In case you have missed some of the recent news, or like many, if you gloss over a story once you spot “Medicare” in the title, you may not have heard about the most recent Bush White House scandal. The Bush administration has its own plans for Medicare, and the information it gave to Congress claimed that the plan would cost only $395 million over ten years. Thirteen Republican representatives swore they would not vote for the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. But while the debate was going on in Congress, the Bush White House, with all the information available, some they did not hand over to Congress, had an internal estimate for the bill at $534 billion–$139 billion higher than they publicly related to Congress, and far, far over the estimate House Republicans required. The Medicare bill passed a vote in the House last summer by only 5 votes–220 to 215.

So this brings up a pretty serious question: did the White House deliberately deceive Congress as to the price of the bill so it could be passed, knowing Bush’s plan would fail if they revealed the true cost? According to two people, a congressional aide (Ms. Cybele Bjorklund) and a government actuary (a statistician who calculates insurance costs, this one a Mr. Rick Foster), claim that the Bush administrator in charge of Medicare, one Thomas A. Sculley, threatened to fire Foster if he gave the real numbers to Congress. According to Ms. Bjorklund, Sculley told her that “If Rick Foster gives that to you, I’ll fire him so fast his head will spin.”

Now, the Democratic Medicare plan cost a lot more, but Bush won a good deal of popularity saying he could do better on the cheap. Announcing a 35% cost hike and losing the vote would have been a blow to Bush. Right now, Bush’s press secretary is saying the White House supports an investigation, but you can bet that no one will ever pass the buck higher than Sculley. And yet, it is one more scandal atop so many others. There is the investigation into the Valerie Plame felony that is focusing on Cheney’s Chief of Staff, there is the investigation into the Republicans’ 18-month systematic rifling and eventual publication of Democratic Senators’ computer files, and let’s not forget the scandal about Bush’s bald-faced lies about WMD and the threat of Iraq, and the investigation into intelligence failures surrounding 9/11.

And if you want to see a tiny dollop of justice served, see this ad (Flash plug-in required) by MoveOn.org, which is nothing more than a presentation of Donald Rumsfeld getting zinged by an interviewer on Face the Nation, at one moment claiming that no one in the Bush administration said Saddam’s Iraq was an “imminent threat,” and the next moment being presented with two of his own quotes which stated exactly that (one dismissing the negative statement of imminent threat, and the other stating imminent threat in slightly different words). Rumsfeld tries to squirm out, but doesn’t do a very good job. It starts with Rumsfeld saying, “you and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase, ‘imminent threat.’ I didn’t. The president didn’t. And it’s become kind of folklore that that’s what happened.” But then, Rumsfeld is reminded that he said, “Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent…. I would not be so certain.” And, “No terror state poses a great or more immediate threat … than the regime of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.”

Okay… so he didn’t use the exact words, “Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is an imminent threat.” But like Bush, Cheney, and so many others, he said the exact same thing in other ways.

And seeing how all of these are just getting started, Bush’s hopes for sweet timing to help him win his campaign are not as encouraging as one might think. But Bush may have a trump card to play: Osama bin Laden. When reports were made out of Iran that bin Laden had been caught, and Bush was simply holding him for release at a politically opportune time, one should note that very soon after, the Bush administration began a huge 24/7 push to hunt down bin Laden–a search that was previously scheduled to start in May. Probably bin Laden has not been caught, but I would not be at all surprised if he were pinned down, and publicity is being generated to be a prelude to his capture… and that had the reports of bin Laden’s capture had not been reported, we would not be seeing any of this now. So, okay, call me a conspiracy theorist. But this is exactly the kind of manipulation Bush has shown he is expert at, and so if bin Laden is caught within the next few weeks–as I suspect he will be–my suspicions will be at an all-time high.