Daily Report from Progress America

THE PROGRESS REPORT
http://www.progressreport.org

by David Sirota, Christy Harvey and Judd Legum   SIGN UP (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=3750)  >>  SEND TIP (mailto:pr@americanprogress.org)  >>  PERMALINK (http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/040312.HTM)  >>  MOBILE (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=32653)  >>

 

March 12, 2004

 

HEALTH CARE
Threatening Truth Tellers

 

The White House's  penchant for threatening truth tellers (http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/031007_release_intimigate.pdf)  reared its ugly head once again -- this time on Medicare. Specifically, after ramming Medicare legislation through by twisting lawmakers' arms and circumventing House customs, sending Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to the House floor during an unprecedented 3-hour vote, it turns out the Administration deliberately hid the true cost of the bill. Knight Ridder revealed yesterday that  the Administration threatened to fire its own chief Medicare (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8164060.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp)  analyst "if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed prescription drug plan." Specifically, government actuary Richard Foster told the White House five months before the November vote that a similar Medicare drug bill would have  a hefty price tag of $551 billion (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8164060.htm) . But with 13 conservatives promising to block a bill over $400 billion, the White House told Foster he would be fired if he did not keep quiet, and then buried the estimates, instead publicly touting an estimate that claimed the bill would cost only $395 billion.  The actual cost was not released until after the law was signed by the President.

 

SCULLYING HIS REPUTATION: When the much larger estimate of the cost of Medicare was announced, then-Medicare Administrator Tom Scully said, "It's  not shocking to me (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/politics/30DEFI.html?th) ." But that's because he already knew about the higher cost estimate and was involved in the cover-up. According to one staffer, Scully was directly behind the threats. He ordered Foster to withhold information about the true price tag and said he would fire him "for insubordination if he disobeyed." Scully had an ulterior motive in seeing the drug-industry backed bill passed: He was "exploring jobs in the private sector while he was pushing for passage of the prescription drug bill, thanks to a waiver from [HHS Secretary Tommy] Thompson that allowed him to conduct job interviews while he was still a federal employee." He is now a top  lobbyist for the health care industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-10-edit-usat_x.htm) .

 

COWING CRITICS WITH THREATS: Foster is just the latest in a long list of people the Administration has bullied or fired for telling the truth about policies it was trying to hide. For example,  top White House adviser Larry Lindsey was fired (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1217/p08s03-comv.html)  when he revealed the war in Iraq could cost $200 billion, at a time the Administration was trying to lowball the price.  General Anthony Zinni, President Bush's Middle East mediator, was not reappointed (http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/138586)  after he angered the White House by acknowledging that there were bigger priorities than attacking Iraq. Even U.S. troops have been intimidated:  Gen. John Abizaid (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030716_Abizaid.html) , commander of the troops in Iraq, said, "None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the Secretary of Defense, or the President of the United States. Whatever action may be taken, whether it's a verbal reprimand or something more stringent, is up to the commanders on the scene." (For more on the strong-arm tactics taken by the Administration to keep critics quiet, read  this American Progress backgrounder (http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/031007_release_intimigate.pdf) .)

 

9/11
Exploiting a Tragedy

 

President Bush yesterday used a " brief visit (http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/031204/a0112bush.html) " to a 9/11 memorial to force taxpayers to pick up the tab for a political fundraising trip in which he raked in more than $1.6 million for his campaign. The White House has  repeatedly used this tactic before (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31606-2004Mar4.html) , even using a brief visit to  Martin Luther King's grave as a pretext (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24899&content_id=%7b61D61645-DFB2-4118-95AF-F484A867206B%7d#1)  to get taxpayers to foot the bill for a Georgia fundraiser. But it has never been used before with 9/11, as the President himself had previously declared that tragic day off limits from politics. And as the WP notes, the proximity between politics and Sept. 11 " was unmistakable (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51580-2004Mar11.html) " yesterday. Unfortunately, yesterday was only the latest chapter in the White House's deliberate attempt to politicize 9/11. Well before the debris from Ground Zero was cleared, the White House at every turn began distracting the public from its pre-9/11 security failures, trying to reap political advantage from the terrorist attacks themselves. Here is a timeline of the politicization of 9/11, and questions that are still unanswered:

 

