US Bank Closings

2007 - 3
2008 - 25 (more than in the previous five years combined)
2009 - 53, and counting. It's only July.

The FDIC had 252 banks and thrifts on its list of troubled institutions at the end of 2008. The agency now expects bank failures will cost its insurance fund around $65 billion through 2013, up from an earlier estimate of $40 billion.

The FDIC has $53 billion to cover $4.4 trillion in deposits. Does that make you feel insured?

WILL THE CENSURE MOVEMENT GAIN MOMENTUM?

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." -- President Nixon during the Watergate scandal.


It's been said that Sept. 11 changed everything.

In 2002 President Bush issued a secret Executive Order allowing the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even if one of the parties was in the U.S.

The program was so secretive that a legal review panel -- comprised of fewer than half a dozen government attorneys that review top-secret intelligence programs for the National Security Council -- was bypassed. Instead, the legal vetting was done by just one person - then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales.

The problem is that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), forbids the NSA to conduct surveillance inside the U.S. without a warrant. Despite this, the White House chose to ignore the law, which has lead to a firestorm of controversy.

The President says that he had to ignore an act of Congress to prevent another terrorist attack. He also argues that the NSA is only spying on the communications of people who have known links to al-Qaeda.

Most Americans seem to favor the President taking aggressive steps to root out terrorists and thwart their murderous plans, but many seem to worry about the President making up, or ignoring, the law as he goes along.

The FISA court has an 11-member secret panel that hears NSA warrant requests. In the event of circumstances that require immediate action by the NSA, the law permits the agency to eavesdrop without a warrant so long as it applies for one within 72 hours.

And the court has essentially acted as a rubber stamp. According to the Justice Department, from 1979 to 2004 the court approved 18,724 wiretaps and denied only three - all in 2003. The government almost always gets what it wants.

But the Administration argues that technological advances have made FISA outdated. They claim that the law hamstrings the NSA from being able to adequately handle the immense flood of electronic communications that presently pass in and out of the U.S., which the agency says it can now capture and analyze more effectively. And Justice Department officials complain that a FISA surveillance request can take up to a week to prepare - even for some seasoned department lawyers. The warrant requests are said to be too long and complex, and officials protest that they are required for each individual number recovered from a terrorist's cell phone. Intelligence officials also complain of having to stop surveillance in order to get approval.

The NSA performs data mining, in which computers sort through billions of phone calls and Internet messages looking for patterns that may indicate terrorist activity. That requires sifting through massive numbers of individual communications to get a hit. Under FISA, the NSA is supposed to obtain a warrant for each suspect phone number. Authorities argue that the FISA process is too slow to cover a situation in which a known terrorist calls a number in the U.S. not already covered by a FISA warrant.

Such is the conundrum that lawmakers now find themselves in. They may not want the President ignoring, or breaking, the law, but they don't want to hinder intelligence efforts or be seen as "soft on terrorism" either.

Into this breach leapt Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has proposed a resolution to censure President Bush for breaking the law - specifically, illegally wiretapping Americans.

According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, four in ten (42 percent) of the adults in the general public say they would support Congressional censure of the president, while half (50 percent) say they would not. Censure wins majority support from Democrats (60 percent) and one in five Republicans (20 percent) say they’d support it.

Meanwhile, twenty-nine of 201 Democrats in the House have signed onto a bill that calls for a bipartisan investigation of the president's actions to determine if there are grounds for impeachment. The bill was introduced in December by Representative John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat.

One in four American adults (26 percent) say they think Congress should actually impeach President Bush and consider removing him from office.

By comparison, the level of public support for impeachment today is below the 32 percent support for President Clinton’s removal in October 1998, before he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. Support for the impeachment of President Nixon had reached 52 percent in a June 1974 Harris poll shortly before he left office.

The NEWSWEEK poll also gives President Bush just a 36 percent approval rating, matching the low point in his presidency recorded last November.

What's surprising is that no Democrat has moved to censure the President for lying about his prior knowledge that the levees in New Orleans could be breached during Hurricane Katrina. That effort would seem much less fraught with political peril, and certainly far less controversial.

Earlier this month, the Associated Press released secret transcripts and video footage showing President Bush being personally briefed the day before Hurricane Katrina reached land. The predictions he heard were quite accurate — including the failure of the levees. He was clearly warned of exactly what was coming.

The video and transcripts show that federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.

Michael Brown told the president that if New Orleans flooded the Superdome emergency shelter would likely be under water and short on supplies, creating a "catastrophe within a catastrophe."

Experts and officials implored the President to prepare for, "devastation of historic proportions."

The chief scientist of the National Hurricane Center warned that a major levee breach was "obviously a very, very grave concern."

Yet four days after the storm Bush declared, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that resulted in the historic flooding of New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility.

And President Bush didn't ask a single question during the briefing.

Ultimately, Katrina ended up being the worst natural disaster in American history, killing over 1,300 people and displacing hundreds of thousands.

