This month, the Senate will hold confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. There will be a painstaking examination of his record, particularly opinions that indicate his position on the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. This process will draw attention to the ongoing struggle over reproductive rights. While not a big news story in 2005, this battle will again heat up as the Congressional elections draw near. However, the focus will probably change from abortion, per se, to the "C" word -- contraception.

Public sentiment about abortion has not changed much over the past 30 years. Gallup Polls conducted in both 1975 and 2005 found that only 22 percent of respondents believed that abortion should be "illegal under all circumstances."

In 2005, what began to change was the focus of the debate on reproductive rights. On January 24, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton implored all sides of the reproductive-rights issue to seek "common ground." Clinton asserted that no one in American politics is "for" abortion. Many Democratic politicians have since adopted her perspective -- abortion is a tragedy. Clinton's stance served two tactical purposes: One was to scuttle the notion that Dems favor "abortion on demand." The other was to shift the locus of the debate from abortion to reproductive rights, in general. To re-emphasize the right of a woman to choose her own medical care and to freely obtain contraception.

Sen. Clinton observed that where there is access to contraception there is less necessity for abortion; 7 percent of women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of unwanted pregnancies. After Clinton's speech, Democrats renewed their push for federal support for sex-education programs for teenagers, emergency contraception and family planning.

Despite the efforts of the minority party, for most of 2005 the White House was silent on the "C" word. Democratic members of Congress repeatedly wrote the president asking him to clarify his position on contraception. In an October 25 White House briefing, press secretary Scott McClellan responded: "The focus has been from this administration on promoting abstinence programs; that ought to be on the same level as the education funding for teen contraception programs."

Yet, the funding for abstinence programs is not "on the same level" as funding for contraception education programs. The administration allocates $200 million to abstinence-only programs and nothing for comprehensive sex education. Studies indicate that abstinence programs do not prevent, but only delay sexual activity among teens. And when these "teens do initiate sex, they are a third less likely to use contraception, putting themselves at risk for pregnancy and disease."

Of course, there are two aspects of contraception. One is before-the-event measures, such as birth-control pills and barrier contraceptives. The other aspect is after-the-event remedies. One of these is the "emergency contraception" drug, Plan B, intended to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. In September 2003, an FDA advisory panel recommended that Plan B be sold without a perscription. Nonetheless, in July 2004, the FDA denied the application. Democrats requested a Government Accountability Office review of this decision.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the GAO reported that the rejection of the Plan B application was the result of an "unusual" decision-making process. The GAO noted that a Bush political appointee overrode the decision of subordinates who recommended approval of the application.

There are several other examples of the Bush administration's preventing information about contraception from reaching the public. On Dec. 20, 2005, the ACLU issued a press briefing noting that the U.S. Department of Justice had sent the "National Sexual Assault Protocol to police agencies throughout America." Unfortunately, the first-ever national protocol for treating victims of sexual assault failed to mention emergency contraception. The ACLU observed, "If emergency facilities routinely provide emergency contraception to rape victims, up to 22,000 of the 25,000 pregnancies that result from rape each year could be prevented."

In Dec. 2004, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., reported that government-funded abstinence-only sex-education programs were giving students false information. An example of the misinformation was the suggestion that "touching a person's genitals can result in pregnancy."

As a result of the bias found in the federally funded sex-education programs, states such as California began refusing to use them. Meanwhile, most parents want comprehensive programs. A February 2004 poll found that 93 percent of parents want sex education taught in schools. Of these only 15 percent believe that abstinence should be the only method of contraception discussed. The Bush administration is out of step with more than 80 percent of Americans. With nothing to lose and much to gain, in 2006 Democrats should push legislation that funds access to and education about contraception as a key way to support reproductive rights.

In the wake of the disastrous 2004 election, many pro-choice candidates were dragged down with the sinking of HMS Kerry. As a result, there have been whispers among Democratic politicians that they were going to have to change their position on abortion, in order to reach out to pro-life voters.

However, the April 21-22 Washington, D.C. gathering of EMILY's List, the political action committee dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to all levels of government, produced no fundamental shift of position. Indeed, an EMILY-funded post-election poll indicated that 55 percent of voters continued to support a women's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, and that abortion had not been a major issue in the presidential election.

