Where the Sun Don’t Shine

The Bush administration seems to operate on a need-to-know basis. They’ve got the information, so the public doesn’t need to know — about Iraqi wmd, the national energy plan, the 9/11 intelligence failings, the list goes on. Indeed, it’s the policy of the Ashcroft Justice Department to stymie every Freedom of Information Act request that comes in. But the tight lid on information extends well beyond sensitive intelligence into routine matters of public policy. Herewith: a survey of news the Bush administration didn’t want you to know.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Bush administration seems to operate on a need-to-know basis. They’ve got the information, so the public doesn’t need to know — about Iraqi wmd, the national energy plan, the 9/11 intelligence failings, the list goes on. Indeed, it’s the policy of the Ashcroft Justice Department to stymie every Freedom of Information Act request that comes in. But the tight lid on information extends well beyond sensitive intelligence into routine matters of public policy. Herewith: a survey of news the Bush administration didn’t want you to know.

THE BAD NEWS THE BUSH REACTION THE FALLOUT…
From the time Bush took office through November 2002, there were 39,266 mass layoffs, involving more than 4.9 million jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ mass-layoff tracking was killed on Christmas Eve, 2002. Although Democrats eventually restored funding for the study in February 2003, 6,148 additional mass layoffs, involving 614,167 jobs, went unannounced.
In April 2002, the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances was about to issue a public warning that Zonolite insulation — produced from vermiculite mined in Libby, Montana — contains deadly asbestos fibers and may be found in as many as 35 million American homes. The finding was suppressed by the White House for more than a year. A senior EPA staffer told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “It wasn’t that [the White House] ordered us not to make the declaration — they just really, really strongly suggested against it.” Senator Orrin Hatch has submitted legislation to end asbestos-related lawsuits, creating a $108 billion asbestos trust to compensate victims. An AFL-CIO spokesman called the bill “a vehicle to relieve businesses and insurers of hundreds of billions of dollars of liability while significantly shortchanging the asbestos victims.”
A 2002 Treasury study of unfunded Social Security and Medicare commitments projected a $44 trillion budget shortfall in perpetuity, which would require an immediate and permanent 66 percent income-tax hike to fix. Originally slated to appear in Bush’s February 2003 budget, the study was shelved after Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was ousted. The Financial Times reported news of the study one day after Bush signed his latest $350 billion tax cut into law in May. Taken together, the two Bush tax cuts will produce 17 percent of the projected shortfall.
The EPA Office of Children’s Health Protection concluded in May 2002 that 8 percent of childbearing-age women have elevated blood levels of mercury — a neurotoxin that can cause developmental deficits in their kids. The main culprit? Smokestack emissions. The EPA data were suppressed by the White House Office of Management and Budget for nine months; the findings were leaked to the Wall Street Journal in February 2003. During the news blackout, in July 2002 the administration introduced its “Clear Skies” initiative, which would give most polluters 15 years to curtail mercury emissions, while allowing some of the dirtiest plants to pay for the right to pollute.
An EPA state-of-the-environment report slated for release in June said that global warming is real and is caused by human industrial activity and auto pollution. The White House edited the document, eliminating links between global warming and smokestack and tailpipe emissions. It also substituted climate research financed in part by the American Petroleum Institute. Rather than publish compromised data, the EPA dropped the climate-change section altogether. “Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science,” said Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation. “This is like the White House directing the secretary of Labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture.”


WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate