Columns on this page:

An Essay

By Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush’s cabinet and most key advisers -- who sounded  like ultimate do-gooders with nothing but the public interest at heart during Senate hearings – have now been approved and are settled in.  But not before pundits and  Senate committeemen  had a field day analyzing the mix.

They have been studied  from the standpoint of race (two blacks and Condoleezza Rice as national security adviser, a high but non-cabinet post);  women (three); Hispanics (one); Asian-Americans (two); Arab-Americans (one); religion (at least one) John Ashcroft was asked if it would prevent him from doing his job; voter rejects (three, Ashcroft, Gale Norton and Spencer Abraham,and more if you count the voter-rejected Ford and Bush administrations); conservatism vs. liberalism (more of the former than the cabinet of either Bush, the elder, or Clinton), but it still looks a lot like the former Bush cabinet); Business (well represented from Dick Cheney who played a key role in the selections, on down).

So, the cabinet winds up looking like adulterer Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow coalition with diversity its trademark.  It has eight members that use hyphens to designate their ethnicity.  But does that mean equal representation in the decision-making process?  No.  Some of the members of the cabinet will be less important in that process than Ensign Pulver was in the running of the USS Reluctant in the novel, Mr. Roberts.

Major policy in the Bush Administration will still be run by the organizations of elites that have been running it since before the Roosevelt days.  The high appointees were not grilled or criticized for their establishment connections or the organizations they belong to.  But most come with establishment stamps, especially those in foreign policy-making posts.

They belong to the most prominent of the establishment organizations – The Council on Foreign Relations. Sister organizations include the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission and the Order of Skull & Bones (the Order) to which George Bush belongs and which has more clout than the others.  But the CFR, which interlocks with the other groups, will be calling the foreign policy shots just like it has been since the Roosevelt days. For more information on these groups click on ‘’Terms and Organizations’’ on the home page.

All the key members in the advisory group, which you don’t hear much about from the pundits, are members of the CFR.  They are Colin Powell (CFR), secretary of state, who replaces Madeleine Albright (CFR); Donald Rumsfeld (CFR), defense secretary, who replaces William S. Cohen (CFR); Condoleezza Rice (CFR), who replaces Samuel R. Berger (CFR) as national security adviser, and Robert Zoellick (CFR), U.S. trade representative and a protégé of James Baker, former secretary of state who represented Bush in the Florida vote scandal.  Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao and Christie Whitman, EPA administrator, also belong to the CFR. Bush also is holding CFR member George J. Tenet on as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Recall that Tenet was Bill Clinton’s second choice for the CIA post after first choice Anthony Lake (CFR) resigned his nomination under Congressional pressure,  The CIA at the time had suffered a few scandals and was busy covering them up.  Tenet, who was acting CIA at the time, came under mild fire from Congress for questionable conduct but was let off easy and eventually got the job.  Charges by Mike Wallace that Tenet fed information to the  New York Times, which could have disqualified him, never got much attention from Congress.

Another former CIA director, John Deutch, was pardoned by Clinton a few hours before he left office. Deutch had played loose with the nation’s top secrets, but the establishment is not going to make a fuss about that, especially when one of their own is involved.  You guessed it.  Deutch has CFR credentials.

Add to this list Dick Cheney (CFR) and Bush himself who belongs to the Order, and you get an idea of where policy is likely to be coming from. Who stays on doesn’t really matter.  They’re all a part of the same club.  As the late Sen. Barry Goldwater said about CFR members:  ‘’Almost without exception the members of the CFR are united by a congeniality of birth, economic status, and educational background.’’

While the cabinet posts get most of the attention, the Number 2 people and other high-level assistants also are worth watching, and many belong to the same group.  Take Paul Wolfowitz who was named deputy defense secretary, as an example. He is CFR all the way and was an undersecretary when Cheney headed the Defense Department.

 According to Bill Minutaglio in his book First Son, Bush became ‘’livid’’ when asked about any eastern establishment connections.  Well, if that cabinet list isn’t eastern establishment-connected then the CFR and the Order must be headquartered in Crawford, Tx., and not New York and  New Haven, Conn., respectively.  Even one of his top guns, Colin Powell, was apprehensive about the cows on Bush’s Crawford spread when he visited.

Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill breaks a  chain of CFR members who headed that post since James A. Baker III.   Although Baker is not listed as a CFR member, he carried out the policies of Bush who belonged to the Order and the CFR as well, and was surrounded by CFR members during his entire career. O’Neill made it plain at his confirmation hearings that he is a ‘’one-worlder.’’

Like Baker, O’Neill, who headed Alcoa, Inc., a multinational company can’t be expected to have anti-establishment views, and his friendship with Alan Greenspan of the Fed also indicates co-operation there.  After all, corporations, banks and Wall Street interlock, even though O’Neill did not come from Wall Street and is not listed as a CFR member.  Bush’s top economic adviser is Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board  who didn’t always agree with Alan Greenspan.  With his long-time friend, oil-man Don Evans at the Commerce Department, O’Neill at Treasury, and Cheney (oil) as vice president, Bush may become more aggressive in forming his own economic policy and lock horns with the Fed more frequently.  But he has stated he will lay off Fed criticism after his opening salvo.  Bush also is said to be trying to tie economic and foreign policy more closely together, another global thrust for the multinationals.

It is interesting  that Greenspan quickly made a 180 degree turn on taxes after Bush took office. Previously, he was lobbying to  use any government surpluses to pay on the national debt.  Then he became concerned that zero deficits could raise the possibility that the government might invest any future surpluses in private securities to which he objected.   Then as if coming out of the wilderness into the clear he seemed to have made a new discovery – bonds issued by states and foreign governments.

They could be used in manipulating the amount of money in circulation if Treasury securities, which are used almost exclusively now,  are diminished by the debt reduction. So, it appears the priority of the flim-flam man is now back to paying off the debt where it was all along, but he still seems to be supporting the tax cut.  In short, the money guru seems to be steering a zig-zag course.   Maybe he has just crunched to many figures and spoke in riddles so long, he can’t help himself.

In fact, Greenspan told the House Budget Committee in March that he was deliberately employing ‘’Fed Speak’’ on tax cuts and was trying to keep the waters murky. ‘’I hope I was sufficiently ambiguous not to have indicated timing of when or if we would move’’ on interest rates, he said.  So what’s the point in spending all the money holding hearings and calling him to the Hill if he deliberately obfucates?   There are those who think it would  be better to take his usurped power away from him and dissolve the Fed.