What does appear to be changing is the approach that Democrats take when they talk about choice -- the values they emphasize and the words they select. It's useful to envision this "reframing" of choice as consisting of three concentric circles.

In the innermost circle lies the issue of who ultimately controls a woman's body. In the starkest terms, progressives see choice as an inalienable woman's right; conservatives view choice as a privilege dispensed by the patriarchy -- the dominance of men over a woman's health, expressed through the power of the state.

In contemporary terms, Democrats tie the issue of choice to the right of privacy -- a right most Americans believe in -- by asserting that women must be able to choose medical treatment without the interference of the state. (This is a repositioning of the language of Justice Blackmun, in Roe v. Wade, in which he defended choice not as a woman's prerogative but, "The right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his [sic] professional judgement.") Bush Republicans argue they are anti-choice because they are defending the "rights of the fetus," relying upon the biologically, and theologically, dubious argument that an embryo is a human being from the moment of conception.

The middle circle places choice in a larger social context. On Jan. 24, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton gave an important speech on abortion rights where she implored all sides of the issue to seek "common ground." Clinton opined that no one in American politics is "for" abortion. She observed that under most circumstances where there is access to contraception there is no necessity for an abortion -- the 7 percent of women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of unwanted pregnancies. Since Clinton's speech, Democrats have renewed their push for federal support for sex-education programs for teenagers, emergency contraception and family planning.

The outermost framing circle focuses on the use of the word "life." UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff noted that it makes no sense for Republicans to act as if they have exclusive use of life as their "brand." Historically, Democrats are the party of life, in the sense that they have taken seriously the task of guaranteeing the right of every American to live a life of dignity. From this moral high ground, Democrats are concerned with the quality of life at each point along the continuum of existence -- health care, education, jobs and the environment -- rather than to fixate, as the Republicans do, exclusively on the endpoints: life of the embryo/fetus and death.

Lakoff observed that rather than Republicans being the "Party of Life," it would be more accurate to describe them as the Party of Death, since they are indifferent to the life and death struggles of the average American working family. In the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, President Bush remarked, "It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life." Nevertheless, Bush is opposed to federal funding for pre- and post-natal care and ignores the reality that one in three Americans has no health care.

Further, as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw a record 152 executions, and as president he launched a preemptive attack on Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of 20,000 civilians and 1,700 military personnel. Lakoff argued that Democrats should go on the offensive by constantly reminding voters that the Republican record does not show them to be "pro-life."

A graphic example of the incongruity between Republican words and actions can be found in their tepid response to the steadily increasing violence against American women. More than 4 million women are physically assaulted each year; roughly 600,000 are raped; and 28,000 experience the horror of a criminally induced pregnancy. Republicans avoid directly addressing these issues. Their anti-choice position means that most Republican lawmakers insist that a pregnant victim of rape carry her fetus to term. (A position shared by only 16 percent of voters.)

It's clear that Republicans, by taking an extraordinarily conservative position on choice, one supported by considerably less than half of all voters, have backed themselves into an ideological corner. What remains to be seen is whether Democrats can take full advantage of this; and whether they can use the issue of choice to breathe new life into the party.

1962 saw the publication of Michael Harrington's insightful study, The Other America, which vividly described the harried lives of America's poor. This week two polls were released that portrayed another vision of desperation in America, one that progressives are still struggling to understand. Both surveys focused on the voting group termed "faith voters," roughly one-third of the electorate. Faith voters believe that "moral values" is a big issue, in many instances the one issue that decides their vote.

When Democrats gathered in Washington to hear Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, Howard Dean, give a status report on his first two months in office, they were shown the results of a new poll conducted by Cornell Belcher. This, and a similar Mellman Group survey funded by the powerful EMILY's List political action committee, indicated that the class distinctions that historically distinguished Republicans from Democrats are being replaced by cultural differences. Once it was accurate to characterize the GOP as the party of the upper class and the bourgeoisie, and Democrats as the party of the lower class and the struggling middle class. The two polls indicate that now it is more precise to describe Republican voters as those who care a lot about moral values and go to church often; in contrast, Democratic voters aren't as concerned about moral values and attend church infrequently, if ever.

Taken in conjunction with the results of the 2004 presidential election, these polls clarify the nature of the Democrats' numbers problem. Historically, no matter how good the economy might be, there were always more American poor than rich, and therefore, Democrats always had a numerical superiority over Republicans; in any given election, if Democrats could manage to get out the vote, they would win. Now that familiar formula has changed. Many poor voters are faith voters and the issue of moral values trumps their economic concerns.

According to the Belcher survey, faith voters are worried about issues such as the economy and the deteriorating situation in Iraq, but their number one anxiety is moral values. In the last election, they believed George W. Bush shared their concern, and this proved to be a decisive factor in determining their vote.

Most progressives regard this behavior as perplexing, if not self-destructive. In his recent best-seller, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Thomas Frank depicted faith voters as rubes who foolishly vote against their own self interest because they are, in effect, blinded by the light of their Christian practice.

DNC chair Howard Dean appeared to have a deeper understanding of this cultural divide. He pointed out that while the American economy is struggling, many Democratic partisans are not unduly anxious about economic issues. In contrast, faith voters -- Dean characterized them as "backlash Republicans" or "Reagan Democrats" -- are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Typically both the husband and wife work to make ends meet; often they have more than one job. The family is under extreme economic pressure. They see themselves on the edge of homelessness, a couple of missed paychecks or one serious illness away from losing everything they have. But what the parents are most worried about are their kids.

Dean continued that faith voters typically spend so much time at work that they don't have the opportunity, or the money, to provide their children with adequate supervision. As a result, the parents are obsessed with the notion that television, other kids, or lefty teachers will corrupt their sons and daughters. Driving to and from work faith voters constantly hear conservative commentators rail against the liberal "media elite," whom they accuse of advocating various forms of immorality: drug use, free love, abortion on demand, and so forth. Because they live in this environment of fear, faith voters accept wild accusations as the gospel; for example, that the National Educational Association has an agenda to teach homosexuality as a lifestyle "choice."

Howard Dean observed that many Democrats are too quick to dismiss the behavior of faith voters. He noted that this group truly believes that a liberal Democratic elite is corrupting America. Dean's analysis was that in the last election, faith voters trusted George W. Bush to do the right thing to stem the tide of immorality; they accepted Bush's campaign rhetoric, "The Democrats don't respect you. They don't understand your problems because they are the elite. But I do respect you. ... I'm just a regular guy."

The DNC chair commented that the typical Democratic response to the fears of faith voters has been to offer them programs: health care, child care, and the like. For various reasons this hasn't worked. Dean remarked that the Belcher poll showed that 54 percent of the voter sample believed that "a decline in our moral values" was a bigger obstacle to raising strong families than were jobs, health care, and quality education.

Howard Dean concluded by arguing that if Democrats are to regain preeminence in American politics, they must understand the desperation that is an everyday burden of that other America.

If you are a regular reader of progressive media outlets like this one, you cannot have escaped the prevailing opinion that the Bush administration's latest round of massive tax cuts are folly. But is not just the left which finds them bizarre; almost no reputable economist supports this plan.

Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, described the tax cuts as leading to "reductions in job growth relative to what they otherwise would be." Speaking to Congress, Federal Reserve Board Chair Alan Greenspan opined that unless there are comparable reductions in Federal spending, the tax cuts will only add to the deficit, which would promote higher interest rates and depress the economy. Alternet contributors David Martin, Chris Hartman and Ben Robinson commented that "the only thing this plan 'stimulates' is more economic inequality in the United States." Even Bush appointee Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the Congressional Budget Office, concluded that the proposed tax cuts "might have either a positive or a negative effect on the economy, but that in either case the effect would be modest."

Yet the president and his cronies continue to push the tax cuts. Confronted with a congressional compromise that would reduce the scope of the package to $350 billion (by eliminating the provision to do away with the tax on stock dividends), the President pushed back and asked for $550 billion in cuts. Asked why the Bush administration was pushing for tax cuts when the nation is engaged in a war with a still unknown price tag, and is already facing a record deficit of more than $300 billion in this fiscal year, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay famously responded, "Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes."

Of course, DeLay's justification made no sense. Similarly, veteran economic observers assert that while tax cuts may have been appropriate when the federal government was running a surplus, it makes no sense to have tax cuts when there is a deficit, particularly when deficits seem likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Greenspan warned that "Budget deficits [lead] directly to higher interest rates" which would depress economic growth.

Many have accused the Bush administration of selling tax cuts as "snake oil," suggesting that they are a universal panacea that will fix whatever ails the economy. But it wasn't long ago that Republicans actually had an economic rationale for cutting taxes. In the eighties, under the Reagan administration, Republicans advocated "supply side" economics where there was a crude logic for tax cuts: reduce the marginal tax rate and thereby motivate people to work harder; this would, in turn, stimulate the economy and, after a few years, the net positive effect would compensate for short-term deficits caused by the reduction in tax rates.

This theory didn't work -- deficits reached record proportions -- but at least the debate was conducted in terms of an economic proposal. Not so today! The Republican appeal for tax cuts is not an economic formula, but rather a political mantra. This is not a plan for the economy; it is a strategy for reelection.

The relentless drive for tax cuts reveals George W. in his true "colors," as an economic and a social conservative. Since he hooked up with Karl Rove, tax cuts have been a prominent feature of every Bush campaign. In his second term as governor he pushed through a steep tax cut (as a result, this year Texas is in dire straits, running a deficit of approximately $10 billion).

Bush and Rove regard tax cuts as a "twofer": a perennially winning issue with Republican ideologues, who on pseudo-moral grounds don't think that the government is entitled to their money. And these same cuts inexorably shrink the size of government, thus accomplishing another goal of the Republican conservative orthodoxy.

Bush doesn't talk directly about his rock-ribbed conservative philosophy but it is lurking in the shadows. In their recent bestseller about Karl Rove, "Boy Genius," Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl Cannon reported that as governor of Texas, George W. "was much more of an ideologue than he let on ... [observers were] ... stunned by his obsession with privatization." They noted that, "Bush and his team wanted to bury whatever remained of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society."

Veteran political writer Elizabeth Drew recently commented that, "About a year before the 2000 election, Rove made an alliance with the anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist, probably the most influential figure in organizing the American Right." This is a partnership based on the shared goals of reducing taxes and shrinking government. In April, when asked about the fiscal crisis facing most of the states, Norquist responded, "I hope a state goes bankrupt ... We need a state to be a bad example, so that the others will start to make the serious decisions they need to get out of this mess."

Conservatives such as Norquist, Rove and Bush believe that social programs, at both the Federal and state level, are unnecessary and therefore a waste of tax money (and therefore if states get into financial trouble they will have to cut these programs).

Americans must not be fooled by Bush propaganda that the proposed tax cuts will magically stimulate the economy or create jobs. This not about the economy, it is about right-wing ideology. These cuts are a stealth initiative to diminish government at all levels: education, healthcare, public safety, aid to elderly and veterans, transportation, protection of the environment, etc. This is intended to starve the Federal budget until all that is left is defense, homeland security, and huge interest payments.

It's not the economy; it's the extreme conservative ideology of George W. Bush and his pandering to that base of his political support.

Bob Burnett is a journalist living in Berkeley. He is the former publisher of In These Times magazine.

Before launching the war in Iraq the Bush Administration was, to say the least, circumspect about the projected cost. After the bombs began to fall they announced that our initial tab would be $75 billion. But these expenditures are just the first installment; they do not include reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure or that illusory concept, nation-building. Thus the billion-dollar question remains how much will George and Donald's big adventure cost us?

In December, Yale economist William Nordhaus, writing in The New York Review of Books, described an analytical framework for calculating the cost of this war. Nordhaus considered two general categories of costs: direct military spending such as the salaries of troops and the costs of their weapons, and follow-on costs. In the latter category he included "occupation and peacekeeping", "reconstruction and nation-building", "humanitarian assistance", "impact on the oil markets", and a catch all category "macroeconomic impact" -- that is, what impact a scenario would have on the U.S. economy in general (for example, a protracted war could possibly trigger a recession).

The Yale economist used his framework to prepare a low-end war-cost estimate of $121 billion and a high-end estimate of $1.595 trillion. Each extreme was the result of a specific scenario: the low estimate assumed a short war with no complications, whereas $1.6 trillion would be the result of a protracted war with many complications.

Mercifully, it appears that major combat in Iraq has ended after roughly six weeks. Thus, the Nordhaus' more favorable estimates are the ones that should be considered first -- those that put the cost of the war in the $121 billion range. Nordhaus comes up with an estimate of $50 billion for the direct military expenditures associated with a short war, which should be accurate if there are no unanticipated military "problems" -- such as an invasion of Syria or an extended Intifada-type campaign which ties of tens of thousands of troops.