And yet, much like Katrina, that storm of controversy quickly blew over and passed. Absent was the outrage that seems to have taken root in the illegal wiretaps issue. Perhaps the illegal wiretap issue can be debated, as well as whether or not the President deserves to be censured. But one thing is certain; the president lied to the public regarding his prior knowledge of the potential consequences of Katrina. For that, if not for dereliction of duty, he certainly deserves to be censured.


Copyright © 2006 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

IRAQ, POLITICS, AND A HEALTHY SERVING OF HUMBLE PIE

In what has to be seen as a stunning reversal, the White House has sought to diminish expectations for what can be achieved in Iraq. With a sobering admission, the Bush administration has finally accepted that it will have to settle for much less than it had been hoping for, and touting.

Aims for a model democracy in the Middle East, a self-supporting oil industry, or a secure and economically stable society have essentially been dashed.

A senior official lamented, "What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground. We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

"Shedding the unreality" seems to be a course of action that is long overdue.

It now appears that Islamic law, or Sharia, will take precedence over democracy in Iraq. There is the distinct possibility that women will not have equal rights in Iraq, but will instead face harsh restrictions.

After a Saddam/al Queada link were disproved, and in the absence of WMD, the invasion of Iraq was then justified by the lofty goal of establishing a secular and united nation that would honor human rights as well as ethnic and religious differences. That now seems quite unrealistic.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," one U.S. official said on the condition of anonymity.

The process of trying to create national unity through the drafting of an Iraqi constitution is essentially being abandoned.

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Stanford University's Larry Diamond, who helped the U.S. occupation government develop a strategy for democracy in Iraq.

The administration originally expected U.S. soldiers to be greeted as liberators. But the unpredicted intensity of the insurgency, and a surge of foreign fighters, has compelled officials to repeatedly lower their expectations of how long it would take to suppress the insurgency, as well as establish a well-trained and unified Iraqi force capable of handling security on their own.

If the security problem needs to be made any more clear, killings of Iraqi security forces have tripled since January and Islamic extremists, convinced that beards reflect religious piety, are attacking barber shops and killing barbers.

Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University, says "There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy. This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."

According to officials, the administration no longer expects to be able to defeat the insurgency before withdrawing, but instead to weaken it. The idea of handing responsibility for security over to an Iraqi military that doesn't meet original U.S. expectations is gaining momentum.

But the President is attempting to show resolve. In a weekend radio address he said, "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed."

To that end, Iraqi forces appear to be growing in number. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, charged with developing Iraqi security forces, says that more than 110 Iraqi police and army combat battalions - a total of 178,000 forces - have been trained and equipped since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Petraeus said he believes that progress is being made and that "Iraqis will save Iraq," which is clearly the current White House position.

US officials say that large scale military operations have resulted in hundreds of insurgents being killed, hundreds being captured, and many more being driven away. The problem is the majority of the insurgents eventually return.

One defense official said that that there are not enough troops — either American or Iraqi — to sweep, clear, and hold an area, and that they have to repeat the same operations again and again.

Roadside bomb attacks continue to be a primary concern. The use of improvised explosive devices has doubled over last the year, to about 30 a week.

Seven more US soldiers were killed over the weekend in a roadside bombing and a shooting, bringing the death total for US soldiers to 1850. Nearly 14,000 US troops have been wounded in action.

The escalating death toll in Iraq has negatively affected President Bush's polling numbers.  The President's standing with the American public is now lower than that of the last two men who won re-election to the White House (Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) at this point in their second terms.

Bush's job approval in recent polls ranges from the low- to mid-40s, and was 42 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll. His approval ratings are at all-time lows on everything from handling Iraq to the economy to Social Security and other domestic issues.

But the partisan divide is stunning; 80 percent of Democrats disapprove of the President's overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve.

Congressional Republicans are already worried about the 2006 election. If Bush's approval ratings continue to slide, more of them may be unwilling to go along with his major initiatives for fear of losing voters. Next year's elections could very well initiate, and expedite, the US withdrawal from Iraq. War ambitions may suddenly take a back seat to domestic political ambitions.

How very fickle. And that's certainly not a description that most Americans have come to associate with President Bush.

Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS

I found this data quite interesting:

Many Republicans contend that tort reform is necessary to curb the soaring costs of healthcare. Yet, the 15 leading insurance companies had a 5.7% increase in malpractice payouts from 2000 to 2004, while increasing premiums by 120% during that same period.

Thievery and lies.

"SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS" IN IRAQ?

One year after the handover of power to the democratically elected government of Iraq, and President Bush continues to assert that there's been "significant progress." But that's a very difficult argument to make in the face of day to day reality there.

Power generation was lower this June than it was last June; crude oil production is down; oil export revenues are down; only 37% of Iraqis have working sewer systems; many Baghdad neighborhoods have been without water for weeks at a time; and mile-long lines at gas stations are routine.

This is some good news, however. Average per capita incomes in Iraq shot up to $422 in 2004, from just $322 in 2003.

A MATTER OF SCIENCE...AND PRINCIPLES

During a House debate on easing restrictions of federal funding for stem cell research, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said that using leftover embryos from fertility clinics amounts to the "dismemberment of living, distinct human beings" because the embryos are destroyed during the research.

