Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Compassionate Conservatism in Action

Bush, the Good Samaritan for Corporations

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

"A certain Samaritan. . . had compassion on him."

The Holy Bible: Luke

Even absolutely terrible events have silver linings. Hurricane Katrina is an example. It demonstrated, to the surprise at least of this writer, that George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress not only have hearts- they have compassion. And their compassion was demonstrated in two completely unexpected but nonetheless, welcome ways (not including Mr. Bush’s inspiring words spoken from New Orleans days after the crisis in order to show that he was determined to restore his popularity even if it meant sending more federal funds to New Orleans than he had already promised.) The first was Mr. Bush’s courageous proclamation that, while not the equivalent of Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, was nonetheless significant and, like the Emancipation Proclamation, addressed the state of the less privileged members of society. He suspended provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act.

The Davis-Bacon Act mandates, among other things, that employers working in a locale pay all their employees working on federally financed construction projects the locally prevailing wage. As a result of his generous proclamation, those persons living in New Orleans who may have lost all their worldly possessions as a result of Katrina’s devastation will now be able to participate in federally funded reconstruction projects and earn considerably less than would have been the case had the act not been suspended.

That seems harsh but there is, of course, an upside. They will get some income. Mr. Bush no doubt believed that unless he issued the proclamation New Orleans would never be rebuilt since no contractor in his or her right mind would want to pay the substantially prevailing wage to workers who had just lost all their worldly possessions and were, among other things, not in a position to bargain since they desperately needed the jobs.

Workers are not the only ones who benefit from the proclamation. The proclamation will save us all money. Reducing the wages of those wiped out by the flood means the work will cost less. Here’s why.

Halliburton, (among other Bush friendly companies) has reportedly received a no bid contract worth $30 million to help rebuild New Orleans. By not paying prevailing wages Halliburton can do more work for less cost and pass along the savings to taxpayers. The fact that Pentagon audits say Halliburton still has $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for its work in Iraq is no reason to think it won’t do better in New Orleans. It has learned from its mistakes and, being anxious to make a good impression on taxpayers, will almost certainly pass along the savings to taxpayers in reduced costs rather than to its stockholders in increased dividends.

Mr. Bush is not the only one taking steps to help out the flood victims. Republican members of Congress have stepped up to the plate with proposals to ease the pain of those devastated by the flood. One of their most creative addresses the burden of the federal estate tax.

The federal estate tax stated is imposed on the estates of individuals who die owning assets valued at more than $1.5 million. (There are ways around it but for our purposes they are unimportant.) A 40-member Republican study group is circulating proposals it hopes will help flood victims. Among them is the proposal that the estate tax not be imposed on the estates of those who died in states affected by the storm. The sigh of relief that will be heard if this proposal becomes law will be audible even to those living in far off places. Here’s why.

The families of those whose corpses were seen floating around in New Orleans or propped up against fences for days after the flood or who were found in houses unable to escape the water will be spared paying estate tax on the millions they left to their heirs. It is, of course, possible, that some of those who died in the floodwaters in New Orleans and elsewhere did not, for whatever reason, have $1.5 million in assets. They will, therefore, not benefit from this particular proposal should it become law. For the others who were unable to leave the flooded area because lacking a car or bus fare (their $1.5 million being in a bank or stock account not readily accessible over the weekend before the hurricane struck) their families will have to pay no estate tax thus placing them on a par with the families who drowned leaving behind no assets for their families.

These proposals, two among many, will improve the lives of hurricane victims and demonstrate to all but the most skeptical that the Republicans are not only compassionate but capable of responding to the needs of hurricane victims in ways that are nothing if not creative. Some might call them nothing. They may be right.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: Brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu or through his website: http://hraos.com/


























CLARIFICATION

ALEXANDER COCKBURN, JEFFREY ST CLAIR, BECKY GRANT AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JOURNALISTIC CLARITY, COUNTERPUNCH

We published an article entitled "A Saudiless Arabia" by Wayne Madsen dated October 22, 2002 (the "Article"), on the website of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity, CounterPunch, www.counterpunch.org (the "Website").

Although it was not our intention, counsel for Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi has advised us the Article suggests, or could be read as suggesting, that Mr Al Amoudi has funded, supported, or is in some way associated with, the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

We do not have any evidence connecting Mr Al Amoudi with terrorism.

As a result of an exchange of communications with Mr Al Amoudi’s lawyers, we have removed the Article from the Website.

We are pleased to clarify the position.

August 17, 2005