The Note: The First Cut
Is the Deepest, Baby I Know
— -- WASHINGTON, April 29
NEWS SUMMARY
The while-you-were-sleeping congressional budget deal is a big, uhm, deal.
This news cycle's North Korea, Bolton, filibuster, and AFL-CIO developments are also B-I-G.
And not much is bigger, really, than the President's big-time ability to not make news if he don't wanna.
But last night's giant newser is bigger than anything else, because the President hugged progressive indexing a little tighter than he ever had before, and the gargantuan political implications of that can be boiled down to one question:
Will that semi-tentative and vagueish embrace make it more likely that (some) Democrats will someday agree to vote for a Social Security reform package that the President will sign into law?
Of course, the White House wasn't looking for (or expecting) immediate converts. But they need some sort of jump start to get the Democrats out of their crouching refusal to talk about changes to the Social Security system, while denouncing individual accounts. And this is a (relatively) low-risk way to try for that.
The convention wisdom among the Gang of 500 remains -- the best the President can hope for is a solvency plan (a combo of benefit cuts for some future retirees, tax increases in the form of cap raising, and probably some more debt) that has carve-out and/or pilot personal accounts -- but not full-scale personal accounts.
Perhaps because that is in fact the CW, some listeners last night claimed to hear a commander in chief throwing in the towel on such accounts.
We didn't hear that at all.
We also didn't hear:
1. Any Democrats (yet) drawn to the table by the presidential offer.
2. All that much squealing on the right regarding progressive indexing (although that is on the way. . . . .).
3. The President say as much as he is going to have to say about the pain involved in the kind of progressive indexing plan he is now (more) on the record supporting.
Since 1999, the President has asked for Brownie points for having the courage to take on reforming Social Security. But because he has always emphasized personal accounts and the protection of full benefits for those in or near retirement, this is the first news cycle in the history of George W. Bush's national political career in which what is emphasized in the coverage is his willingness to support significantly lower benefits in the future for some (wealthier) retirees.
The White House tried to transition into that dangerous terrain by having the President highlight the protection of benefits for the poorest Americans, but the numbers don't lie.
And the headlines don't either.
And explaining progressive indexing is more complicated than just about anything this White House has tried to educate the public about.
For more on all this, see below.
On day 99 (and counting) of term numero dos (heh heh heh), President Bush motorcades to Falls Church, Virginia for a 10:20 am ET Social Security conversation featuring his newly introduced Pozenian indexing principles. Bush then plants a tree at the White House at 1:15 pm ET.
The House and Senate are out of session, having agreed on the budget resolution and then skedaddled.
As for yesterday's somewhat overlooked filibuster chapter, in which Sen./Leader/Dr. Frist unveiled his long-promised compromise:
We'll skip over the very interesting Senate floor exchange between Sens. Reid (who did Chuck Schumer's fundraisers no favor) and Frist (who seemed in his element) to focus on what happens now.
1. The GOP has something to sell during the May recess. Anticipation of the nucleartutional (Is that an OK term, Josh Marshall?) trigger will placate social conservative elites for a while. And the inevitability of a vote, probably about whether the filibuster rules are dilatory, may help push three of the three remaining GOP hold-outs (added to the four we presume are hold outs) to vote in favor of the rule change. If the vice president takes the chair, will that hurt or help the Republicans' image campaign on this issue?
2. Democrats, having offered a "compromise" earlier this week that was also immediately rejected, now have to explain why they rejected 100 hours of debate. (Not saying they can't do it, but we think it needs to be explained. Jim Jordan or someone else needs to explain to us why Democrats are convinced Americans like the word "filibuster" and the idea of it all.)
3. Monday, we hear that Progress for America will get their hands in this mix, pressing home the case for the President's nominees. We expect lots of left and right surrogate battles and statewide ad buys, too.
A new 527 launches ads in four states today opposing the compromise asbestos legislation grinding its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The National Journal has a cover package on 2008. LINK
Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman speaks today to GOP state party chairs in Cleveland.
The Senate Accountability Project, which is seeded with trial lawyer money, has bought $200,000 worth of television time in Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska and Washington, D.C. A consultant who works with the group says the Accountability Project hopes to hold Democrats and Republicans accountable on a wide range of legislation -- Social Security and tax reform ads will follow. The group has a budget of about $15 million. www.senateproject.com
Tonight, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at the Wisconsin Women in Government dinner. That's in Madison; we accidentally reported Milwaukee the other day. We're told that thousands of people who wanted tickets were turned away because of sky-high demand.
Surely the Senator will get questions about any national office ambitions that she has, and about North Korea. She will laugh her laugh when asked about the former, and get all steely when asked about the latter.
