Union has warned the 950 volunteers expected to take part next month in an Arizona border vigil against illegal immigration that it is assigning monitors to ensure none of the aliens are abused.

The warning came in the wake of meetings last week by five senators from Mexico's three political parties, who voiced their concerns to Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, state legislators, civic leaders and the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

"We're very worried about it," Sen. Sadot Sanchez Carreno of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and chairman of the Mexican Senate's human rights committee, told reporters in Phoenix.

In the days following the meetings, Mexico filed a diplomatic note with the United States asking for assurances the volunteers, who begin their monthlong vigil April 1 as members of the "Minuteman Project," do not abuse Mexicans caught illegally entering the United States.

Geronimo Gutierrez, undersecretary for North American affairs at Mexico's Foreign Ministry, wrote that actions by the volunteers "could be in violation of federal and state laws to the detriment of Mexican citizens," adding that Mexico did not want "the rights of its citizens transgressed."

Meanwhile, the ACLU of Arizona announced it was training legal observers to follow and document the activities of the Minuteman volunteers.

"The purpose of legal observers is to deter abuses, document the actions of these individuals and highlight the real tragedies that occur along the border," ACLU spokesman Ray Ybarra said. "Perhaps someday, we will live in a society where no human being will have to face death and hatred in pursuit of work that this country requires."

Mr. Ybarra also said the organization will have lawyers on standby ready to file civil cases against the volunteers, who he described as "vigilantes" who will "attempt to take out their frustrations on a group of individuals who are simply in search of a better life."

He said they could "come to our state as "vigilantes" and end up leaving as "defendants."

James Gilchrist, a California accountant who organized the Minuteman Project, said the volunteers will be posted at 200-yard intervals a mile inside the border to observe illegal aliens coming into this country and report them to the U.S. Border Patrol, but will not confront them.

"We are American citizens who want to freely assemble under the First Amendment to express our displeasure with federal, state and local appointees who have been charged with U.S. immigration laws and have left us wide open for another terrorist attack," Mr. Gilchrist said.

Mr. Charlton, according to spokeswoman Sandy Raynor, told the Mexican lawmakers U.S. authorities also would monitor the volunteers and that "anyone who violates anyone else's civil rights within the United States will have to face punishment."

Steve Wilson, spokesman for Mr. Goddard, said the attorney general told the legislators he had little jurisdiction over U.S. immigration laws or possible civil rights violations, but his office would seek to ensure no violence was aimed at the aliens or the volunteers.

Washington Times ** ACLU to keep tabs on protest

'PLAYGIRL' EDITOR FIRED AFTER OUTING HERSELF AS REPUBLICAN
Mood:  irritated
Topic: News

PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed how she voted Republican in the 2004 election.

Zipp, in an e-mail, claims she was fired after an onslaught of liberal backlash.

"After your coverage of my article about coming out and voting Republican, I did receive many letters of support from fellow Republican voters, but it was not without repercussions. Criticism from the liberal left ensued. A few days after the onslaught of liberal backlash, I was released from my duties at Playgirl magazine."

"After underlings expressed their disinterest of working for an outed Republican editor, I have a strong suspicion that my position was no longer valued by Playgirl executives. I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Republican."

"I just wanted to let you know of the fear the liberal left has about a woman with power possessing Republican views."

How liberal foundations fooled Congress into passing McCain-Feingold
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: Astroturf Politics
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

If a political gaffe consists of inadvertently revealing the truth, then Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts, has just ripped the curtain off of the "good government" groups that foisted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill on the country in 2002. The bill's restrictions on political speech have the potential for great mischief; just last month a member of the Federal Election Commission warned they could limit the activities of bloggers and other Internet commentators.

What Mr. Treglia revealed in a talk last year at the University of Southern California is that far from representing the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, the campaign finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by liberal foundations like Pew. In a tape obtained by the New York Post, Mr. Treglia tells his USC audience they are going to hear a story he can reveal only now that campaign finance reform has become law. "The target audience for all this [foundation] activity was 535 people in [Congress]," Mr. Treglia says in his talk. "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot. That everywhere [Congress] looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."

The truth was far different. Mr. Treglia admits that campaign-finance supporters had to try to hoodwink Congress because "they had lost legitimacy inside Washington because they didn't have a constituency that would punish Congress if they didn't vote for reform."

So instead, according to Mr. Treglia, liberal reform groups created a Potemkin movement. A study last month by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan Web site dealing with campaign funding issues, found that of the $140 million spent to directly promote liberal campaign reform in the last decade, a full $123 million came from just eight liberal foundations. Many are the same foundations that provide much of the money for such left-wing groups as People for the American Way and the Earth Action Network. The "movement" behind campaign-finance reform resembled many corporate campaigns pushing legislation. It consisted largely of "Astroturf" rather than true "grass-roots" support.

But the results were spectacular. Not only did the effort succeed in bulldozing Congress and President Bush, but it might have played a role in persuading the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled against broad restrictions on political speech, to declare McCain-Feingold constitutional in 2003 on a 5-4 vote. "You will see that almost half the footnotes relied on by the Supreme Court in upholding the law are research funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts," Mr. Treglia boasted.

Reporters are used to attempts to hoodwink officials into thinking an issue is genuinely popular, and they frequently expose them. But when "good government" groups like the Center for Public Integrity engage in the same tactics, journalists usually ignore it. Perhaps that's because Washington media types overwhelmingly wanted McCain-Feingold to pass.

It will be interesting to see if, in light of Mr. Treglia's comments, reporters continue to do so. The tape of his remarks, which Post editorial writer Ryan Sager unearthed, could provide material for a dozen stories on how campaign finance reform was really passed. The editors of Political Money Line note that while the 10-year lobbying effort to pass campaign-finance reform was a small effort as lobbying campaigns go, it succeeded in changing the fundamental rules of American politics.

The foundation blueprint may also be a model for future campaigns, as more nonprofit 501(c)3 groups (which rarely make lists of their donors public) get involved in the Social Security and legal reform debates. "We can watch the lighted [disclosed] money avenues, provide a roadmap of routes, and report on traffic patterns," says Kent Cooper of Political Money Line. "But it may be harder when most of the traffic is shifting to the unlit avenues used by 501(c) organizations."

In his recorded comments, Mr. Treglia expressed satisfaction at how the Pew Charitable Trusts were able to avoid public scrutiny of the $40 million the foundation poured into the campaign. "The strategy was designed not to hide Pew's involvement ... but most of Pew's funding," he said. "I advised Pew that Pew that Pew should be in the background. And by law, the grantees always have to disclose. But I always encouraged the grantees never to mention Pew."

He acknowledged that this created an appearance problem. "Did we push the envelope? Yeah. Were we encouraged internally to push the envelope? Yeah. . . . We stayed with the letter, if not the spirit, of the law." But the subterfuge was indeed necessary. "If Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it'd be worthless," he confessed. Hence the need "to convey the impression that this was something coming naturally from beyond the Beltway."

The efforts of Pew and the other liberal foundations, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute and the Carnegie Corp., were aided by the news media's complicity. The American Prospect, a liberal magazine, put out a special issue on campaign finance reform in 2000 that was paid for by a $132,000 Carnegie grant--a fact the magazine failed to disclose.

National Public Radio openly accepted $1.2 million from liberal foundations to provide such items as "coverage of financial influence in political decision-making." Its campaign finance reporter, Peter Overby, is a former editor of the magazine put out by Common Cause, a major supporter of McCain-Feingold. No one suggests there was direct collusion between NPR and campaign finance lobbies.