Several books have been published recently by scholars and journalists about the growing importance of corporations, and especially multinationals that have usurped political power, not only in the United States but world-wide. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said Bush’s cabinet looked like the Business Rountable.

Bush met with the nation’s top corporate executives at his Texas ranch before taking office, and  indicated their representation in government would by no means be diminished in his administration.  Jim Hightower, former Texas agriculture commissioner, charges ‘’both parties are in their (corporation’s) pockets, government regulators are sheep in wolves’ clothing, and unions have been raped, throwed and hog-tied.’’

In his book There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos, Hightower provides a laundry list of corporate abuses from questionable world trade practices to political involvement and originating the deadly ‘’Mad Cow’’ disease through cost-skimping greed.  Hightower quotes Fast Company, a business magazine as saying: ‘’Corporations have become the dominant institutions of our time, occupying the position of the church in the Middle Ages and the nation-state of the past two centuries.’’  He and other writers such as David C. Korten, a former Harvard Business School instructor, and Journalist Robert Kaplan call for clipping the wings of corporations that have exceeded their charter authority with accountability or allegiance to no one.

Kaplan in The Coming Anarchy notes corporations are in the forefront of real globalization and free to leave behind the social and environmental wreckage they create.  Gale Norton, Bush’s choice for interior secretary, faced some questioning for her failure to press criminal charges against a polluting mining company when she was Colorado’s attorney general as well as her environmental enforcement philosophy in general.  She may bear watching now that she has the job.

Korten in When Corporations Rule the World notes that the interests of corporations and the wealth are closely intertwined and that American corporations reject the national interests in favor of the corporate interests. Hightower points out that corporations are the creatures of the citizenry and allowed to exist through receipt of a state charter. ‘’They are supposed to serve us, not vice versa,’’ he adds.

As an example of corporate representation, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman has named Dale Moore, a lobbyist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as her chief of staff.  The USDA, of course, oversees the meat industry and one of the major problems it faces now – mad cow disease.  So, looks like the industry will lend a big helping hand in policing itself. Veneman herself is a lawyer who formerly was with a firm specializing in representing agribusiness companies.

Most of the  corporations and the elites who have been and will continue to set the nation’s course under the Bush Administration all belong to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  If any other group or political faction held as much representation in government their would be so much resentment, a change would have to be made or the faction would have to go underground.   Yet in administration after administration, the CFR continues to hold the key government decision-making posts.

So, what is this power-usurping organization that bills itself as just another ‘’think tank’’ forum for airing ideas and publishing them in its influential magazine, Foreign Affairs.  The Council’s history goes back to the end of World War I, but its big push to take over government came in 1939 when a couple of its members met at the State Department and offered long-range policy studies financed in part with Rockefeller money. Recall that David Rockefeller originated the Trilateral Commission, a sister organization, after World War II to include the fact economically-growing Japan.

The CFR’s membership list reads like a Who’s Who in government, politics, corporations and the media.  Since Herbert Hoover their have been six other presidents – Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush and Clinton who have been CFR members.  Every Secretary of State since Henry l. Stimson in the Roosevelt cabinet have been members except James Byrnes, George C. Marshall and James A. Baker.  Other policy-making agencies of government have been loaded with them.  Several writers have quoted Rear Adm. Chester Ward, who was a CFR member for 16 years, as saying the most powerful CFR members have one objective in common.  ‘’They want to bring abut the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States.’’

The man who did the first and most definitive study of the English group from whence the CFR originated was the late Carol Quigley of Georgetown University.  He claimed the Milner Group, which was largely responsible for the appeasement policy of Britain that led to World War II, almost destroyed Western civilization.  Quigley warned:

     No country that values its safety should allow what the Milner group accomplished  in Britain – that is,

     that a small number of men should be able to wield such power in administration and politics, should be

     given almost complete control over the publication of the documents relating to their actions, should be 

     able to exercise such influence over the avenues of information that create public opinion, and should be

     able to monopolize so completely the writing and the teaching of the history of their own period.

Doesn’t that sound like what the CFR and sister organizations have been doing in this country for more than half a century?  Incidentally, there are a number of Senators and Representatives and others such as Alan Greenspan at the Fed who also are members.

Should anything happen to either Bush or Cheney, a CFR member ready to step into the oval office will not be farther away than one can toss a brick.  That’s pretty good for an organization that’s a mere idea swapper and ‘’think tank.’’  No other think tank can make that claim.

(Cont.) Part II, a brief sketch of the members.

Top

by Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush’s cabinet may look like Jackson’s rainbow coalition, but on closer view it has more commonality than diversity in respect to the organizations the members belong to, their political and ideological backgrounds and their educational and income backgrounds. Here’s a sketch with brief comments on the Bush team.

Note the key members of the administration that belong to the same organization that has infiltrated government, especially in foreign policy, since before the Roosevelt days – the Council on Foreign Relations. A CFR note will be placed behind those known to belong. Vice President Richard Cheney also belongs to CFR, and Bush is a member of the secret Order of Skull & Bones which has more clout than the CFR.

GEN. COLIN POWEL (CFR)

Secretary of State. Powell owes his meteoric career rise to two well-ensconced members of the establishment – Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary in the Reagan Administration where Powell was a assistant, and Frank Carlucci who took Powell back to the Pentagon from a deputy White House position when Carlucci replaced Weinberger (who drew a pardon from President Bush for his Iran-Contra involvement). Powell rose to national security adviser. From there he became chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff and gained notoriety during the Gulf War along with Dick Cheney and Gen. Norman Schwarzkoph.

The general’s fast rise to the top may be outdone by his son, Michael, who at 37 has been appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Both parties have fallen over backwards to get the elder Powell in their camp obviously for political reasons. The nepotism in speeding the career of young Powell could, however, present a problem for the general and maybe even Bush down the road.

Powell joins a long list of popular military figures who have parlayed their service careers into plum political jobs either through election or appointment. He turned down the offer to run as vice president under Clinton, but flaunts the fact he is the first black secretary of state. Had he taken the former position he may not have been the first black vice president, however. Hannibal Hamlin may have beat him to that distinction in the Lincoln Administration. There is some historical argument as to whether Hamlin was black or not.

The general may have been reluctant to join a political party and run for office on his own, but he was not as reluctant to join the CFR and become an inside establishment member to further his career. He joined the GOP in 1995 after being courted by both major political parties. Some pundits argue that on domestic policy he is more in line with Democrats, especially on abortion rights and affirmative action. In the political arena, his overall popularity, and especially his appeal to black voters and military personnel made him a hot asset.

He eschewed running for office, however, and bided his time until the right insulated position came along He won’t be a one-man foreign policy director, however, any more than Madeleine K. Albright (CFR) was. Remember Strobe Talbott (CFR) said at the time of Albright’s appointment that he was staying on as deputy secretary to offer continuity. He stayed for the whole four years. Anyway, it indicates foreign policy comes from the same source, and there will be more continuity than any drastic changes. That doesn’t mean to imply that Powell’s input won’t be considerable. He just won’t be a one man band.

He shares some of the responsibility along with the first Bush for the mess in Iraq that has grown worse since he advised Bush to let Saddam Hussein off the hook in the Gulf War. Now, he is offering a strong warning to Iraq and pledged to ‘’re-energize the sanctions regime’’ that Hussein has ignored for the past two years. The first Bush Administration’s policies were flawed both leading to the Gulf War and getting out of it. Now, the same team that was responsible is largely in place again with a few changes.

The administration has already warned Iraq to honor its agreements and destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. This may portend where the emphasis on foreign policy will be in the early Bush Administration. Indications are that with all the oil industry representatives in the new cabinet, there will be a more aggressive policy toward any country that threatens the oil supply.

In other areas, Powell has opposed using force in Bosnia and is more cautious about committing U.S. forces abroad than the Clinton Administration was. He wants the nation’s vital interest to be involved, clear political objective outlined, and adequate forces to get the job done before deploying troops overseas. That policy differs from that of limited, no-win wars of administrations since the Korean War. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who said there is no substitute for victory, lost his command. We’ll see how Powell fares if he sticks to his doctrine.

He has been less outspoken on his thinking toward Japan, China, Taiwan and Korea. Some experts wonder where he stands.

DONALD RUMSFELD (CFR)

This 68-year-old who served in the Ford and Nixon administrations is a well-enconsced member of the establishment and a long-time member of the CFR. He was a protégé of Dick Cheney who succeeded him as secretary of defense and comes back to the Pentagon also as a member of the corporate elite.

One concern about Rumsfeld is, will he be an anachronism in a changing military environment? When he headed the Pentagon a quarter of a century ago the United States had just lost the war in Vietnam and was still going head-to-head with the Soviet Union in the cold war in which nuclear deterrent played the most strategic roll. Today, low intensity conflicts, religious and ethnic confrontations, terrorism, information warfare, and missile defense are some of the main concerns since some military experts contend nuclear and conventional war have almost all but been ruled out.

Rumsfeld will make a sweeping reassessment of the military strategy and what is needed to meet it. He will come in contact with pressure from all sides including the military services vying for dollars as well as the military-industrial complex shifting for the same. He is a strong advocate of a missile defense system and has encountered opposition there not only from some military strategists but also from nations such as Russia and China that contend it will trigger an arms race. He was given the task of selling the missile defense system early on to NATO allies.

Rumsfeld is also well corporate-connected, having formerly served as CEO of General instrument Corp. and G.D. Searle & Co. He also served on the boards of several major firms, including the Rand Corp.

He is a close friend of Cheney’s and apparently will have the ear of the president. But he will be facing others in the cabinet such as Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice who also have clout with the president, although there is no reason to believe there are any major differences of opinion at this time.

CONDOLEZZA RICE (CFR)

Pundits chronicling the national security advisor’s past often refer to her as a child prodigy who was graduated from the University of Denver at the age of 15. One is reminded of Winston Churchill’s quip about an opponent who reporters reminded him was a child prodigy. Churchill said the opponent continued to be a child long after he ceased to be a prodigy. Whether Condolezza has a superior intellect or owes her quick learning start to two school teacher parents who had a fetish for education may be open to debate, but she apparently mastered the obstacles she had to overcome. She also has won the confidence of her mentors.

They include Brent Snowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents George Bush, the elder, and Gerald Ford, who brought her into the NCS and the establishment. Snowcroft is a member of the CFR as is Rice who also was tought by professor Joseph Korbel – father of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, also CFR whose protégé was Zbigniew Brzezinski, also CFR who headed the NCS in the Carter Administration. The elder Bush introduced her to the younger Bush whom she tutored during the presidential campaign.

She is supposed to be ‘’an expert’’ on the former Soviet Union and was a former provost at Stanford University. She along with Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld are rehabs from the Bush-Ford administrations. If you liked those administrations’ foreign policy, you probably won’t be disappointed with this one. It probably would be wishful thinking, however, to expect much in the way of any drastic new policy changes.

Rice is the least-seasoned of the group, but said to be aggressive. She is expected to have access to the President considering that she tutored him and was recommended highly by his father. She is an internationalist but, like Powell, is wary of using the military abroad. She probably will get much recognition since she’s black, a woman, and holds such a high position among men. President Bush introduced her as being ‘’brilliant,’’ ‘’experienced’’ and a ‘‘good manager.’’

So far the only thing she’s done publicly outside of stirring up NATO allies by suggesting Bush would pull U.S. Troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo (which Bush said later would be gradual & with consultations) and defending the missile defense system after Rumsfeld espoused the policy before NATO.

Rice,46, in addition to coming with CFR credentials also has a corporate stamp, having been on the boards of Chevron Corp., the International Advisory Council of J. P. Morgan, and the Charles Schwab Corp., among others.

ROBERT ZOELLICK (CFR)

U.S. trade representative, a post that has been given cabinet status, although it carries the rank of ambassador. Since trade is supposed to be the panacea for curing all international ills in recent administrations, including averting wars, calming the evil in rogue nations, averting poverty and padding the bottom lines of corporations, the post takes on added importance.

You guessed it, Zoellick comes with CFR credentials and is another veteran of the last two Republican administrations. He is was one of James Baker’s top aides when he was treasury secretary and secretary of state. Of course, he is a staunch advocate of ‘’free trade’’ and that’s what it appears to be for countries like China and Japan in their dealings with the United States. Whether he or the Bush Administration can forge ‘’fair’’ trade as a policy is not likely based on the track record of past administrations, Republican or Democrat.

Bush favors China joining the World Trade organization and lobbied for the China Trade Bill while a candidate for president, so Zoellick, 47, will be faced with those negotiations as well as possibly launching a new round of trade talks. Trade is a controversial subject now as witnessed by the Seattle demonstrations when the international trade group met there.