I was struck by the suggestion that embryos could be equated to "distinct human beings." It's an off-the-charts leap of logic. An embryo is no more a distinct human being than the egg in my refrigerator is a distinct chicken. They're not the same. Incredibly, there are idealogues in this country who put potential human life ahead of real, living human beings. And unfortunately, some of them are in positions of power. Given the opportunity, it sounds as if Delay would ban invitro fertilization as well.

With recent polls showing that roughly two-thirds of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and a majority favor fewer restrictions on taxpayer funding of it, conservative politicians who pander to the religious right, like Delay, are clearly in the minority.

Senator Bill Frist, a powerful voice in American politics due to his position as Senate Majority Leader, was part of that vocal minority - until last week. In a stunning turnaround, Frist changed course and publicly reversed his position on this critical social issue. Breaking ranks with both President Bush and Representative Delay, Frist said, "It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science."

I was both amazed and relieved. Putting science, or fact, ahead of faith may be a matter of reason and logic to some of us, but to others it's a truly novel idea. Thankfully, Frist has joined the ranks of the reasonable and the logical. Well, at least on this issue.

Earlier that week, Frist interrupted Senate debate on the defense authorization bill in order to call up a different piece of legislation. In his estimation, another bill demanded his colleagues immediate consideration. He assured them that this was a "very important" bill that absolutely required action before the Senate's August recess.  The reason Frist was willing to postpone consideration of the defense authorization bill until September - during a time of war? Frist was just doing the bidding of his patrons over at the National Rifle Association, arguing that it was critically important to consider new legislation shielding gun manufacturers from civil liability lawsuits. Yeah, that "very important" legislation.

Anyway, back to the stem cell topic.

Frist is said to be interested in a bid for the White House in 2008. His former position put him on the wrong side of the opinion polls, so he switched sides. Frist's turnabout came the same week that a group of stem cell research supporters, StemPAC, began a television campaign in New Hampshire, site of the first 2008 presidential primary, criticizing him for not scheduling a vote on the issue. Frist quickly announced that the Senate would debate and vote on the issue in the fall.

The Senator was said to have reached his decision after consulting with scientists at Stanford University and other research centers and while watching biomedical research advance overseas. Stem research could lead to jobs, patents, and lots and lots of money. Ask any politician; jobs good, money good.

Frist is a doctor, so one would assume he'd put science first, viewing it as paramount to sound decision making. Yet, he is the same Senator who attempted to diagnose Terri Schiavo from the Senate floor - via video - while she was in Florida! Ideology has a remarkable way of interfering with reason.

Who knows? Perhaps Frist really did have a genuine change of heart. In his estimation, only embryos that would otherwise be discarded should be used for the research. Those that could be adopted or implanted should not be used. This sounds reasonable to me. If they're going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for the benefit of humanity first.

"I'm doing this as somebody who has convictions," Frist said. "This is not about politics. It is about policy. It is about principle. It is about human life."

Try telling that to President Bush. His principles seem to dictate that one should never change one's mind. At least not publicly. But suddenly, Bill Frist has principles. Well, that whole issue of pandering to the NRA and gun manufacturers aside.



Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.

AND THE WINNER IS....BIG BUSINESS!

On Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives easily approved an energy bill by a vote of 275 to 156. The bill, which is loaded with $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives, was hailed by Republicans as a major change in U.S. energy policy.

With crude oil prices near $60 a barrel, environmental and consumer groups criticized the legislation as nothing more than a giveaway to an industry enjoying record profits, while doing little to curb demand or encourage renewable energy.

Of the bill's $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives over 10 years, almost $9 billion is exclusively for oil and gas, electricity and coal companies. Less than $5 billion will be spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Democrats rightly claimed that U.S. energy companies generous profits should allow them to fund new projects on their own without subsidies funded by taxpayers. On Thursday, Exxon Mobil Corp. reported a 32 percent jump in its quarterly profits to $7.64 billion.

The final version of the House bill dropped some pro-environment measures, such as the Senate's requirement that the federal government find ways to cut U.S. oil demand and improve fuel mileage for autos, trucks and SUVs.

"As long as we're consuming 21 million barrels (a day) and we're only producing 8 million, we're going to be importing oil," said Texas Republican Joe Barton. Which is exactly why finding ways to cut demand and increase car mileage would be such a wise idea.

Republicans admitted the bill won't cut oil imports in the near term, which total about 60 percent of the U.S. supply. In truth, it's hard to say if it will cut demand in the long term either.

The Senate is expected to approve the bill on Friday, just before Congress goes on its summer recess. President Bush will sign the energy bill, which he called one of his top priorities, next week.

"This legislation will help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It will help address the root causes that have led to high energy prices," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Of course he didn't say just how it would reduce our dependence without reducing our demand.

The next major energy concern that Congress will debate is a Republican plan to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Republicans were crafty enough to separate that controversial plan from the energy bill and instead make it part of an enormous budget bill to fund the government. That bill cannot be filibustered.

Just another example of Big Industry first, the American people second.


Copyright © 2005 The Independent Report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the author's consent.