WHITE HOUSE INITIALLY DEPLORES POLITICIZATION: While the White House now says Bush " has every right (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51580-2004Mar11.html) " to politicize 9/11 and the War on Terror, it was President Bush and Vice President Cheney who reassured Congress after 9/11 that national security would never be used for political purposes. On 1/23/02, President Bush said, " I have no ambition whatsoever (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1778681.stm)  to use [national security] as a political issue." On 5/17/02, Vice President Cheney even said  legitimate questions (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/040309.htm#1)  about the White House's failure to better defend America before 9/11 were " thoroughly irresponsible (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1993829.stm)  and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war." On 3/4/03, Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) was asked if his party should use the war for political gain and responded, "Absolutely not. And as a Republican,  I would deplore such tactics (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/04/cf.00.html) . I think that what we've got to do in a bipartisan way, as Americans, is win this war."

 

19 WEEKS AFTER 9/11, POLITICIZATION BEGINS: Less than 19 weeks after the 9/11 attacks, top White House adviser Karl Rove gave a speech on 1/19/02 urging fellow conservatives to "go to the country" on issues surrounding the War on Terror, an  invitation to politicize national security (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Rove_020118.html)  in an election year, as he claimed Americans trust conservatives to do a better job of "protecting America."  The NYT noted that the White House had effectively "rolled out of a strategy branding anyone who questions the administration as 'giving aid and comfort to our enemies,'" as Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) said.

 

6 MONTHS AFTER 9/11, BUSH POLITICIZES THE DEFENSE BUDGET: In March 2002, AP reported that in speeches, President Bush began "making the defense budget a patriotic issue." The story noted that "despite the lack of concerted opposition," Bush was seeking partisan political gain from the traditionally bipartisan issue of defense spending.

 

9 MONTHS AFTER 9/11, WH USES 9/11 PHOTOS AT FUNDRAISERS: On 5/15/02, CNN reported the White House allowed political campaign committees to use an official, taxpayer-funded photograph of President Bush taken on September 11 to be  sold to fat cats at political fundraisers (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/wh.fundraising.flap/) . The photograph, paid for with government money, "shows Bush aboard Air Force One, talking to Vice President Dick Cheney hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." The picture was being offered "to donors who contribute at least $150 and attend a fund-raising dinner with Bush and the first lady."

 

BY SEPT. 2002, WH ADMITS IT WANTS TO POLITICIZE 9/11: The Associated Press reported on 6/13/02, the White House began urging conservatives to push "messages highlighting the war on terrorism" according to a presentation formulated by top Presidential advisers in the White House. On 9/26/02, the President acted on this, claiming Senate opponents were "more interested in special interests in Washington and  not interested in the security of the American people (http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0209/26/a01-597631.htm) ." When senators asked for an apology, the head of Bush's legislative team said there will be no apology because "there has been no attempt on [Bush's] part to politicize the war."

 

IN OCT. 2002, CONSERVATIVES INVOKE BIN LADEN: On 10/11/02, AP reported that an  advertisement (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/11%20TIMES.RM)  was aired against triple-amputee Vietnam war hero Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) "that showed  pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/4264879.htm)  and implied the Democratic incumbent is soft on homeland security." Instead of invoking his pledge not to use 9/11 and the War on Terrorism "as a political issue," the  President Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021102-3.html)  effectively condoned the tactic by  repeatedly making campaign appearances (http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&op0=&fl0=&ty0=w&tx0=&op1=+&fl1=&ty1=w&tx1=Chambliss&op2=+&fl2=keywords:&ty2=p&tx2=&op3=+&fl3=document.type:&ty3=p&tx3=&inthe=604800&dt=ba&ady=1&amo=8&ayr=2002&bdy=3&bmo=11&byr=2002&nh=10&rf=0&lk=1)  on behalf of Saxby Chambliss, who was airing the ad. Even now, the White House has refused to discredit the statement by Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) that opposing the Bush Administration means " Osama bin Laden wins (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001877277_bush12.html) ."

 

UNANSWERED QUESTION -- WILL TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY?: The NYT reported that the President has scheduled the latest Republican National Convention in history specifically to coincide with official ceremonies marking the three-year anniversary of 9/11. The President is set to "shuttle between political events at Madison Square Garden and memorial services at Ground Zero." Will taxpayers have to pick up the enormous cost of the President's travel, security and entourage at his political nominating convention?

