Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission announced it would investigate possible post-Katrina gas price gouging.

Early evidence suggests there’s plenty of dirt to find. A new Government Accountability Office report shows that retail gas prices have risen faster than crude oil prices, and local Exxon dealers have complained anonymously that higher prices are being “decreed from the top.”

Unfortunately, the person charged with getting to the bottom of it all is FTC Chairwoman Deborah Majoras. Her old job? Representing Chevron-Texaco and “other major oil and gas interests” (though you won’t learn that fact in her official bio). To get an idea of Majoras’ priorities, check out this June 2004 release from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) shortly after her confirmation hearing:

At the hearing, Wyden asked Majoras again what she would change at the FTC to better respond to high gasoline prices … and whether she would request new powers for the FTC to fight oligopoly control of major gasoline markets by just a few oil companies. In every case, Majoras said she would be willing to act but would not outline specific steps, which is precisely the FTC response that has led to little or no pro-consumer action on gasoline prices in recent years.

Before a face-to-face meeting with Majoras last month, Wyden submitted a letter detailing his concerns about the FTC’s inaction on oil and gasoline issues and asking whether Majoras would lead the agency to respond. During their meeting, Wyden also received no assurances from Majoras that the agency would change its policy of inaction to protect consumers.

that “lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars,” the AP reports.

Bloomberg reports that the federal probe into Jack Abramoff has widened to include the big fish of Washington DC’s conservative establishment, including Grover Norquist, Representative Robert Ney of Ohio, Ralph Reed, Tom Delay, and Senator Conrad Burns. Former Representative Jack Quinn of New York said of the investigation’s chilling effect, “Sure there’s a concern. … But like everyone else, we have to wait and see where the investigation goes.”

They should be nervous. It looks like David Safavian, the former White House procurement official whom the FBI arrested yesterday on corruption charges, will get the “squeeze-play strategy” from federal investigators – and it’s anyone’s guess who he’ll rat on:

The lawyer for a former Bush administration official arrested this week says authorities are using the charges to pressure her client to aid their investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
“¦
“This is a creative use of the criminal code to secure his cooperation against someone else,” [Safavian's lawyer Barbara] Van Gelder said in an interview Wednesday.
“¦
Squeeze-play strategy

Investigators frequently seek to pressure minor players in complex federal probes as they build a case against their principal target. “You squeeze that person and hope he flips as you work your way up to the top,” said Kirby Behre, a former prosecutor who is a partner at the Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker law firm in Washington.

Just call him David “John Dean” Safavian.

downgraded to Category 4. Houston Chronicle has launched a hurricane blog.

A new Santa Clara Law Review study finds that in California murder trials, a victim’s race significantly affected the likelihood of a defendant receiving the death penalty. Specifically, those who murdered whites were four times more likely to receive a death sentence than those who killed Hispanics, and three times more likely than those who killed blacks. The study’s co-author concluded, “To put it bluntly, there’s apparently different values being placed on victims from different racial and ethnic groups.”

While the Santa Clara study dealt only with California, the problem is a national one. Studies in Ohio, Illinois and New Jersey have made similar conclusions about the role of the victim’s race in murder trials:

Ohio: “Offenders facing a death penalty charge for killing a white person were twice as likely to go to death row as if they had killed a black victim. Death sentences were handed down in 18 percent of cases in which the victims were white, compared with 8.5 percent of cases when victims were black.” [AP, 5/7/05]

Illinois: “When certain facts in aggravation, such as previous criminal history of the defendant, are controlled for, there is evidence that the race of the victim influences who is sentenced to death. In other words, defendants of any race who murder white victims were more likely to receive a death sentence than those who murdered black victims.” [Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment, 2002]

New Jersey: “Killers are more likely to be sentenced to death in New Jersey if their victims were white rather than black, a new judicial report has found. ‘There is unsettling statistical evidence indicating that cases involving killers of white victims are more likely to progress to a [death] penalty phase than cases involving killers of African-American victims,’ the report found.” [The Bergen County, NJ Record, 8/14/01]

It’s high time that we address this problem seriously.

is moving beyond the confines of tawdry influence-peddling,” Bloomberg reports, and is threatening leading figures in the right-wing “hierarchy that dominates Washington.”

With great fanfare, and recalling the “Gingrich Revolution” of the 1990s, House conservatives yesterday proposed a broad set of spending cuts they said would help offset the costs of the Katrina reconstruction effort. Their plan, “Operation Offset,” reduces the budget by $500 billion over 10 years, and does so in large part by dismantling programs that invest in middle- and working-class Americans.

Progressives can do better. As we show below, it’s possible to cut far more unnecessary federal spending ($688 billion), accomplish it in half the time (just five years), and do it while upholding the principles of fiscal responsibility and concern for the common good.

Taxes

$327 billion: Roll back the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans [without sunsets, 2005-09; CBPP]
$65 billion: Clarify the definition of offshore tax shelters [Joint Committee on Taxation]

Transportation

$12 billion: Eliminate roughly half of the 6,371 special earmarked projects of the 2005 transportation bill [MSNBC]

Medicare

$43 billion: Permit mail order prescription drug purchases, which offer lower overheard costs, bulk purchasing and fewer dispensing errors [Lewin Group]

Energy

$8.5 billion: Roll back the tax breaks, loan guarantees, and other subsidies for the electricity, coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil industries in the 2005 energy bill [San Francisco Chronicle]

Defense

$200 billion: Eliminate several Defense Department weapons programs that are either unnecessary (such as the F/A 22 Raptor and the DD(X)) or counter to our national security interests (like space weapons and “bunker buster” nuclear bombs) [L. Korb, "A Realistic Defense for America"]

Agricultural Subsidies

$30 billion: Eliminate export subsidies [Oxfam]
$2.5 billion: Reduce cotton subsidies [Environmental Working Group]
$845 million: Reduce maximum payment limits on what producers can receive from $360,000 to $250,000, and related subsidy reductions [CRS, "Agriculture: Prospective Issues for Congress"]

of the cost of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or the fight against terrorism,” the Washington Post reports.