During his confirmation hearings, senators voiced concern that labor and environmental issues are not given due consideration in negotiations and that bad deals with unfair practices by U.S. trading partners are hurting industries such as farm, steel and lumber. Nevertheless, they gave Zoellick unanimous confirmation, presumably on the assumption he would give these matters due consideration.

Zoellick was a recent fellow at German Marshall Fund, a Washington think tank, and is said to be a workaholic. He served as a top foreign policy adviser to Bush during the campaign and lso aided Baker in the Florida vote flap.

PAUL O’NEILL

He is the exception in a long list of treasury secretaries who did not come in through a swinging door to Wall Street or carry visible CFR connections. Not to worry. He is well connected to the establishment, the global trade policy objectives and the people and organizations that run it plus an insider in the corporate world.

O’Neill also is a friend and on a first name basis with Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and has met with the Wall Street executives already. He promised them he would meet with them regularly to help form the administration’s economic policy. O’Neill said he wanted to have a regular dialogue to ‘’blur the distinction’’ between the private and public sectors. Some observers think that has been done since the Wall Streeters took over the Fed and the Treasury at the beginning of the 20^th Century. Anyway, we know Wall Street and the corporate community will be well represented in government. O’Neill hasn’t said anything about interviewing people on the street yet but it appears they won’t be consulted unless some poll revealing their sentiments gets through to him.

He’s pretty hard to get through to, according to a story in The New York Times (2/15/01) about the operations of Alcoa, the company he formerly headed, in Ciuad Acuna, Mexico. It took a worker from the plant who traveled to Alcoa’s Pittsburgh office over O’Neill’s protest to convince him of squalid conditions and poverty wages at the plant. O’Neill was interrupted from a speech extolling Alcoa’s profits when he was confronted by the $6-an-hour laborer, according to the Times.

Alcoa is just one of the many transnational corporations that have moved off shore to take advantage of cheap labor. O’Neill is well aware of the help rendered such multinationals by the lax corporate laws and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) who lends them support by holding countries like Jamaica in line to benefit corporations such as Alcoa. Despite his establishment credentials or lack thereof, don’t fret that O’Neill won’t be a leader in the elite establishment’s corner.

He is another rehab from former Republican administrations (Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush, the elder and a captain of old-line industry. While he is expected to be the administration’s ambassador to Wall Street, the Treasury Department influence on currency and capital markets has been somewhat usurped by the Fed, and O’Neill appears from his statements to accept that.

He can be expected to support Bush’s economic programs on taxes, social security, faith-based charities and have a voice in economic policy decisions. He is another millionaire like most in the Bush Cabinet and earned a $3 million salary at Alcoa in 1999. He also exercised $33 million in stock options that year.

Unlike other government officials who have diversified their stock and put it in blind trusts, O’Neill is hanging on to his. He will keep $100 million in Alcoa stock and options. Critics charge this is a clear conflict of interest since Alcoa, a multinational company, is affected by trade regulations and other government decisions.

O’Neill said he would recuse himself from all Treasury decisions concerning Aloca. His deputy, Kenneth Dam, apparently will have to recuse himself, too. He has been a director of Alcoa and is a long-time colleague of O’Neill.

Incidentally, Dam belongs to CFR, which indicates O’Neill is not separated from it any farther than a screen door.

JOHN ASHCROFT

What hasn’t been said, written, probed or asked about the new Attorney General? Even his religion has been attacked by Sen. Ted Kennedy, the moral stalwart that doesn’t agree with his church. Ashcroft is another member of the Bush Cabinet who got on the government payroll after being rejected by voters. He has a special distinction, however, since he was defeated by a dead man.

Through bitter and drawn-out hearings, Ascroft won the day after drawing insulting criticism from senators such as Kennedy and his side-kick Joe Biden (D-Del.), who a few years ago kept Robert Bork off the Supreme Court because he wanted to interpret the Constitution instead of agree with laws such as Roe v. Wade which are legislated from the bench.

Other democrats such as Dianne Feinstein (D. Calf.), who can stand tall for not convicting Bill Clinton even though Clinton himself now admits he lied, joined in to oppose Ashcroft who won the day by a 58-42 vote. He agreed to enforce the law and the Constitution, even though he disagreed with some laws such as abortion, which Kennedy favors and his church is against. A few years ago Pope John Paul II was asked in a petition to excommunicate Kennedy and several other Catholics for their view on abortion, which oppose those of the church. The Pope never acted. Now Kennedy is into moral judging.

Briefly, as everybody knows by now, Aschroft is a conservative and supporter of the religious right with strong anti-abortion convictions who was opposed by civil rights, women’s organizations, environmentalists, gay rights and labor leaders. They argued he could not enforce laws he disagreed with. Some law enforcement officers do it every day, and we all live with laws we don’t like. But that wasn’t brought up.

The close vote was touted as a signal to Bush not to send up any nominees for the Supreme Court with conservative convictions that might reverse the liberals’ agenda, since it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, and Aschroft was a couple of votes short.

That warning may not hold water, however, because the Biden-Kennedy-led group may not be able to pull off another defeat such as that of Judge Bork . The test may come soon. President Bush may have a chance to nominate as many as three Supreme Court justices in the next year or so, and that could determine the mix of the court for years to come.

Anyway, Ashcroft is the new attorney general, and he is another member of the Bush Cabinet that comes with ties to the corporate community. Molly Ivins in a column for NewsMax quotes Jim Hightower, former Texas agriculture commissioner, as saying Ashcroft received $1.7 milllion from oil.chemical and paper companies in connection with environmental legislation, and that Schering-Plough, large pharmaceutical firm donated $50,000 for his last Senate campaign. Aschroft also is a member of the National Rifle Association,’’ which spent more than $330,000 on behalf of his re-election campaign,’’ according to The Dallas Morning News (p.6A 1/25/01).

GALE NORTON

Like Ashcroft, Norton faced a contentious Senate confirmation hearing, although not as severe. It had to do with the same subject -- could she do her job as overseer of more than half of the nation’s land and mineral and petroleum resources in light of her past comments and involvement in the subject?

She finally won approval by a 75-24 vote margin in spite of opposition from environmentalist groups including the Sierra Club. They questioned whether Norton, a former protégé of James Watt, first Interior Secretary in the Reagan administration, would be as hard-nosed as Watt on environmental issues. They noted Norton has long been an outspoken advocate of granting states and corporations a greater voice in environmental decisions.