 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS -- WHEN WILL HE SHOW RESPECT?: The White House has continued to politicize 9/11 despite the pleas of victims' families and firefighters. Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said that while the White House has "shortchanged fire fighters by not providing adequate resources," the President is "calling on the  biggest disaster in our country's history (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-04-bush-ads-criticism_x.htm) , and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy." Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin towers, said the President's insistence on politicizing the 9/11 attacks " is a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people (http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/news/304_bushads.html) . It is unconscionable."

 

HEALTH CARE
McClellan's Dodge

 

Former FDA chief Mark McClellan,  who was confirmed (http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=227634&category=&BCCode=&newsdate=3/12/2004)  as director for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services this morning, finally agreed to testify in front of Senators questioning his stance on the reimportation of drugs from Canada yesterday. Facing bitter backlash and the threat of a block on his nomination, he met with the Senate Commerce Committee. However, he was so evasive that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) reprimanded him, saying, "You come to this committee after having stiffed us, having stiffed the House of Representatives and my first question ... you won't answer." McClellan, who recently raised eyebrows for accepting an award from a  group funded by the drug industry (http://www.cspinet.org/new/200312031.html) , twice before refused to testify to the Senate about his views on the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs from Canada. His nomination caused concern among lawmakers, as  McClellan has been one of the loudest voices (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/03/09/medicare_nominee_goes_silent_on_imports/)  against buying drugs from Canada, claiming there are safety issues, even though his  own FDA officials dispute this (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001802160_canadadrugs27.html) .

 

CONSERVATIVE CONVERTS: Arch-conservative  Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) now agrees (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/politics/12MEDI.html)  that the reimportation block makes no sense. "When the next vote comes, I'm switching my position on the import of drugs...I cannot explain to my mother any longer why she should pay twice or two-thirds more than what is paid in Canada and Mexico...I can't do it any more." He was joined in support for reimportation by fellow conservative John Cornyn (R-TX), and "last week,  Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51401-2004Mar11.html)  voted for a nonbinding budget amendment endorsing legal importation." CQ reports, Sen. John McCain told McClellan yesterday that, despite the power of the  pharmaceutical companies (http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/contributorsandpaybacks/page.cfm?pageid=519) , "we will pass, as the House has passed, requirements for the ability to reimport drugs from Canada. My suggestion is that you prepare for it and be part of the solution, rather than -- as is the perception here -- that you and the administration have been blocking it."

 

NO TRUTH IN ADVERTISING: A recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a majority of seniors do not understand the new Medicare legislation. The Administration's $12.6 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign only adds to the confusion. The General Accounting Office reported this week that advertisements and brochures prepared by the Bush administration to publicize a new Medicare law... misrepresented the prescription drug benefits (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/politics/11MEDI.html)  that would be offered to millions of elderly and disabled people." The ads contain " notable omissions and other weaknesses (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-medicare11mar11,1,5700606.story?coll=la-news-science) ," the congressional investigators said Wednesday. For example,  the ad "doesn't say (http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/opedstory0223WMEDICARE.htm)  that seniors who do stay with Medicare will not get the proposed drug coverage in 2006. The ads also don't say that to get the drug benefit, seniors must sign up for a separate insurance plan, similar to an HMO. And they don't say that if a senior stays in the traditional Medicare plan, they'll also have to pay more." For  more on the misleading ad (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=27153) , read this American Progress claim vs. fact.

 

WHAT ELSE ARE THEY HIDING? Did the Administration know how much they were accelerating the Medicare Trust Fund crisis before the bill was passed?  The new estimates from the Medicare Trustees, who use the same Medicare actuaries who estimated the higher costs, will be issuing a report this month. Last year, they estimated that the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would become insolvent in 2026. In the Administration's budget, their "new" definition of insolvency  moved this up by 12 years to 2014 (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/publications/trusteesreport/2003/secib.asp) . Did the Administration withhold from Members of Congress the fact that they were voting on legislation that would redefine and worsen Medicare's financial status?

 

HALLIBURTON
Possible Criminal Violationst

 

  Officials at the Pentagon have "asked the Justice Department to join an inquiry into alleged fuel overcharging by Halliburton Co. in Iraq." The request is significant because it indicates "Pentagon officials see  possible grounds for criminal charges or civil penalties (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107896658172852135-search,00.html?collection=autowire/30day&vql_string=Halliburton%3cin%3e(article-body)) ." The widening probe stems from allegations that Halliburton, the company previously run by Vice President Cheney, "overcharged U.S. taxpayers by $61 million up to the end of September, and by about $20 million a month since then." The Justice Department probe may consider "whether there was any violation of the federal False Claims Act."  If Halliburton is found guilty of defrauding the government under that law they could "be ordered to repay as much as three times the amount of the fraud." The new Justice Department probe joins a  long list (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=29636)  of official government investigations into malfeasance by Halliburton in Iraq and elsewhere.

 

HALLIBURTON IGNORES PROPOSAL TO REDUCE TAXPAYER BILL: In late January a subcontractor sent Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) a letter offering to supply fuel to KBR directly, instead of through another middleman. The offer would have  significantly reduced costs to U.S. taxpayers (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107896658172852135-search,00.html?collection=autowire/30day&vql_string=Halliburton%3cin%3e(article-body))  -- saving more than $300 million just sinnce the end of January. KBR claims they never received the letter, even though the company that sent it, Kuwait Petroleum Corp., has "a time-stamped receipt that shows the transmission went through."

 

HALLIBURTON CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR COSTS: Appearing before the House Government Reform Committee yesterday, Pentagon Comptroller Dov Zakheim said that Halliburton has " significant deficiencies" (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107905639161753571-search,00.html?collection=autowire/30day&vql_string=Halliburton%3cin%3e(article-body))  in its ability to estimate costs and deal with its many subcontractors in Iraq. For example, Pentagon auditors rejected a $3 billion dollar bill from Halliburton because the costs weren't adequately documented. Halliburton then submitted a revised bill that was $700 million dollars lower but eventually withdrew it because of "continuing pricing issues."

 

AUDIT REVEALS HALLIBURTON DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCURATE INFO: Ranking Minority Leader Henry Waxman released an eight-page memo, based on recently obtained government documents, that reveal even more problems with Halliburton's business practices. According to the Waxman memo, a December 31 Defense Department audit, echoing Zakheim's testimony, found "'significant' and 'systemic' deficiencies in the way Halliburton estimates and validates costs." Specifically, Halliburton didn't reveal that a bill from two subcontractors it had fired "was the basis for over $1 billion of projected food service contracts."

 

ARMY IGNORES AUDITORS' WARNINGS ABOUT HALLIBURTON: Also detailed in the Waxman memo was a January 13, 2004 letter from the Defense Department auditors to the Army Corps of Engineers which said Halliburton's recent conduct "bring[s] into question [Halliburton's] ability to consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation and fair and reasonable prices." The DoD urged the Army Corps of Engineers to "contact us to ascertain the status of [Halliburton's] estimating system prior to entering into future negotiations." Three days later on January 16, without contacting DoD, the Corps "awarded Halliburton a new $1.2 billion contract."

 

MILITARY RUBBERSTAMPING HALLIBURTON PROPOSALS: A GAO report obtained by Waxman reveals "a military review board approved a six-month renewal contract with Halliburton worth $587 million in just ten minutes and based on only six pages of documentation."

 

HALLIBURTON FUEL OVERCHARGES DETAILED: The Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) prepared a breakdown of costs when it imported gasoline from Kuwait to Iraq from August to December 2003. Per gallon the DESC spent 96 cents for fuel and 36 cents for transportation -- for a total cost to taxpayers of $1.32 per gallon. Halliburton charged taxpayers $1.17 per gallon for fuel, $1.17 for transportation, 24 cents for "markups" and 2 cents for "other expense" -- for a total cost to taxpayers of $2.64 per gallon.

 

UNDER THE RADAR

 

ECONOMY --NOMINEE WITHDRAWN, STILL NO JOBS CZAR: Cox news reports, "A Nebraska businessman withdrew from consideration to be the White House's manufacturing "czar" Thursday after  withering attacks (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2445380) ...about his ties to China." (The issue was covered in detail in the Progress Report  yesterday (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/040311.htm) ). The withdrawal of the nomination of Behlen CEO Tony Raimondo was precipitated by revelations that while his company "was expanding in Beijing" it was "laying off workers [in the United States]." The post, which was announced last labor day, remains vacant. Meanwhile, the country continues to hemorrhage manufacturing jobs.