Nordhaus estimates the total cost of the occupation as $75 to $500 billion over ten years. Since it appears only United States and British forces will be involved in peacekeeping, the true cost to the United States is likely to be in the mid-range -- $30 billion per year. He estimates that reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure will cost from $25 to $100 billion and the Council on Foreign Relations predicts that this will cost $20 billion per year.

As the Iraqi petroleum industry comes to life, some of the funds generated from petroleum exports could go towards reconstruction; the yearly value of these exports will be in the $15-20 billion range but it will be several years before they reach that level. Thus, in the first five years, the U.S. yearly cost for reconstruction will likely be at least $20 billion per year. (This, of course, assumes that the U.S. will actually pay for this; so far the Bush administration indicates that American taxpayers will foot his bill, as they regard Iraqi reconstruction as an opportunity to funnel money to some of their largest contributors, such as the Bechtel Corporation.)

The United Nations and international relief agencies will probably provide humanitarian assistance, so our costs here may be as low as $1 billion. Because most of Iraq's oil infrastructure is intact, Nordhaus predicts a reduction in world oil prices and, thereby, a positive benefit to the U.S. economy of $3 billion per year. With regard to "macroeconomic" effects, since this has been a short war there is unlikely to be any disruption of the economy.

The combination of all these factors results in a projected cost of $286 billion over five years (with roughly $100 billion expended in the first twelve months). These figures are consistent with other estimates. In April, UC Berkeley economics professor, and former chair of the president's council of Economic Advisors, Janet Yellen estimated that the direct costs of the war were likely to be in the "$100-150 billion range" and the total cost approximately "$500 billion over the next decade."

The Bush Administration would have us believe that $100 billion in the first year, and $286 billion over five years, is a small price to pay for the liberation of Iraq, and an indeterminate modicum of safety from terrorism. But, even for those of us jaded by annual budget deficits in the $300 billion range, these are big numbers.

For example, $100 billion is the funding required to bail out the states this year, to cover their combined revenue shortfall. $100 billion would provide health care for all the uninsured children in the United States for at least five years. President Bush has been touting his tax cut plan as a jobs program, claiming that it will create 1.4 million jobs; at $50,000 per job, $100 billion would create 2 million jobs in the first year.

The total cost of the war amounts to, in effect, an extra year of budget deficits - the 2003 deficit is expected to be $304 billion, and the shortfalls for 2004 and 2005 are projected as $307 and $208 billion respectively. $286 billion will raise the five-year cumulative deficit to approximately $1.5 trillion -- a 26% increase. This is a huge debt, one that will inevitably worsen the living conditions for the average U.S. citizen.

This deterioration will have two faces. The first is an increase in interest rates. The United States is a debtor nation -- dependent upon outsiders to support our economy. The ugly reality is that we consume more than we produce and this means that we are highly dependent upon the largesse of overseas investors.

As our national debt increases, our creditors will not be as willing to finance our debt by investing in our securities and, instead, will begin to eye competitive investments such as Euro bonds. This change will inevitably cause the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates -- in an effort to make our bonds more attractive. This action will further stifle the economy by making it more expensive for businesses and consumers to borrow money.

The second ugly face of our growing national debt will be to provide the Bush administration -- compassionate conservatism and all -- with a justification for a decrease in the amount of Federal expenditures on social programs such as education and health. Reduction of entitlement programs was one of the planks in Bush's platform for campaign 2000.

As the Federal debt increases, progressively larger amounts of the Federal budget will have to be devoted to interest payments, which will rise to more than $40 billion annually by 2008. Republicans will seize on this as an excuse to reduce Federal spending. But, of course, they won't cut the military -- which already amounts to half the discretionary spending -- they will cut the programs that serve the neediest among us.

What's the cost of the war in Iraq? In dollars it will be at least $286 billion. In terms of our economy and the welfare of our citizens it will feed the recession and will have prolonged negative impacts that all of us will feel. The Bush administration made a choice between "guns and butter;" the military got the guns and, as a result, the average citizen will have to give up "butter" for years to come.

Bob Burnett is a journalist in Berkeley. He is the former publisher of In These Times magazine.