Norton recanted from many of her earlier and controversial stands noted The Dallas Morning News, such as ‘’arguing that the Endangered Species Act and the Surface Mining Act are unconstitutional. Nevertheless, she is a former advocate of states and property rights. Environmentalists were concerned she would favor oil exploration and development ahead of protection of public lands. After all, her boss, President Bush, an oil man, has long advocated allowing the mining, timer and oil industries more freedom to police themselves. Norton has been a consistent advocate of states’ rights and minimal federal interference.

The 46-year-old Norton is another voter reject, having lost in the 1996 Republican primary for U.S. Senate. She comes with credentials leaving little doubt of her ties to the corporate community. She worked for four years for the Mountain States Legal Foundation, that has worked to block environmental restrictions of the Interior Department. She told senators she would get rid of her stock in Prima Energy, which has oil and natural gas wells that the Interior Department regulates in two western states. Norton also has been a member of organizations funded by large corporations such as ARCO, Amoco and DuPont.

All we know for sure about how she will conduct her job at this point is that the business interests are happy and the environmentalists are unhappy and that Norton , a former business representative, says she will be fair.

CHRISTIE WHITMAN (CFR)

What’s the difference if you cheat and tell and cheat and either try to cover it up or experience a temporary memory block? A place on the Bush team. That’s the difference between Linda Chavez who had to withdraw as nominee for Secretary of Labor for hiring an undocumented worker and Whitman who did the same thing but came clean after three years when she decided to run for governor of New Jersey. She was approved unanimously by the Senate.

She will hang her hat a short trolley ride from where Norton hangs hers and share Norton’s custody of the American environment as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, although she won’t have cabinet rank. She comes to Washington with CFR credentials and has supported state self-audit laws for companies who admit environmental abuses in lieu of penalties if they agree to take corrective action.

She ties environmental regulations to the impact on the U.S. economy. ‘’We are ready to enter a new era of environmental policy…that requires a new philosophy of public stewardship and personal responsibility,’’ she told senators during her confirmation hearing.

And that appears to indicate a more liberal view toward oil, mining and other business operations than was evident in the Clinton Administration. Democrats warned her, however, not to roll back environmental regulations pushed through in the final weeks of the Clinton term.

The EPA issued a number of regulations that included truck pollution, cleaner diesel fuel, tighter rules on mercury for power plants. Whitman plans to review these recent regulations, including the diesel fuel ones, which the industry vigorously opposes as too costly.

The 54-year-old New Jersey politician inherits numerous problems in an agency that some lawmakers charge is out of control. Although supporters say she is responsible for several environmental initiatives as governor that led to cleaner water, air and shorelines, critics think environmentalists are in for a setback during her tenure.

ANN VENEMAN

The new Secretary of Agriculture is another former Bush One rehab who comes with corporate and free-trade credentials. She served as deputy secretary at USDA under Bush One and comes back to Washington from the top agriculture post in California.

The 51-year-old Veneman is an attorney who worked on negotiations during the Uruguay Round of trade talks that created the controversial World Trade Agreement (WTO). She also was involved in the creation of NAFTA, and probably will be involved in future global trade negotiations.

She worked with a company that represented giant agribusinesses such as Monsanto, Cargill, Archer-Daniels-Midland, Kraft and Nestle. She is another advocate of giving industry more leeway in regulating itself. Bush introduced her as ‘’bright’’ and ‘’capable’’ and said ‘’she will do an outstanding job.’’

She has her work cut out because one of the major problems facing the nation involves the safety of the food supply and, in particular, so-called Mad cow disease and related maladies in other animal foods. She will get pressure from the agribusiness and corporate farmers concerning regulations to avoid this fatal neurodegenerative disease, which is also know as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

It has caused an epidemic in Europe, and there is no fool-proof way to police it, especially considering the large amount of animal feed distributed in this country. So far, the government has assured us we are safe, but that also happened in Britain where the disease started and killed innocent victims. Experts can’t be sure that it has not affected U.S. cattle, and it takes about a decade to show up.

One of Veneman’s first acts at USDA was to throw cattle ranchers a bone by naming one of their own as her chief of staff. She appointed Dale Moore, a lobbyists for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. (NCBS) to the post. A spokesman for the group said the organization was pleased with the selection. It didn’t draw any noticeable criticism, and there has been no major objections to Veneman’s appointment.

She may gain the nickname, ‘’The Venerable Veneman,’’ from cattlemen if she keeps working ‘’to find common ground and promote common sense’’ in the industry as she vowed to do during her introduction. If the common ground doesn’t maintain a safe food supply, however, she may face public’s enmity.

DON EVANS

A ‘’life-long’’ friend is the way President Bush introduced the new Commerce secretary and that about says it all as far as Evans’ influence and access to the President goes. That friendship goes back to the west Texas where the two worked in the oil business.

Evans was chairman and CEO of Tom Brown inc., one of the oldest names in the West Texas oil business. He and Bush have been acquainted since Bush was graduated from Harvard and came to Texas to seek money in the Texas oil patch.

Evans was the head fund-raiser for Bush during his presidential run and also was chairman of his general election campaign. He makes no bones about where he stands on free enterprise and free trade. ‘’Our business in America is truly business…We will strive to be an advocate for U.S. businesses first in America and also those wading into the waters of the global marketplace,’’ said Evans during his introduction.

Like the late Ron Brown who held the post in the Clinton Administration, Evans knows precisely where the funds that got Bush elected came from. And like Brown he will face pressures for paybacks, and this puts him in a very sensitive post. Bush was the first presidential candidate to raise $100 million, and the first GOP nominee who did not accept taxpayer financing.

One other point. Creditors need not worry about Evans’ check bouncing at the bank. He received tens of millions from Tom Brown Inc. when he retired putting him high if not at the top on the list of millionaires in the Bush cabinet. With Evans, Bush and Cheney coming to town with riches garnered from in the oil business, the oil industry would appear to be in the cat bird seat in Washington.

ELAINE CHAO (CFR)

She comes to head the Labor Department with more establishment and corporate credentials than any for dealing directly with labor issues. She is a member of the CFR and served on several corporate boards including that of Northwest Airlines and Dole Food. She also is a former vice president of Bank of America.

She got the cabinet job, of course, after Linda Chavez bowed out over hiring undocumented workers. Chao might have gotten in the Bush Administration anyway, however, since she was an important fund-raiser during Bush’s presidential campaign.

