Headlines for March 2006 - in a word - dangerous

Situation #1 - The Line Item Veto debate is back - again
George W. Bush is now pushing ever harder for the passage of a Presidential Line Item bill that will enable him to veto individual bill items on budgets. George Sr. tried to get it and he couldn't get it through Congress (thanks to a Dem. majority). Bill Clinton got it passed, but it was overturned by the Supreme Court. George W. is trying a slightly different approach to line item veto, but it still amounts to the Executive Branch wielding more influence over this crucial process that is entrusted to the House by the Constitution.

With the most recent appointments to the Supreme Court on board, this would probably be the best time for such a move. Personally, I find the timing curious to come up with the latest proposal. Think mid-term elections. If you figure the GOP sees it as possible that they could lose majorities in both houses of Congress, this measure would amount to damage control, allowing the President to effectively stale-mate the Democrats on budget measures for the remainder of his term.

In any case, passing line item veto in any form puts this country on shakier ground in terms of its overall integrity and ability to get the country's political business done.

Situation #2: The Re-birth of "Ma Bell"
Ready to go back to the pre-1978 days of telecommunications? Those days might be just around the corner if the merger between AT&T and Bell South is finalized and goes unchallenged. The company speculates that it may shed in upwards of 10,000 or more jobs after the merger is completed. What does this mean to us? If you think Customer Service at Verizon sucks, just wait. AT&T's service record would likely get worse after the merger. And prices? I don't think anyone really needs a refresher on the evils of monopolies. Given how telecom is a much further-reaching industry now than in 1978, the impact of this could be dire.

Situation #3: South Dakota - first non-abortion state since 1973 - for now
The Governor and State Assembly of South Dakota have now officially laid down the gauntlet on abortion rights. The law makes illegal any abortion except one that is required to save a mother's life. No doubt, the lawmakers there were just waiting for the appointment of Samuel Alito to launch this latest assault on abortion rights.

I don't plan to launch an abortion debate right here, but I simply want to underscore the importance of this scenario in what it tells us about the political climate of this country right now and the possibilties that exist. It is clear that at least one state feels that the landscape has changed enough that a now 30+ year old precedent now be challenged.

There are other dilemmas on the horizon, notably that the term "civil war" is increasingly being thrown around when talking about the Iraq War. Talk of the housing market nearing a crash is also reason for concern.

If you've never written your elected officials before, now might be a good time to start.