UNCONFIRMED: SNOW AND MINETA TO RESIGN IN THE COMING DAYS

[cjr812]

The NYT and NYP have reported that John Snow is bng forced out of his cabinet position.
I have info from my family who ranks high in the cabinet, that Norm Mineta will also be asked to leave

[stark reality]

As Bush continues to surround himself with yes men and yes women. Independent thinking not allowed!
________
Herbal store (http://herbalhealthshop.com)

[NassauJoe]

Mineta was the only Democrat in Bush's Cabinet. I liked Mineta. Unfortunately, much like Bruce Babbit and Christie Whitman, he was all but relgated to oblivion. Take Babbit for example -- once a popular governor and Presidential candidate. Where does he eventually end up? Running the Interior Dept for 8 years. When the hell do we ever hear from the Interior or Transportation Secretaries? I don't know if they even have a spot at the cabinet meeting table. Far as I'm concerned, they may as well abolish some of these Departments. Bush puts a Democrat at Transporation and tries to say his Administration is bi-partisan. At l Clinton put Cohen (a Republican) at the Defense Dept -- where it may matter more.
________
SashaGrey18again (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/SashaGrey18again)

[Cicero]

DOn't be surprised if Bush appoints a Democrat to the newly created position of Director of NAtional Intelligence.

That way, if anything goes wrong with intel and we suffer another attack.......
________
Solo vaporite (http://www.vaporizers.net/)

[NassauJoe]

MSNBC reported at about lunch hour that Snow is staying on at Treasury. Ahhhhhh well. So much for competency at Treasury. I wonder what Bush offered him to stay him.

At this point, it would almost be better to have Charles Shwab Treasury Chief!!!!! Or why not the CEO or H.R. Block? They must be able to do a better job. Snow just isn't cut out for this job.
________
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL MARIJUANA (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[stark reality]

So Bush is keeping Snow. And the dollar continues to fall. And the hare-brained Soc Sec privatization plan keeps going. MOS. They want to borrow $1 trillion to $2 trillion for privatization. Why not just use that $$ to shore up the system? Because Wall Street wants its fees, that's why.
________
Buy vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/vaporizers)

[NassauJoe]

That proposal, in it's current form, won't pass Congress. The reason is simple. Politicans, the bulk of them, are timid. Anything that may threaten thier re-election is off-limits. They would never take the chance of angering seniors and the disabled who depend on SS. Even if the plan would not affect any of today's recpents, the tide of perception is against Washington. Otherwise put, the truth won't matter. It's all about perception. If people think your screwing around with thr benefits -- your outta there. AARP is gearing up for an all-out-war campaign against the plan. This campaign will directly target individual members of Congress and "Does Your Congressman/Senator supports cutting your benefits?" mailings to thr constituents. In district where the representative favors the plan, the heading on these mailings would read: "Do you know your Congressman/Senator is about to cut your benefits?" This debate won't be about facts -- it will be about spin, scare-tactics and anything but facts.

I do think Washington will eventually come up with something -- but the final product will be a very watered down version of what we hear today.

Lawmakers may even have to pass a "legislated increase" in SS benefits to retirees just to try to sell whatever it is they are trying to pass. This is exactly what Congress did in 1983. Remember? They gave retirees a special increase over-and-above te standard COLA for FY' 83. That was when Reagan asked Bob Dole to head a Legislative Commission on Social Security. At first, we heard many of the same things we are hearing today. Reagan wanted to slash benefits -- that is slow the growth in COLA. This means, each year, recpents would still get a hike in the cost of living but not as much. In Washington, getting a raise of 8 dollars a year instead of 10, is called a reduction. In the real world, a reduction is an actual lowering of pay or rent. Ultimately, Reagan's plan was defeated and they ended up passing a nominal compromise. Something that involves a short-range fix. (Wrapping tape around a leaky pipe.) For 20 years, the 83' reforms were viable -- but today, the issue is of such it needs to be re-visited and dealt with more effectively. In 83', they basically did just enough to make it so that generation of lawmakers didn't have to seriously tackle the issues and risk thr seat in Congress. In 2005-06, much the same will occur. Bush will get something but it won't be what he's now proposing. In 20 years, we'll go through this all again.
________
Web Shows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)