First, let's get the story straight. Republicans are not voting against Childrens Health Care. The SCHIP program has been in effect for several years, and Republicans DID vote to start the program. And like most government-run programs it is wasteful and was not administered properly. Millions of illegals' children are enrolled in the program, taking funds that should go to American children. That is one of the things Republicans want watched before expanding the program. Expansion might not be necessary to the tune of 6 billion if the illegals got taken off. All the Republicans asked was that the Democrats extend the program for another 6 months as it stands now (they NEVER voted to stop it completely) and work on a solution to remove illegals and make sure no more illegals get on, etc. This has never been about voting against health care for children. They are not voting to stop SCHIP, just tighten it up. Of course, because of the liberal bias of media, all you see are headlines saying BUSH TO VETO CHILDRENS HEALTH CARE PLAN and REPUBLICANS WANT TO STOP CHILDRENS HEALTH CARE PLAN. Both of these are lies. The 'socialized medicine' comment, I believe, was directed toward the Democrat plan to stop all private health care and make the whole thing government run. And when they do that, the quality of health care will tank and the ability to get superior medical care for catastrophic incidents, high-risk surgery, etc., will drop dramatically. Ask Canada. Ask why Canadians come to the US for that kind of care? Because they don't want to be on government waiting lists for months/years. Do some research. It HAPPENS. Socialized medicine hurts the middle class and poor, because richer folks can still pay cash and get the higher standard of care. Believe me, folks, we don't need socialized medicine in this country.
As I have stated in other posts, tighten up the SCHIP program to exclude illegals and monitor the program properly so that it does what it is designed to do...provide health care for American children whose parents cannot afford to buy it. Look at all social programs here (fraught with waste), tighten them up, and prioritize. Put Childrens Health care at the top of the pile. Use common sense, like American families have to do inidividually. We know we can't provide everything for our families we would like to, so we have to prioritize, to make sure the most important things are taken care of first. Government should run the same way. If government is going to provide health care for kids (and I believe if we are going to have social programs that one should be FIRST), then do so, and make that the FIRST priority of social spending. If that cuts into lesser needed programs, so be it. First things first. If we do not start being fiscally responsible with spending, we are going to dig ourselves into a hole. The more people who get on assistance and do not pay into the tax system, the bigger the burden is on the rest of us who do have to work and pay taxes. Personally I think 35-40% off the top of my wages is enough. I think the government just has to prioritize and be more careful about the way they spend it.
Just my two cents.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
Sorry, I'm still venting from the SCHIP garbage that was on today. They absolutely want to pass this immediately without looking at amendments, etc. They want an additional 11 million children covered ( nothing wrong with that) EXCEPT they want to put it on the smokers to pay for it. Now, with the way they are trying to get smokers to quit, I would think that's a stupid and absolutely wrong idea.
Like James Webb (NC) stated, "Do we really want an unhealthy habit to pay for a healthy habit?"What happens when the smokers quit because of all the taxes they have to pay to keep these programs going? Who is going to pay for it if every smoker quits? You have nothing to back it up. There would be a black hole and eventually, every citizen would have to pay for it.
I agree totally with his statements. Why is it they expect an unhealthy habit to cover healthy habits? It makes no sense. At least this rep has his head together, yet the others don't think about the future costs.
When are the American citizens going to wake up and start thinking for themselves? Why, oh why, do we keep voting in people who don't even think for themselves, just vote by party affiliation?
Glenn Beck stated we have to keep the phone lines to Washington and keep calling in to our reps to stop the nonsense (sp). I agree.
I watched the jerk put in the Senate by fellow voters from my state today and I had to turn him off (I didn't vote for him-he knows nothing). I am going to write to the newspapers in that area and ask them WHY did they vote for him? Betcha my answer will be "He gave us so much money to get our projects done." "He's the son of our late governor." "He's from our area." That's no reason to vote for somebody. If it is, then I must be totally wrong for voting the way I do. I vote who I think will do the best job, not if he's from our area. That's part of the problem with politics today.
I'll get off my now. Thanks for reading. I promise no more venting today.
SCHIP and Illegals
I do not have an article where Bush himself said it; I heard him on TV on one of those blurbs talking about it. The opposition of the Republicans is that the present bill is an expansion of SCHIP (to the tune fo 6 billion dollars) and opens the door to make it easy for illegals to get on the program legally...although some states who administer SCHIP already do it on the "honor system" and don't ask for proof of citizenship, so you tell me how many are already on it.