 

FOREIGN POLICY -- DEMOCRACY, SHEMOCRACY: Just four months after the  President's highly-touted speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html)  announcing his plans to push for democratic reforms in the Mideast, The NYT reports the Bush administration "has  set aside its plan (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/politics/12MIDE.html)  to issue a sweeping call for economic, political and cultural reform in the Middle East." In a display of just how unwilling the Administration is to confront Saudi Arabia (despite its awful  human rights record (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm)  and  ties to terror (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228#2) ), an administration official said the decision came after it had been denounced by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. It was also denounced by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is being invited to  visit the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040304-6.html)  to tout his supposed "goal to see the spread of freedom" despite the State Department criticizing his  abysmal democratic record (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27926.htm) .

 

ECONOMY -- GREENSPAN BUCKS WHITE HOUSE ON UNEMPLOYMENT: The LA Times reports, "Taking a position that could put him at odds with the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers,  Greenspan expressed support for proposals (http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-fi-greenspan12mar12,1,1174204.story)  to provide a temporary extension of benefits for the nearly 2 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. The last such extension expired in December." The Fed chairman said, "When unemployment is created through no fault of the worker's actions, then I think it is clearly to our advantage to find ways of creating support...I think that considering the possibility of extending unemployment insurance is not a bad idea." Conservatives have refused to extend benefits to  760,000 workers (http://www.cbpp.org/2-25-04ui-pr.htm)  who are running out of benefits.   House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/editorial/7361810.htm)  (R-TX) said he saw "no reason" to help people through the tough economic time.

 

IRAQ -- INTELLIGENCE UNDERCUTS WHITE HOUSE CLAIMS: The WSJ reports this morning, "A Defense Intelligence Agency report suggests terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi, key to the administration's case for the Iraq war, may not have had a leg amputated in 2002 in Baghdad.  Before the war, the U.S. said he did; Powell and others called it evidence of Saddam's al Qaeda connection." However, that theory may be blown out of the water. "Officials now suspect Zarqawi went to Iraq to buy surface-to-air missiles, using a pseudonym --  a sign he may have been there unknown to Saddam (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB107905449088253530,00.html?mod=politics_secondary_stories_hs) ." Thus far, there has been a complete lack of evidence proving a meaningful Saddam/al Qaeda connection, despite the Administration's previous claims, which it used as a premise for going to war (read this  American Progress backgrounder (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23816)   for the truth behind the claims).

 

IRAQ -- DEALS AND DOLLARS FOR DONATIONS: It's all about who you know...and how much you give. AP reports, "Many of the firms awarded $1.2 billion in Iraq reconstruction business this week have  strong Washington connections (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8166809.htm) ." The new contracts, awarded "in the shadow of previous controversy over Iraq reconstruction work given to Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm, Halliburton Co.," may prove to be just as controversial. For example, part of a $43.4 million contract to fix Iraq's electricity grid was awarded to the Parsons Brinkerhoff construction company. "Retired Navy Rear Adm. David Nash, director of the program management office for the Pentagon in Baghdad, is a former president of a Parsons Brinkerhoff subsidiary. The company also has Republican connections. It gave $90,000 to various Republican Party committees in the past five years, $8,500 to similar Democratic groups." Another big winner, the Fluor Corp, will get millions to design and build electricity facilities. "Fluor gave $48,000 to Republicans in the past five years and $4,500 to Democrats. A Fluor vice president, Kenneth Oscar, joined the company in 2002 after spending 20 years as an official at the Pentagon, the latest as the acting Army assistant secretary for procurement."

 

ENVIRO -- EPA OVERSTATES THE CASE: The WP reports, "EPA has  overstated the purity of the nation's drinking water (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51599-2004Mar11.html)  in four recent years, potentially leaving millions of people at risk, according to a new report." The issue: The EPA has announced "that it met its goal that 91 percent of U.S. residents have access to safe tap water." But that's not the case. "The data the EPA used to make those conclusions were 'flawed and incomplete' because states did not report all violations to the federal agency." Despite the fact that some officials think that "in 2002, only about 81 percent of the jurisdictions monitored had safe drinking water, far lower than the official agency estimate of 94 percent for that year," the EPA "trumpeted the inaccurate rates to the media, giving a false impression to the public."