She is the wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) and both she and he were implicated in Chinagate fund-raising scandal and with John Huang, a key figure in that scandal, according to Judicial Watch. It didn’t keep the former Peace Corps director from winning the post, however.

Chao formerly served as deputy secretary of transportation in the Bush Administration and served in the Reagan Administration as Chairwoman of the Federal Maritime Commission. She also is a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think take crawling with CFR members. So, she is well connected to the establishment.

Whether Chao revealed her meetings with Huang is not known. Huang invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about his relationship with the McConnells.

TOMMY THOMPSON

The 59-year-old former Wisconsin Governor could become one of the strongest voices in the Bush Cabinet on domestic policy issues since his Health and Human Services Department will be responsible for federal health care, welfare and other social programs.

The President plans to revamp the health-care system to include lower income workers in health insurance and to include Medicare members in drug coverage. Thompson, the longest serving governor (14 years), has extensive background in welfare programs. He spearheaded a successful welfare program that required welfare recipients to work. The plan was used as a basis for 1996 federal reform legislation.

His nomination drew the wrath of organizations that support abortion rights. As governor he signed bills that restricted abortion in Wisconsin, including one that provided criminal penalties for late-term abortions. He also supported the Milwaukee school choice vouchers program.

Thompson made no secret of his reluctance to accept the stewardship of the $420 billion human services post and preferred the post of Secretary of Transportation. Bush twisted his arm, however, and here he is.

Most of his political contributions came from the medical profession and insurance companies, but Phillip also tossed more than $70,000 in the campaign till. Like other governors, he, too, was in the pardon business, including one to a republican state senator’s son who had been convicted of cocaine possession.

MEL MARTINEZ

From a 15-year-old Cuban non-English-speaking refugee to heading up an organization with a budget of $30 billion. That’s the story of Mel Martinez, the nation’s first Cuban-American Cabinet Secretary. And that also is a story of the gigantic leap one can make by joining the political class.

Like another Latino who headed the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Clinton Administration, Henry G. Cisneros who resigned with extra-marital problems, Martinez promises to be an activist housing chief. While Cisneros, who was involved in perjury and later was pardoned by Clinton, devised a program to take federal housing projects to the middle-class suburbs, Martinez said: ‘’Until we ensure that barriers to home ownership are torn down for everyone…our job is not done.’’

Martinez, 54, became a lawyer and leading advocate for anti-Castro Cubans in southern Florida. He was chairman of the Orange Country, Fla., government that includes Orlando and was a backer of Jeb Bush, the president’s brother. In addition, he was co-chairman of George Bush’s presidential campaign in Florida.

Martinez labeled himself as a ‘’living testament’’ to the promise of America.

As a member of the Orlando Housing Authority he supported the rights of public housing tenants. As HUD secretary he promised to continue efforts to reform the agency that has made headlines periodically with mismanagement problems.

NORMAN Y. MINETA

What’s a Democrat from the Clinton Administration doing in the Bush Cabinet? And why is he Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) instead of Commerce where he served briefly after William Daley resigned to head Al Gore’s presidential campaign?

The first answer is apparently related to George Bush’s effort to have a rainbow cabinet and be all things to all people. Formally, Bush said he was looking for talent and not necessarily party affiliation. The second is Mineta, who returned to government from a senior post at Lockheed Lockheed-Martin Corp., has a long background in transportation matters.

The 69-year-old former congressman from Silicon Valley also, like Martinez, has a first in his resume – first Asian-American to hold a cabinet post. But he’s not the first to hold such a post in the Bush Administration where the distinction is shared with Elaine Chao. Bush probably has more hyphenated Americans in his cabinet than any other president – far more than Clinton since more than half of the entire cabinet member use hyphens to designate their ethnicity.

Mineta’s background in transportation includes that of what one writer called ‘’a transportation power broker while in Congress’’ where he served more than 20 years on the House Transportation Committee. Some have referred to him as a transportation lobbyist. He has had a hand in most major transportation bills over the last two decades, and that included deregulation of airlines. He says the nation needs to find new solutions for traffic problems with the use of the latest technology.

During his political career his major contributors were major transportation concerns. He, like O’Niell and some others, comes from the corporate community and is not expected to be in any way unfriendly to that community.

SPENCER ABRAHAM

When the President picks a man to head a cabinet department that he once tried to abolish, it makes one wonder in what regard the chief executive holds that department. That happened in the case of Abraham, a one-time senator from Michigan who is the grandson of poor Lebanese immigrants and another hyphenated American in Bush’s rainbow cabinet. He’s the first Arab-American to hold the post. He also is one of three others in the cabinet who couldn’t make it at the polls.

But he has something in common with his boss in that they both favor opening up the nation’s oil-bearing public lands including wildlife refuges to oil exploration. Considering all the members in Bush’s cabinet with oil industry backgrounds, one would appear to be naïve to think environmentalists were going to win the day.

Therein also lies the potential for one of the bitterest policy and corporate welfare debates during Bush’s tenure. It will pit the oil industry and other business groups against conservationists. In fact, the battle has already been joined.

That happened even before Bush completed his energy plan to present to Congress. Senate Republicans led by Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) came up with proposals during the last week of February, which are strongly in favor of industry and against the agenda of environmentalists.

One controversial proposal in the energy package calls for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a wilderness in northeast Alaska that harbors what one environmentalist calls ‘’an incredible diversity of wildlife.’’ He fears oil spills, miles of pipelines and roads, and a general natural disaster from oil drilling. Abraham favors it and has already praised Murkowski for moving quickly with his legislation. Bush formally submitted the idea to Congress in his 2002 budget.

The Senate proposal provides several tax incentives and regulatory relief to oil, coal and nuclear industries to increase energy production. Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated it would provide about $24 billion to industries over a decade if fully funded. Critics also contend it would not do much to help cure the nation’s energy problems.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who signed legislation to prevent drilling in the refuge, criticized the proposed legislation,and one senator, John Kerry, (D-Mass), has threatened to filibuster .

One facet of the legislation is similar to a bill Bush signed while Texas governor. It would benefit big oil companies when oil and gas prices fall below a certain price for a period of time.

Abraham, 48,served one term in the Senate and supported legislation to abolish the Energy Department and transfer most of its function to the Interior Department. He wanted to create an Energy Programs Resolution Agency headed by an administrator. One wonders if he was appointed to serve over the demise of the department.

He is another GOP fund raiser and a member of the first Bush Administration where he served as deputy chief of staff to Vice president Dan Quayle. As a senator he voted to roll back federal clean water and clean air programs and worked to expand opportunities for legal U.S. immigrants.

ROD PAIGE

President Bush has more priorities in his program than a kid with a Christmas list, but he bills education as the top. His wife, a former librarian and grade-school teacher, has gotten into the act. She plans to recruit teachers from the military and any place else she can find them including the White House.

But the man who will be Secretary of Education is a Houston Afro-American who disagreed with Bush on education in the State of Texas to the point of controversy. The two do agree, however, that school construction is sorely needed, and that disadvantaged children need to have access to quality education.

The First Lady launched her teacher recruiting effort with Paige at her side, and said she would join him soon to introduce a new department Web page. The President will increase funding for the Troops to Education program tenfold to $30 million.

Bush also said he would seek more money for a reading initiative and character education as well as the recruiting and retraining of teachers program. His program increases overall education spending by $4.6 billion.

Despite all the rhetoric from the top such as leaving no child behind and pumping more money into the program, education is still run on a day-to-day basis by state and local officials and not the Federal Government. Paige, who holds a doctorate in physical education and is a former football coach, will have more influence in promoting his program via his office and the White House than through actual administration. They can set high standards and accountability.

The 67-year-old Paige’s claim to fame in the education field includes dean of education at Texas Southern University and superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, the nation’s seventh largest, which he is credited with reforming. Under his leadership the pass rate on the state’s TAAS test was raised from 37 to73 percent in six years.

He put teachers and principals on performance contracts and obtained harmony with their unions by improving pay and work conditions. At $275,000 a year, he was one of the highest paid superintendents in the country.

Paige said ‘’The bottom line is this: When we set high standards for our schools and our children and when we give our schools and our children the support they need and hold them accountable for results, public education can get the job done.’’

His chief disagreement with Bush was over state aid for school construction. He told the House Ways and Means Committee in 1999 when Bush was touting his education record in Texas, that he saw little hope the state would ‘’come to our aid in any significant manner.’’ Bush aides said a Texas Supreme Court ruling hindered him from coming to the aid of poor school districts.

Paige also differed from many conservative Republicans on school construction, particularly in supporting the payment of prevailing local wages in school construction projects. But Bush and Paige have more agreements than disagreements on education. Anyway, Paige got the job, so there must be some harmony there somewhere.

ANTHONY PRINCIPI

Here’s another cabinet member out of the first Bush stable where he served as acting veterans affairs secretary during the tail end of that administration.

He is a graduate of the Naval Academy and decorated combat veteran, having served in the Vietnam War.

Principi is a staunch veterans advocate and has long supported expanding military and veterans benefits. ‘’I’m asking him to take the lead in modernizing the veterans’ health care system so all our veterans are treated with dignity,’’ Bush said in introducing the 56-year-old vet.

He is expected to speed up paperwork processing and to work to reverse a 1999 court ruling that prevents the VA from helping establish disability claims.

OTHERS

That’s the new cabinet. But that doesn’t include all the people without cabinet rank who will have influence on the scene in Washington.

For example there’s Bush’s dad, the former president, and Jim Baker his secretary of state who are always a phone call away. Then there is Karl Rove, his White House adviser and assistant, who provided political strategy during the campaign; Lawrence B. Lindsey, his economic policy planner, and Andrew Card, his chief of staff who was formerly with the Reagan and first Bush Administrations. He also will have his budget director and Council of Economic Advisers to rely on and many other secondary officials. And don’t forget the First Lady.

One of these lesser ranking persons may emerge as a major conduit to the president, and some of the most publicized names may leave abruptly. Strange things happen in presidential politics.

Top

An Essay

By Richard C. Sizemore

President Bush has a penchant for nicknames, and his father who knows it, nicknamed him Quincy after the first son to follow his father as president.  Musing about another nickname that would be appropriate for the 43rd president, One Vote George sounded good, since he won the office by one Supreme Court vote and one electoral vote.

Now, however, it appears that something like Fearless George or Intrepid George might be more fitting.

The reason is that after becoming entangled in religion during the campaign with his visit to Bob Jones University, Bush wound up apologizing, atoning and explaining his actions that caused him much political heat.  One of his apologies was to the late Cardinal John O’connor of New York.

So, one would think that Bush had learned his lesson well and would have steered an out-of-the-way course around the religious issue.  Not Fearless George, however. He headed full-steam ahead into the fire entangling himself and the federal government into the First Amendment controversy. He even managed to make critics out of some of the people he was trying to give government money to, and that’s not an easy thing to do.

Even the Supreme Court has made a conflict of the First Amendment in the eyes of some jurists like Robert Bork and established secularism as the nation’s official creed by driving religion out of the public life.  The learned judges on the High Court just can’t seem to get the right meaning of 16 little words in the Constitution:  ‘’Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’’ 

Now Bush has gotten into the act unnecessarily with his so-called ‘’faith-based’’ charity program whereby the churches aid the poor and the government aids the churches for doing so.  But wait, it isn’t that simple.

Somebody has to give approval to a church to qualify it for government funds even if accreditation and supervision of their program are left to the churches themselves as it now stands.  That spells more government bureaucracy.  And when the government approves a number of churches eligible for federal funds to dispense to charities  because they are churches by its definition, does that mean the government is establishing churches?  Clearly, it can’t establish one church.  But can it establish several?  The Supreme Court may wind up kicking that one around one day.  That there will be suits and counter suits by the various religions is a no-brainer.

Already under Bush’s ‘’charitable choice’’ program in Texas, Jews and civil rights advocates are suing the state charging the program in one county used state funds in a job training program to purchase Bibles.  They also charge that tenets of evangelical Christianity were incorporated into the training program.

When the government dangles billions of tax dollars (8 the first year) to hand out to religious charities, you can bet there will be a scramble for a piece of the pie, and a discrediting of some churches by others in order to get a bigger share.  There will be charges that some religions are favored over others.

Already, Christian Coalition Founder Pat Robertson complains that if government grants are given to Catholics, Protestants and Jews, they also will be given to Hare Krishnas, the Church of Scientology or Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.  Others have expressed concern that tax money might go to Louis Farrakhan and denominations and cults they never heard of..

It will be a job keeping track of all the denominations (those existing and those to be formed) that weigh in for funds.  As an example, the National Association of Evangelicals alone represents 51 denominations.  But how about the big boys?