This is from an article that sums up what I have read:
Democratic SCHIP Bill Benefits Illegal Immigrants, GOP Charges
(CNSNews.com) - House Republicans said Thursday they hope to block provisions of a Democratic bill to expand health care coverage for poor children that could open up the coverage to illegal immigrants.
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection (CHAMP) Act would expand the existing State Children's Health Insurance Program - more than doubling it in size - and "improve beneficiary protections under the Medicare, Medicaid and the [SCHIP] program."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the bill has come under fire from Republicans who view its expansions in coverage as a step toward nationalized health care. Republicans are now also attacking the bill because of three sections dealing with immigration issues.
"Illegal immigrants are about to get an unexpected boost thanks to the Democratic Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement Thursday.
"The Democrats have a proposal that not only raises taxes on middle class families and slashes funding for a popular Medicare program ... it eliminates the requirement that persons applying for Medicaid or SCHIP service show proof of citizenship or nationality."
Calling the bill "poorly crafted," Boehner said the proposal would "dole out billions of dollars to states who then have the option of whether or not to verify that a person is an American citizen before providing taxpayer-funded health benefits like Medicaid and SCHIP. The bill also eliminates the current five-year waiting period required for legal immigrants to receive government health benefits."
One provision, Section 132, would remove a requirement that legal immigrants wait five years before being eligible for government-funded health care coverage, according to Republican opponents.
The other two sections have potential applicability to illegal residents. Section 143 would give states the option of requiring proof of citizenship for enrollment in the programs. Opponents say the provision allows states to "return to a system of blind trust."
As to pandering to get the Hispanic ILLEGAL vote, why do you think this bill is crafted this way from the Dems to make sure they can get their kids on SCHIP? Dems have been chasing the illegal immigrant vote even more so than Republicans...in fact, they COUNT on it. I have heard Bush talk about amnesty and that is one of the places that he and I disagree. Although, I don't think he is courting the Hispanic vote or he would not be vetoing a program that puts them right on the SCHIP rolls no questions asked...now would he??
I think it is more important to let the bill stay as-is for 6 months than to open it up as a freeforall for illegals to get their kids on it. YES, I think it is more important. I am not a Republican, but I am a fiscal conservative, and I certainly agree in this case.
And yes, before you ask, I have children. I may not have everything I want, but I can insure my kids. And I don't make $80,000 a year either...about expanding SCHIP to cover "middle income" families. They are talking about a family of 4 with total income of $80,000 a year (2 adults 2 kids) being eligible for a program that was designed to cover low income kids. THat is what...400% of the poverty level and how much higher than the median income in the US? I'm sorry, but an annual income of $80,000...there should be a way for those folks to cover their children. They are not talking about cancelling any other programs or any way to pay for this 6 billion dollar expansion other than a cigarette tax, which everyone knows will not cover it all. Yes, I think kids should have health care... but if they are going to pay for it for an annual income of $80,000 they might as well pay for it for ALL kids, period. And that is the first step toward socialized medicine, and I don't need a Democrat or a Republican to tell me that. I can see the handwriting on the wall. Do some research on socialized medicine in Canada...the pros and the cons...and see if you really want that happening here.
And if they are going to do that, they might as well pay it for everyone = socialized medicine. Be careful what you ask for. Government run medical care...I don't think you want to go there.
And, frankly, if they want to expand it to cover a family of 4 making $80,000 a year, I don't think it should be a freebie. Maybe offered at a lower rate than families who make more than that...but come on. A family making $80,000 a year should be able to insure their children. Insuring their children should be their FIRST priority. You tell me what would keep a family of 4 with annual income of $80,000 from being able to insure their children? If anything, it is because 35-40% of their income comes off the top in TAXES right now to pay for all the social programs in this country. Why not LOWER taxes to help them pay their premiums instead of taxing us all MORE to give them health care? Why not do that? But you say tax cut to a Democrat and they get apoplectic.
Perhaps it is because people don't want to prioritize and don't want to do without anything in order to insure their children, would rather spend it on something else. There ARE families who choose to do that. You are naive if you think there are not.
Honestly, if we do not control spending, and we give more and more entitlements and extend those entitlements higher and higher up the income level...can you not see the vicious circle? Are we going to extend it in another 5 years for families of 4 who make $120,000 a year because we have taxed everyone so much that now THEY can't afford to insure their children? Come on! Why not prioritize? Take all the money earmarked for social programs, put insuring children at the top, insure all the children if that is what the american people think is most important, and whatever is left, dole out to the remaining programs. Try prioritizing instead of more programs, more taxes, more programs, more taxes. I personally think that 35-40% in taxes off the top of our incomes is ENOUGH. Sorry to keep bringing it up - SCHIP
I found this website while trying to look up some more info and thought I'd share it.
http://www.ncsl.org/print/health/CRSSbyS0807.pdf
I'm now thoroughly confused on the arguments against expanding it. It does require proof of citizenship (states responsibility to document), so I'm not quite sure how that means it will allow illegal immigrants access - at least any more access than they already have to medicaid - however they get it. It also seems to state that the limit on income will be determined by the states - which would somewhat answer the question I posted below. I've heard interviews on television with those against the expansion quoting the $88,000 limit. (which I did not see mentioned, but I certainly have no idea what's discussed in Congress). As I said below, for a family whose living expenses are relatively low, $88,000 is a lot of money, but for a family who lives where the living expenses are insanely high, $88,000 does not go as far.
Observer, or any others, have you found a site that explains why some are against it?
The only problem is...they are raising the cigarette tax to $.61 a pack. According to Glenn Beck, we will need 21,000,000 NEW smokers to cover the program. Kinda ironic....use something that is unhealthy to give coverage to keep the kids healthy.
I don't know what they are thinking. I think the government has their heads in the sand. Every time they tie a new program to smokers, more smokers quit. How are they ever going to cover all these children if another couple thousand people quit smoking?
I absolutely think this program will not work like they think and in a couple years, if not next year, they will be raising taxes on everyone because of the shortfall in the planned coverage.
Sheesh! How did these people ever complete college????? They have no sense.
Other rules that affect which services are to be covered under SCHIP:
Abortion services may only be provided to save the life of the mother, or to terminate a pregnancy resulting from an act of rape or incest.
In general, states can not permit the implementation of preexisting condition exclusions.
If SCHIP plans provide coverage through group health plans, preexisting condition exclusions are permitted only in so far as HIPAA rules allow.
This is what I found about HIPAA and preexisting conditions:
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), effective July 1, 1997, provides certain protections for people who have preexisting medical conditions. A preexisting condition is any medical condition that a person has before being enrolled in an insurance plan.
This law helps protect your health insurance benefits by:
limiting exclusion periods for preexisting conditions;
lowering your chances of losing your existing coverage or of being discriminated against because of your health;
providing protections for you when you change jobs;
allowing you and your dependents special enrollment rights under your employer's health plan under certain circumstances.
I cannot find anything relating to the cost of covering a child with a pre-existing condition in private insurance.......there are a multitude of sites where you can do the "get a quote" thing...but I don't find anything that gives cost or even estimated cost up front. I will look around some more when I have more time.
Point taken, although I was not talking just about SCHIP...
I was talking about any government administered health plan. You can choose to ignore the VA system or Canada's government controlled health plan if you want to....I choose not to. With that being said...no more on government health care.
McConnell Amendment to H.R. 2 (SCHIP)
All Things Considered, October 3, 2007 · President Bush has made good on his promise to veto a bill to expand a popular children's health insurance program, saying the bill could lead the nation toward a system of socialized medicine.
But backers of the measure, who are working to override the veto, say the president doesn't understand how the bill would actually work.
At issue is the State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. It currently covers about 6 million children in families that earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid program for the poor, but not enough to afford their own, private health insurance. The bill the president vetoed would have added $35 billion to the program over the next five years — enough to cover about 10 million children total.
"I believe in private medicine," Bush told an audience in Lancaster, Penn., on Wednesday morning. "I believe in helping poor people, which was the intent of SCHIP, now being expanded beyond its initial intent. I also believe that the federal government should make it easier for people to afford private insurance. I don't want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers."
Not Administered by the Government
But SCHIP isn't the kind of program where government officials make medical decisions. Under SCHIP, children are enrolled in private health insurance.
"Typically, children have a choice from among competing private health-insurance companies," says Stan Dorn, a senior research associate with the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "There's no federally specified benefits package. There's no individual entitlement."
The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
Health Care Confusion for All
Still, Dorn says the real irony is that the bill, which was negotiated largely by Republicans in the Senate, goes a long way toward meeting the goals that Bush said he wanted for the program.
"It's limited the ability to go up the income scale. It's focused resources on the poorest uninsured kids. It's imposed new duties on states to prevent government funds from crowding out employer coverage," Dorn says.
In other words, the bill addresses all of the president's complaints, including his concern that families with private coverage now will drop it in favor of government-subsidized care.
But it's not just the president who is confused; Democrats are, too. Last week, at a news conference, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the story of 12-year-old Deamonte Driver, the Maryland boy who died earlier this year after an untreated abscessed tooth turned into a brain infection.
"He had a toothache," Hoyer said, "but he didn't have health insurance, and his folks could not access dental care."
Actually, Deamonte Driver did have health insurance. He had Medicaid. His mother just couldn't find a dentist who would accept that Medicaid coverage — which is a whole different problem.
Meanwhile, Congress has continued funding for the SCHIP program through mid-November while the bigger battle plays out. A House override vote on the president's veto is now scheduled for Oct. 18.
Link to article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
I agree that the bill is a bit confusing, but I think it's great so many of us are actually looking into it to find out what it is really about. I think the New York Times article below clarifies the income guidelines pretty well. I also want to say that I heard that if we go with Bush's $5 billion plan for SCHIP it will be grossly underfunded, as apparently, it is already underfunded and many kids who qualify with the current income guidelines cannot get on SCHIP, so I hope he is willing to at least compromise and give more money to the program if his veto isn't overridden. It's for a good cause, darn it!
"Oct. 16 — It is the $83,000 question: Could children with that amount of family income qualify for subsidized health insurance under the bipartisan bill passed by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?
When the House votes Thursday on whether to override the veto, Republicans will insist that the answer is yes. They will express outrage that rich children could get coverage from the government while hundreds of thousands of poor children still go uninsured.
Democrats say it is a total distortion for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies to say that the bill allows coverage with family incomes up to $83,000 a year.
Who is right? Each side appears to overstate its case. The bill does not encourage or prohibit coverage of children with family incomes at that level.
Of the 6.6 million children now covered by the program, most come from families with incomes well below $83,000, and the bill would give states financial incentives to sign up low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled.
In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.
Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.
But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.
Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”
States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.
In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.
States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.
While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.
In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.
Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.
Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.
Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”
Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level.
Some of the current confusion can be traced back to a bill introduced in March by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats. They would have explicitly allowed all states to expand eligibility to families making four times the poverty level. But the bill passed by Congress did not go that far." -by Robert Pear
Well, for SCHIP I posted from the Library of Congress....
and for Bush's transcript I posted a copy of the real thing. Now if you want to delve into conspiracy theories ala Dan Rather and think I cooked the Yale transcript, more power to you. Liberals post from the New York Times all the time....a more partisan source as far as print media does not exist...unless it is the moveon.org site. You know that as well as I do. This really has become a Bush bash-a-thon...and it is somewhat surprising that you join in that...when you purport to be above that sort of thing. However, to each his own. Takes all kinds to make the world go round.
EXACTLY. Bush didn't want SCHIP but he darn
healthcare for children is socialism but this is not. He is about 5 beers short of a 6 pack!!
Please try to De-program
Please try to change your mind set from the negative programming of the campaign. The whole world is able to celebrate that America has chosen a man of integrity and intelligence to be our leader. Believe me things are going to be so much better now that we have at the helm a thinking person who has the people's interest as his guiding principle. Just as he surrounded himself with the best and brightest to organize and run an honorable and successful campaign, he will use those same resources to bring our nation to honor and success...President-elect Obama's success is all of our success
Question about SCHIP and children with pre-existing conditions
I don't have children, but do have pre-existing conditions and pay an obscene amount for health insurance coverage. My questions are these: 1. Does SCHIP cover children with pre-existing conditions? 2. Can a person/family secure private sector insurance if their child has pre-existing conditions, and if so the approximate cost of coverage?