With the money and personnel available to NPR, there didn't need to be. Sympathetic stories on the need for campaign finance reform flowed naturally. Sounds like the kind of "faux news" that liberals are complaining the Bush administration was guilty of engineering when it put out video press releases or provided conservative commentator Armstrong Williams with a grant.

The media simply didn't think the involvement of liberal foundations in bankrolling campaign finance reform was a story. Mr. Treglia admits that "we had a scare" after George Will "stumbled across a report that we had done and attacked it in his column." But he said nothing came of it. "Journalists didn't care.

...There was a panic there for a couple weeks, because we thought the story was going to begin to gather steam, and no one picked it up." And they easily could have. Mr. Treglia admitted that despite all the efforts to hide the attempt to deceive Congress about the true origins of the campaign finance reform lobby, "if any reporter wanted to know, they could have sat down and connected the dots. But they didn't."

Mr. Treglia isn't talking to reporters about his remarks at USC. But he has released a statement saying "it is incorrect to suggest that [Pew] would attempt to deceive or mislead about its funding efforts. I regret that my comments have led to any confusion." Rebecca Remel, Pew's president and CEO, says that "any assertion that we tried to hide our support of campaign finance reform grantees is false." No doubt Pew did comply with the technical requirements of the law, but it also certainly didn't follow the kind of transparency standards it demands of politicians or corporations.

The successful stealth campaign by the eight liberal foundations means we now have to live in the Brave New World of McCain-Feingold.

Bradley Smith, a Federal Election Commission member, made news this month by warning that bloggers could face federal regulation because a federal judge had thrown out their legal exemption from campaign finance regulations.

The Internet has been burning up with concern that bloggers could be hauled into court for, as Mr. Smith puts it, "any decision by an individual to put a link [to a political candidate] on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done."

Mr. Smith warns that "it's very likely that the Internet is going to be regulated" by the FEC unless "Congress is willing to stand up and say, 'Keep your hands off of this, and we'll change the statute to make it clear.'"

McCain-Feingold did little in last year's elections to limit the influence of money in politics, but a great deal to benefit incumbents and harm true grass-roots politics. Its ban on using soft money to run issue ads in the 60 days before an election mean that such ads will run earlier, make campaigns longer and allow incumbents to avoid criticism of their voting records.

David Mason, who serves with Mr. Smith on the FEC, says that the incredible complexity of the bill is likely to lead to "invidious enforcement, singling out disfavored groups or causes" and "subjecting regulated groups to harassment by political opponents."

The next time Congress debates further "reform" of the rules for conducting elections, it would behoove all of us to learn who is really behind the effort, and what their true motives might be.

Opinion Journal ** Astroturf Politics

The Bullshit Lib Loser Talking Point "Checks and Balances"
Mood:  chatty
Topic: My Columns

Besides listening to peacenik pacifist anti-war protestors complain that their umpteenth anti-Iraq war rallies were upstaged by Terry Schiavo this weekend, I've been hearing the same thing constantly from the dems about the "nuclear option" for judicial nominees.

And that of course is, we need "checks and balances" instead of letting the majority rule. Which is hilarious when you consider they tout this talking point when discussing the nomination of judges that are simply supposed to interpret law, not create it.

Funny, because "checks and balances" are usually spoken in the context of power. When the democrats use this babbling bullshit talking point... they admit two important things.

ONE: They believe they're entitled to 48% of the presidency, because they garnered 48% of the vote.

TWO: They believe judges SHOULD legislate from the bench, and Republican appointed judges need not apply.

LMAO, I wish someone on talking head TV would get around to giving the liberal democrat "intellectuals" a simple civics lesson. That the ultimate "check and balance" of power is decided by elections! And when you lose, guess what... you're in the minority, AND OUT OF POWER!

Well, maybe it's better they still think they are in full control of government, it shows they're still delusional... and their election losing arrogance is still intact.

Don't believe me? Click on last night's blog...
DNC CHAIR COWARD DEANPEACE CALLS REPUBLICANS "BRAIN-DEAD"