CATHOLICS:

Take the Catholic Church, for example. Its members who support abortion are opposing an infallible Pope who holds power under Church cannon to excommunicate them.  Yet, if they hold office they must take an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution which allows abortion.  Do other denominations want their tax money to support a church with an infallible Pope who opposes the Constitution?

Other churches also oppose abortion, but their leaders are not infallible and do not have the power of ex-communication over them if they go against church teachings. Catholics are apparently in the dark as to what else is infallible in most of the Pope’s bulls (papal edicts) and encyclicals (circulars on Church policy to the Bishops), according to Peter De Rosa, a former Jesuit priest.

In Vicars of Christ, De Rosa suggests the Pope should provide a list of what is infallible and what is not.  If Catholic priests do not know this, how can Americans who vote for Catholics or taxpayers whose funds are going to Catholics know it?  Other churches have a right to complain about this, however, and could wind up doing so, especially if the government money flows heavily to Catholic charities.

In addition, the Vatican as recently as September, 2000, declared that other religions were unequal, including Protestant Christian. It declared that only faithful Catholics can attain full salvation from earthly sin, and that other beliefs have defects that render them inferior.

JEWS:

In speaking of Jews one must consider that there are three branches of Judaism – Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, and maybe a fourth called non-religious or liberal Jews.  Jews, mostly from the latter group, have for decades been involved in suits to outlaw prayer in schools and to remove other religious practices from school and the public. 

They are disproportionately represented in politics, the news media and other positions of influence, and the other religions also will watch government funds flowing their way.

Criticism could also come from the fact that there is an establishment of religion in Israel and that establishment enjoys many privileges and power.  Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak supported a new constitution that would guarantee more equality between Jews and non-Jews. 

Robertson writes in The New Millennium that the ‘’Liberal Jews have actually forsaken biblical faith in God, and made a religion of political liberalism,’’ such as their position for abortion, banning religion from the public.

ISLAM:

And if  money flows to Islam, the religion of Muslims who believe there is only one God, Allah,

taxpayers and other religious groups could site that religion as intolerant and point to the ‘’fatwa’’ (comparable to contract in gangster parlance) that the late Ayatollah Khomeini decreed for writer Salmon Rushdie as an example.

Does this mean that anyone who criticizes the religion may be subject to a ‘’fatwa?’’  The history of religious tolerance in America is in no way compatible with that thinking. It is interesting to note that the University of Chicago’s Great Books of the Western World scholars who wrote the religious section did not regard the Koran as sacred scripture.  Those books were published in 1952 and have been  around much longer that Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

Even former President Bill Clinton quoted from an atheistic poem, The Rubaiyat of Omar Kayyam, to stress his alleged sorrow for sins committed during the attempt to oust him from office.  The poem was written as a spoof of the Islamic religion. Clinton said a friend referred him to the lines he quoted, which indicated he did not know the background of the poem.

The point is Rushdie is not the only critic of the religion, although the Ayatollah claimed he committed blasphemy, which  apparently Islam considers a capital crime.

PROTESTANTS

There are the traditional antagonism between Protestants and Catholics and other religious against Christianity in general, but it goes deeper.  Protestants, of course, are split into several denominations the most drastic of which is the so-called mainline churches and the so-called Christian Right and Evangelicals, which have degrees of interpreting the Bible as literal.  They range from very liberal by mainline churches to verbatim by some sects.

That Protestantism will be questioned by other religions is as certain as the controversies that have gone on within the religion since its inception.  Even three of the  most famous Jewish philosophers and critics of Judaism –Moses Maimonides and Baruch Spinoza and Moses Mendelssohn – questioned the rationality of most of the Old Testament and Judaism from which Christianity originated.  Spinoza, of course, was thrown out of the Jewish religion and  suffered the pangs of what that ostracism entailed.

All this is meant to show that among all of the great religions, sects and cults controversy  reigns. As the writers of the Great Books noted:  ‘’Of all subjects the most controversial, religious issues seem to be the least capable of being settled by controversy.’’

As noted, however, that doesn’t sway Intrepid George from getting entangled.  Some of his high powered aides should have planted the old adage on his desk:  ‘’The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’’  And his goal appears to be well intended.  Surely, he could have found a better way to distribute the taxpayers money to the indigent, affirmed and inflicted.

Faith-based organizations receiving taxpayer money for their services is not new.  Groups such as Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Service, Lutheran Social Services and others have in the past maintained separate organizations to receive government funding.  The organizations also were required to meet certain standards and be accountable to the government for the use of the funds.

Bush’s new charitable choice plan, patterned after the one he implemented in Texas that is now the subject of religious squabbling, requires only that the funds not be used for evangelical purposes.  It is weak on accountability. But it does stipulate that social service programs that regard religious conversion as their central method and mission will not be eligible for ‘’direct’’ government grants.

They can get indirect money, however, through vouchers given to needy clients who can choose them for their needs.

With White House approval, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has decided to delay Bush’s controversial program for expanding the charitable choice law for direct funding for religious groups because of the severe criticism it received. Instead, he is offering the part of the proposal that includes tax incentives to encourage giving.

This will give the administration more time to develop the nitty-gritty of its program to try and please all religious groups and meet, if possible, First Amendment, restrictions.  The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that the government may not directly fund religion.  But it has also held that it may indirectly do so.

BETTER WAYS

All the Bush program has done so far is stir up controversy and create a new bureaucracy and a job for another Yale professor, John J. Dilulio jr.   It was unnecessary, and he could have gotten money to charities without stirring up the smoldering cauldron of religious hostilities and Supreme Court bias. How?

Pundits and Monday morning quarterbacks offer several suggestions.  One, of course, would have been the status quo.  But that wouldn’t have offered much incentive for support from religious groups during the campaign, or provided more funds for charity.

Others, as stated, are vouchers for individuals who can choose their own charities for assistance. Separate spin-off secular affiliates of churches for obtaining government funds is another possibility.  The latter option would amount to another government effort to drive churches to secularism.

Tax breaks for charitable givers with the government promoting such activity appears to be a good way to skirt the religious issue.  Taxpayers should be held accountable on their tax refunds for such giving, however.  Unaccountability will bring religious phonies such as Elmer Gantry and Bobby Baker out of the woodworks.

The program as it now stands appears to be in serious jeopardy.  Maybe that’s as it should be. Fearless George should go back to the drawing board on this one, and that appears to be what his advisers are planning.  He also should consider that he never received a mandate from voters for any of his new drastic programs, some of which he enacted via bypassing Congress with executive orders.

This program in particular begs trouble.

Top