Oh, get with the program! Its "patriotic"
nm
Here's a summary of the program
Making Home Affordable will offer assistance to as many as 7 to 9 million homeowners, making their mortgages more affordable and helping to prevent the destructive impact of foreclosures on families, communities and the national economy.
The Home Affordable Refinance program will be available to 4 to 5 million homeowners who have a solid payment history on an existing mortgage owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Normally, these borrowers would be unable to refinance because their homes have lost value, pushing their current loan-to-value ratios above 80%. Under the Home Affordable Refinance program, many of them will now be eligible to refinance their loan to take advantage of today’s lower mortgage rates or to refinance an adjustable-rate mortgage into a more stable mortgage, such as a 30-year fixed rate loan.
GSE lenders and servicers already have much of the borrower’s information on file, so documentation requirements are not likely to be burdensome. In addition, in some cases an appraisal will not be necessary. This flexibility will make the refinance quicker and less costly for both borrowers and lenders. The Home Affordable Refinance program ends in June 2010.
The Home Affordable Modification program will help up to 3 to 4 million at-risk homeowners avoid foreclosure by reducing monthly mortgage payments. Working with the banking and credit union regulators, the FHA, the VA, the USDA and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Treasury Department today announced program guidelines that are expected to become standard industry practice in pursuing affordable and sustainable mortgage modifications. This program will work in tandem with an expanded and improved Hope for Homeowners program.
With the information now available, servicers can begin immediately to modify eligible mortgages under the Modification program so that at-risk borrowers can better afford their payments. The detailed guidelines (separate document) provide information on the following:
Eligibility and Verification
Loans originated on or before January 1, 2009.
First-lien loans on owner-occupied properties with unpaid principal balance up to $729,750. Higher limits allowed for owner-occupied properties with 2-4 units.
All borrowers must fully document income, including signed IRS 4506-T, two most recent pay stubs, and most recent tax return, and must sign an affidavit of financial hardship.
Property owner occupancy status will be verified through borrower credit report and other documentation; no investor-owned, vacant, or condemned properties.
Incentives to lenders and servicers to modify at risk borrowers who have not yet missed payments when the servicer determines that the borrower is at imminent risk of default.
Modifications can start from now until December 31, 2012; loans can be modified only once under the program.
Loan Modification Terms and Procedures
Participating servicers are required to service all eligible loans under the rules of the program unless explicitly prohibited by contract; servicers are required to use reasonable efforts to obtain waivers of limits on participation.
Participating loan servicers will be required to use a net present value (NPV) test on each loan that is at risk of imminent default or at least 60 days delinquent. The NPV test will compare the net present value of cash flows with modification and without modification. If the test is positive – meaning that the net present value of expected cash flow is greater in the modification scenario – the servicer must modify absent fraud or a contract prohibition.
Parameters of the NPV test are spelled out in the guidelines, including acceptable discount rates, property valuation methodologies, home price appreciation assumptions, foreclosure costs and timelines, and borrower cure and redefault rate assumptions.
Servicers will follow a specified sequence of steps in order to reduce the monthly payment to no more than 31% of gross monthly income (DTI).
The modification sequence requires first reducing the interest rate (subject to a rate floor of 2%), then if necessary extending the term or amortization of the loan up to a maximum of 40 years, and then if necessary forbearing principal. Principal forgiveness or a Hope for Homeowners refinancing are acceptable alternatives.
The monthly payment includes principal, interest, taxes, insurance, flood insurance, homeowner’s association and/or condominium fees. Monthly income includes wages, salary, overtime, fees, commissions, tips, social security, pensions, and all other income.
Servicers must enter into the program agreements with Treasury’s financial agent on or before December 31, 2009.
Payments to Servicers, Lenders, and Responsible Borrowers
The program will share with the lender/investor the cost of reductions in monthly payments from 38% DTI to 31% DTI.
Servicers that modify loans according to the guidelines will receive an up-front fee of $1,000 for each modification, plus “pay for success” fees on still-performing loans of $1,000 per year.
Homeowners who make their payments on time are eligible for up to $1,000 of principal reduction payments each year for up to five years.
The program will provide one-time bonus incentive payments of $1,500 to lender/investors and $500 to servicers for modifications made while a borrower is still current on mortgage payments.
