Suffer the Children Millions of American children are facing such serious issues as substandard housing and homelessness, inadequate and crumbling schools, and restricted access to health care, even as the money that might help alleviate some of these ills is being squandered on tax cuts that are scandalously huge � and growing! An analysis of the Bush tax cut released jointly by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children's Defense Fund found that while the wealthiest Americans "have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts � averaging just under $12,000 each this year � 80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won't take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005." For the vast majority of Americans, three-quarters of the Bush tax cuts � averaging about $350 this year � are already in place, the study said. From 2001 through 2010, "the richest Americans � the best-off 1 percent � are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade." The clincher: "By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest 1 percent, whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million." Kids don't stand a chance in that environment. Marion Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, put the matter well: "The Bush administration's words say, `Leave no child behind.' The Bush administration's deeds say, `Leave no millionaire behind.' " http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/11/opinion/11HERB.html

When When Patriotism Wasn't Religious �"God" does not appear in the Constitution of the United States, a document that erects if not quite a wall, at least a fence between church and state. "In God We Trust" began to appear on American coins in the 19th century, but in the early 20th century President Theodore Roosevelt, having asked the sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens to design new coinage, was relieved to find no statute mandating "In God We Trust" on coins. "As the custom, altho without legal warrant, had grown up," T. R. wrote to a clergyman distressed over the prospect of godless coins, "I might have felt at liberty to keep the inscription had I approved of its being on the coinage. But as I did not approve of it, I did not direct that it should again be put on." T. R. expressed his "very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins . . . not only does no good but does positive harm." His objection to "In God We Trust" was not constitutional; it was aesthetic. He felt that the motto cheapened and trivialized the trust in God it was intended to promote. "In all my life I have never heard any human being speak reverently of this motto on the coins or show any sign of its having appealed to any high emotion in him," he wrote. Indeed, he added, "the existence of this motto on the coins was a constant source of jest and ridicule." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/opinion/07SCHL.html

Succeeding in Business �George W. Bush is scheduled to give a speech intended to put him in front of the growing national outrage over corporate malfeasance. He will sternly lecture Wall Street executives about ethics and will doubtless portray himself as a believer in old-fashioned business probity. Yet this pose is surreal, given the way top officials like Secretary of the Army Thomas White, Dick Cheney and Mr. Bush himself acquired their wealth. As Joshua Green says in The Washington Monthly, in a must-read article written just before the administration suddenly became such an exponent of corporate ethics: "The `new tone' that George W. Bush brought to Washington isn't one of integrity, but of permissiveness. . . . In this administration, enriching oneself while one's business goes bust isn't necessarily frowned upon." Unfortunately, the administration has so far gotten the press to focus on the least important question about Mr. Bush's business dealings: his failure to obey the law by promptly reporting his insider stock sales. It's true that Mr. Bush's story about that failure has suddenly changed, from "the dog ate my homework" to "my lawyer ate my homework � four times." But the administration hopes that a narrow focus on the reporting lapses will divert attention from the larger point: Mr. Bush profited personally from aggressive accounting identical to the recent scams that have shocked the nation. In 1986, one would have had to consider Mr. Bush a failed businessman. He had run through millions of dollars of other people's money, with nothing to show for it but a company losing money and heavily burdened with debt. But he was rescued from failure when Harken Energy bought his company at an astonishingly high price. There is no question that Harken was basically paying for Mr. Bush's connections. Despite these connections, Harken did badly. But for a time it concealed its failure � sustaining its stock price, as it turned out, just long enough for Mr. Bush to sell most of his stake at a large profit � with an accounting trick identical to one of the main ploys used by Enron a decade later. (Yes, Arthur Andersen was the accountant.) � http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/opinion/07KRUG.html

The Competing Visions of the Role of the Court For Justice Scalia, constitutional principles are fixed, not evolving � "The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead," he declared at a conference earlier this year � and Congress needs to be held to the words it wrote, not to interpretations written by committee aides or judges. "Our first responsibility is to not to make sense of the law � our first responsibility is to follow the text of the law," he said from the bench. In his view, the Supreme Court's job is to give lower court judges not factors to weigh, but rules to apply. �Justice Breyer presented an integrated theory of the role he sees for the court in society and for himself as a justice. Delivering New York University Law School's James Madison Lecture last October, he said three principles should guide the court's decision-making. First was the purpose (as opposed to text) of the constitutional provision or law under review. Second was the likely consequence of a decision, which he contrasted to "a more `legalistic' approach that places too much weight upon language, history, tradition and precedent alone." Without mentioning Justice Scalia by name, he said the "literalist" approach leads to a result "no less subjective but which is far less transparent than a decision that directly addresses consequences in constitutional terms." Third, Justice Breyer said, the court should bear in mind the Constitution's overall objective, that of fostering "participatory democratic self-government." The court should be wary, he said, about preempting a "national conversation" in which new legal understanding "bubbles up from below." JUSTICE BREYER'S lecture did more than clarify his own approach. It meant that Justice Scalia was no longer the solitary voice framing the debate on the role of the court. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/weekinreview/07GREE.html