Saturday, Cedric the Entertainer headlines the White House Correspondents Association dinner at the Washington Hilton. President Bush will attend. His deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, will be in Vegas, headlining the state GOP's Lincoln Day dinner. Yes of course it's at the Venetian. Silly for asking. Also Saturday, Sen. John McCain delivers the graduation address at the Maine Marine Academy.
On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos has exclusive interviews with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and CBN President Pat Robertson. ABC News Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent Linda Douglass joins the roundtable.
Also Sunday, Air America Radio debuts a new program, "Politically Direct," featuring long-time Democratic activist David Bender. His inaugural gets aren't bad: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Robert Byrd. The show premieres at 2:00 pm ET.
Social Security: headlines:
Not so negative::
New York Post: W. PITCHES 'SECURITY' BLANKET FOR THE POOR (That's inside: the front page headline is Best Ex He Ever Had.)
Houston Chronicle: Bush proposes reform to save Social Security
Boston Herald: Bush sticks to his guns: Makes public pitch for Social Security revamp, energy policy
San Diego Union-Tribune: Bush Takes Offensive on Energy, Social Security
Dallas Morning News: Bush Willing to Listen to Social Security Ideas Not so positive: Washington Post: Bush Social Security Plan Would Cut Future Benefits and Bush Gamble on Social Security. LINK New York Times: Bush Cites Plan That Would Cut Social Security Benefits New York Daily News: Bush Bends on Social Security Kansas City Star: Bush suggests cutback in benefits for wealthy Knight Ridder: Bush proposes different Social Security system for rich, poor Relatively neutral: Wall Street Journal: Bush Spells Out His Overhaul Plan For Social Security Los Angeles Times: Bush Recasts Message on Social Security Boston Globe: Bush would trim benefits of well-to-do Oklahoman: Bush offers new Social Security plan. LINK Cincinnati Enquirer (over the AP story:) Bush: Recalculate Social Security; Proposes lower benefits for future wealthier retirees LINK USA Today: Bush: Rein in Social Security: Plan slows benefits for higher earnings ABC News' Charlie Gibson: "President Bush on the offense, pushing his new plan for Social Security." ABC News' Robin Roberts: "President Bush is pushing his revised Social Security plan a day after unveiling new proposals to the nation . . . " The Today Show, brought to you from Las Vegas, turned to the President's news conference after a run-down of the opulent features of the spectacular new Wynn casino and hotel (wow!), with Norah O'Donnell calling the progressive indexing idea a "very bold move to jump-start the stalled debate on his Social Security proposal." Social Security: lede graphs: The Wall Street Journal: "President Bush, struggling to give life to his initiative to revamp Social Security, called for the first time for specific reductions in future retirement benefits to keep the program solvent over time." The Washington Post: "President Bush last night embraced a complex proposal to restore much of Social Security's fiscal balance by cutting deeply into the Social Security benefits of high-income workers and eroding benefits promised to the middle class." LINK The Houston Chronicle: "With polls showing widespread disapproval of his Social Security plan, President Bush on Thursday proposed a slower increase in benefits for middle- and upper-income future retirees as a way to bolster the long-term finances of the system." LINK Social Security: analysis you need to read: "In other words, he has fallen into the unfortunate pattern for second-term presidents who face a broad constellation of things gone wrong and few ways to fix them quickly." From the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Bush didn't say he would reject a Social Security overhaul that didn't include private accounts, but said he feels strongly they are a necessary part of any solution." A senior administration official tells ABC News' Jessica Yellin this morning that Bush has no intention of compromising on cave-out private savings accounts. Todd Purdum in the New York Times: " . . . even after his hour-long encounter with reporters was over on Thursday night, the atmosphere remained unsettled. The changes he suggested to help keep Social Security solvent seemed unlikely to unfreeze the stalemate on Capitol Hill over revising the system. He acknowledged that he had no easy fix for high gasoline prices, nor any firm timetable for bringing American troops home from Iraq." LINK On the press conference, ABC News' Stephanopoulos: "He thought that was the only way to jump start the debate." From the Washington Post: "Already battling public opinion, the president has now publicly endorsed a proposal under attack from all sides - by conservatives who say it will make Social Security an even less attractive deal than it is now, and by liberals who say it is unfair to the middle class and would undermine political support for Social Security." LINK Also from the Post: "White House aides took the risk of a nationally televised news conference because they know that the next few weeks will be crucial in determining the success of Bush's second term. Aides who dismissed talk of a second-term funk only weeks ago grant that the coming weeks represent a crucial test of Bush's strength." LINK "Now that Bush has offered more specifics, he encounters a new set of risks. Democrats are ready to pounce on Bush for his plan to index benefits to prices rather than wages, which they say will mean a major benefit cut. 