The program will include incentives for extinguishing second liens on loans modified under this program.
No payments will be made under the program to the lender/investor, servicer, or borrower unless and until the servicer has first entered into the program agreements with Treasury’s financial agent.
Similar incentives will be paid for Hope for Homeowner refinances.
Transparency and Accountability
Measures to prevent and detect fraud, such as documentation and audit requirements, will be central to the program.
Servicers will be required to collect, maintain and transmit records for verification and compliance review, including borrower eligibility, underwriting, incentive payments, property verification, and other documentation.
The Other Big Brother The Pentagon has its own domestic spying program. Even its leaders say the outfit may have gone too far.
By Michael Isikoff Newsweek
Jan. 30, 2006 issue - The demonstration seemed harmless enough. Late on a June afternoon in 2004, a motley group of about 10 peace activists showed up outside the Houston headquarters of Halliburton, the giant military contractor once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. They were there to protest the corporation's supposed war profiteering. The demonstrators wore papier-mache masks and handed out free peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches to Halliburton employees as they left work. The idea, according to organizer Scott Parkin, was to call attention to allegations that the company was overcharging on a food contract for troops in Iraq. It was tongue-in-street political theater, Parkin says.
But that's not how the Pentagon saw it. To U.S. Army analysts at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), the peanut-butter protest was regarded as a potential threat to national security. Created three years ago by the Defense Department, CIFA's role is force protection—tracking threats and terrorist plots against military installations and personnel inside the United States. In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy Defense secretary, authorized a fact-gathering operation code-named TALON—short for Threat and Local Observation Notice—that would collect raw information about suspicious incidents. The data would be fed to CIFA to help the Pentagon's terrorism threat warning process, according to an internal Pentagon memo.
A Defense document shows that Army analysts wrote a report on the Halliburton protest and stored it in CIFA's database. It's not clear why the Pentagon considered the protest worthy of attention—although organizer Parkin had previously been arrested while demonstrating at ExxonMobil headquarters (the charges were dropped). But there are now questions about whether CIFA exceeded its authority and conducted unauthorized spying on innocent people and organizations. A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject.
CIFA's activities are the latest in a series of disclosures about secret government programs that spy on Americans in the name of national security. In December, the ACLU obtained documents showing the FBI had investigated several activist groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Greenpeace, supposedly in an effort to discover possible ecoterror connections. At the same time, the White House has spent weeks in damage-control mode, defending the controversial program that allowed the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of U.S. persons suspected of terror links, without obtaining warrants.
Last Thursday, Cheney called the program vital to the country's defense against Al Qaeda. Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not, he said in a speech to the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. But as the new information about CIFA shows, the scope of the U.S. government's spying on Americans may be far more extensive than the public realizes.
It isn't clear how many groups and individuals were snagged by CIFA's dragnet. Details about the program, including its size and budget, are classified. In December, NBC News obtained a 400-page compilation of reports that detailed a portion of TALON's surveillance efforts. It showed the unit had collected information on nearly four dozen antiwar meetings or protests, including one at a Quaker meetinghouse in Lake Worth, Fla., and a Students Against War demonstration at a military recruiting fair at the University of California, Santa Cruz. A Pentagon spokesman declined to say why a private company like Halliburton would be deserving of CIFA's protection. But in the past, Defense Department officials have said that the force protection mission includes military contractors since soldiers and Defense employees work closely with them and therefore could be in danger.
CIFA researchers apparently cast a wide net and had a number of surveillance methods—both secretive and mundane—at their disposal. An internal CIFA PowerPoint slide presentation recently obtained by William Arkin, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who writes widely about military affairs, gives some idea how the group operated. The presentation, which Arkin provided to NEWSWEEK, shows that CIFA analysts had access to law-enforcement reports and sensitive military and U.S. intelligence documents. (The group's motto appears at the bottom of each PowerPoint slide: Counterintelligence 'to the Edge'.) But the organization also gleaned data from open source Internet monitoring. In other words, they surfed the Web.
That may have been how the Pentagon came to be so interested in a small gathering outside Halliburton. On June 23, 2004, a few days before the Halliburton protest, an ad for the event appeared on houston.indymedia.org, a Web site for lefty Texas activists. Stop the war profiteers, read the posting. Bring out the kids, relatives, Dick Cheney, and your favorite corporate pigs at the trough as we will provide food for free.
Four months later, on Oct. 25, the TALON team reported another possible threat to national security. The source: a Miami antiwar Web page. Website advertises protest planned at local military recruitment facility, the internal report warns. The database entry refers to plans by a south Florida group called the Broward Anti-War Coalition to protest outside a strip-mall recruiting office in Lauderhill, Fla. The TALON entry lists the upcoming protest as a credible threat. As it turned out, the entire event consisted of 15 to 20 activists waving a giant bush lied sign. No one was arrested. It's very interesting that the U.S. military sees a domestic peace group as a threat, says Paul Lefrak, a librarian who organized the protest.
Arkin says a close reading of internal CIFA documents suggests the agency may be expanding its Internet monitoring, and wants to be as surreptitious as possible. CIFA has contracted to buy identity masking software that would allow the agency to create phony Web identities and let them appear to be located in foreign countries, according to a copy of the contract with Computer Sciences Corp. (The firm declined to comment.)
Pentagon officials have broadly defended CIFA as a legitimate response to the domestic terror threat. But at the same time, they acknowledge that an internal Pentagon review has found that CIFA's database contained some information that may have violated regulations. The department is not allowed to retain information about U.S. citizens for more than 90 days—unless they are reasonably believed to have some link to terrorism, criminal wrongdoing or foreign intelligence. There was information that was improperly stored, says a Pentagon spokesman who was authorized to talk about the program (but not to give his name). It was an oversight. In a memo last week, obtained by NEWSWEEK, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered CIFA to purge such information from its files—and directed that all Defense Department intelligence personnel receive refresher training on department policies.
That's not likely to stop the questions. Last week Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee pushed for an inquiry into CIFA's activities and who it's watching. This is a significant Pandora's box [Pentagon officials] don't want opened, says Arkin. What we're looking at is hints of what they're doing. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, that means we've already seen too much.
Fox New Program on Obama - Sunday night 10/12
HELLO EVERYONE: IMPORTANT INFORMATION!! > > SEAN HANNITY, OF HANNITY & COLMES ~ FOX NEWS, IS GOING TO AIR A VERY > IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY ABOUT BARACK OBAMA, SUNDAY NIGHT AT 9:00 PM. HE > STATED ON THE AIR THIS EVENING THAT NO ONE IN THE NEWS MEDIA WAS WILLING > TO DO THIS. HANNITY IS GOING BACK TO OBAMA'S EARLIER DAYS, SHOWING EVEN > THEN HIS TIES TO RADICAL PROFESSORS, FRIENDS, SPIRITUAL ADVISERS, Etc., > HE STATED THIS EVENING THAT HE WILL SHOW IN DETAIL HIS TIES TO REV. > WRIGHT FOR 20+ YRS (which we all > know) HOW HE WAS PARTICIPATING WITH THIS MAN, AND NOT FOR THE REASONS HE > STATES! HE HAS UNCOVERED MORE OF OBAMA'S RADICAL LEADERS AND WE WILL SEE > THINGS THAT NO ONE IN THE MEDIA IS WILLING TO PUT OUT THERE.&nb sp; THIS > WILL BE A NIGHT THAT YOU WILL KNOW MORE ABOUT OBAMA THAN EVER BEFORE. > HANNITY IS VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS PROGRAM AND ASKED THAT EVERYONE > PLEASE, PLEASE WATCH~~ SUNDAY NIGHT, 9 PM. > > HANNITY IS DETERMINED THIS INFORMATION BE PUT OUT THERE BECAUSE AS > AMERICAN'S, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW ABOUT OBAMA!! WAKE UP AMERICA !! THIS > IS SERIOUS,EVERYONE. I KNOW MOST OF YOU WATCH FOX NEWS, AND YOU KNOW WHO > YOU ARE VOTING FOR, BUT IF YOU CAN, PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU > KNOW. THIS IS CRITICAL FOR OUR COUNTRY. MY PRAYER IS
THAT WE, ALONG WITH > SEAN HANNITY, WILL REACH SOMEONE/ANYONE BEFORE NOV. 4th. WE MUST NOT > GIVE UP!!! the only thing I can find is a scholarship program
for students with good grade, which I am in no way opposed to. This is different than guaranteeing a free ride to anyone.
On 2/16 on history channel a program about Lincoln
Think its called Stealing Lincolns body. Looks interesting.
U.S. program unveils man behind Iraq weapons story
Thu Nov 1, 7:12 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An Iraqi defector made up his claim that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons, a threat cited by the Bush administration as a key reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. news program "60 Minutes" said on Thursday.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan, codenamed "Curve Ball" in intelligence circles, claimed to be a chemical engineering expert but was instead an accused thief and a mediocre student, the program said. He arrived at a German refugee center in 1999.
"To bolster his asylum case and increase his importance, he told officials he was a star chemical engineer who had been in charge of a facility at Djerf AL Nadaf that was making mobile biological weapons," "60 Minutes" said in a statement.
President George W. Bush and senior U.S. officials argued that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction that threatened the security of the United States.
But no such weapons have been found and what was supposed to have been a short U.S. engagement in Iraq is now in its fifth year, with more than 3,800 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands Iraqis killed.
"60 Minutes" said it found an arrest warrant for Alwan in relation to a theft from the Babel television production company in Baghdad where he once worked. It said he studied chemical engineering at university but got low marks.
The report, a culmination of a two-year investigation by journalist Bob Simon, is due to be broadcast on the CBS network on Sunday.
"The (then) CIA director George Tenet gave Alwan's information to Secretary of State Colin Powell to use at the U.N. in his speech justifying military action against Iraq," "60 Minutes" said.
That was, the program said, despite a letter from German intelligence officials saying that although Alwan appeared to be believable, there was not evidence to verify his story.
"Through a spokesman, Tenet denies ever seeing the letter," "60 Minutes" said.
"Alwan was caught when CIA interrogators were finally allowed to question him and confronted him with evidence that his story could not be as he described it," the program said.
"Weapons inspectors had examined the plant at Djerf al Nadaf before the fall of Baghdad and found no evidence of biological agents."
I have a real difficult time knowing who to believe. Bush has paid the media to present his point of view. This tactic used to be called propaganda when it referred to Communists. Communists were supposed to be the ones who wanted to take over the entire world and force their form of government on everyone.
Today it's America doing the very same thing.
It's not difficult to find an ever growing list of Bush lies.
If you can provide me with a similar list of lies told by Ahmadinejad, I'd love to read it.
The issue here is credibility and who has the biggest history of lying. Unfortunately, a pack of lies is what got us where we are in Iraq today. To me, it looks like Bush is trying the very same tactics to get us into a war with Iran.
Although Ahmadinejad is a terrible, psychotic, murderous, dangerous individual, Bush is the person who has the five-year history of lying to the American people and to the world.
Quite frankly, if I were the president of Iran and saw my neighbor, Iraq, invaded based on a pack of lies, I believe I'd want to flex my muscles and try to scare the USA into backing off and not attacking my citizens as they did in Iraq.
Israel has nuclear weapons (that I believe WE paid for). The USA has nuclear weapons. Why is that okay?
The real threat is Korea, but Bush is too much of a coward and doesn't have the courage to address that threat.
The propaganda machine of George W. Bush has cast Syria in a very negative light, yet Syria was responsible for saving American lives the other day by thwarting a terror attempt.
That, in and of itself, in addition to Bush's refusal to get the Taliban that were in plain view the other day, has me questioning every single word that comes out of this lying president's mouth.
Yes, I'll say it again. He is a liar. A LIAR! Maybe in your neck of the woods, lying is an accepted form of communication. Where I come from, it does nothing but destroy credibility and create distrust in the person who is doing the lying. You can respond with all the snappy **you hate bush** and **you're on the side of the terrorists** comebacks you want (seems to be the usual conservative talking point response), but the bottom line is he is a chronic liar. I don't hate Bush, but I sure as heck don't like (or trust) liars.
marks the location of current message within thread
Sorry, I'm still venting from the SCHIP garbage that was on today. They absolutely want to pass this immediately without looking at amendments, etc. They want an additional 11 million children covered ( nothing wrong with that) EXCEPT they want to put it on the smokers to pay for it. Now, with the way they are trying to get smokers to quit, I would think that's a stupid and absolutely wrong idea. 
![Reuters](http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/nws/p/reuters120.gif"){kind=small}