'For the first time ever, you'll see a Social Security solvency plan that is solely based on deep cuts to the middle class,' said Gene B. Sperling, who was President Bill Clinton's economic adviser." "And conservative Republicans will balk at his call last night for 'progressive indexing,' which would reduce future payments for middle- and upper-income retirees by linking increases to prices rather than wages. Stephen Moore, a leading proponent of personal accounts, warned of a 'nightmare' in which benefit cuts 'cost Republicans the Senate in 2006.'" "'He has a clear conundrum right now,' Moore said." USA Today Notes that "The change sounds semantic, but the impact would be considerable. Wages historically rise faster than prices, which means the retirement benefits for better-paid workers would be significantly lower than under the current system." LINK On "Today," NBC News' Russert claimed that if Bush insists that private accounts must be part of Social Security, the program will not pass. (And, on another matter, Russert called it significant that the President distanced himself from the conservatives who framed the filibuster fight as the Democrats' war on people of faith, and predicted Democrats will say it's part of his pattern, letting the conservatives take the hard line.) Writes Ron Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times, "For all the resolve and optimism that he projected in his news conference Thursday night, President Bush's remarks represented a subtle midcourse correction after weeks of political turbulence that have depressed his approval rating and support for the Republican majority in Congress." LINK "Bush offered one new initiative and discussed that only in broad terms. He said he would support revising the Social Security system so that future benefits 'for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off' and all workers would be guaranteed benefits sufficient to lift them out of poverty in retirement." "One senior White House official said those words were meant to send 'a clear signal Bush is supporting' a plan like the one proposed by Robert C. Pozen, an investment executive who has been close to Democrats." David Rosenbaum and Robin Toner write in the New York Times that "Only people with the lowest wages would be distinctly better off under the president's plan than they would be if Social Security reserves were allowed to run out, as is projected happen in about 2040 or 2050. When there are no reserves left, enough money from Social Security taxes will be raised each year to pay about 70 percent to 80 percent of scheduled benefits. Mr. Bush argues that people will still be much better off because the increased returns from the private retirement accounts he would create would more than offset the guaranteed benefit cuts." LINK More, from the Journal: "Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, a past Bush ally and the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee responsible for Social Security, said in a statement last night, 'The plan that was highlighted tonight would mean additional cuts for Americans, and that's just not right.' He reiterated Democrats' demand that Mr. Bush drop his proposal for private accounts before they would come to the negotiating table." New York Post: "Bush . . . got high marks from the experts for his performance under nearly an hour's worth of questioning from reporters. He largely stayed on message, and clearly seemed more relaxed as a president who no longer has to worry about re-election." LINK From Washington Wire: Conservatives press House action on Social Security after Senate Finance hearing underscores cracks in Republican support. They prefer a 'no pain' alternative for private accounts that doesn't cut benefits or raise taxes. A House Ways and Means panel plans a mid-May hearing, but Chairman Thomas of California continues to defer to Senate counterpart Grassley of Iowa. Third-ranking Senate Republican Santorum of Pennsylvania privately urges the White House to endorse even larger private accounts, while putting aside talk of benefit cuts." Nina Easton of the Boston Globe writes that President Bush's Social Security allies seem to be slowly tiptoeing away. LINK The press conference vs. May sweeps: "For all the networks, the very selection of last night by the White House, regardless of the time, posed a dilemma. It was first night of the so-called May sweeps period, one of three main times in the year in which network ratings are closely tracked, with an eye on setting advertising rates for the next year." "It was that timing, as much as the White House suggestion that Mr. Bush had no major announcement to make, that gave the networks pause about going live, several executives said." USA Today's Judy Keen writes that President Bush seems far more comfortable with the press, and the White House says there are certain issues that need him to speak, so why not have a press conference? And leave it to Joe Lockhart to call this a defensive move. LINK The Chicago Tribune Web site basically leads with AP's David Bauder, who reports that CBS, NBC, and Fox cut away from the news conference, ignoring the last two questions in favor of "Survivor," "The Apprentice," and "The Simple Life," respectively. LINK North Korea nukes: Ledes the New York Times, "[t]he head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said Thursday that American intelligence agencies believed North Korea had mastered the technology for arming its missiles with nuclear warheads, an assessment that if correct, means the North could build weapons to threaten Japan and perhaps the western United States." LINK "While Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, the Defense Intelligence Agency chief, said in Senate testimony that North Korea had been judged to have the "capability" to put a nuclear weapon atop its missiles, he stopped well short of saying it had done so, or even that it had assembled warheads small enough for the purpose. Nor did he give evidence to back up his view during the public session of the Senate Armed Services Committee." "In an interview on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's statement 'the first confirmation, publicly, by the administration that the North Koreans have the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device that can reach the United States,' adding, 'Put simply, they couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can.'" And we liked at the press conference when the President showed his like-mindedness with The Note over David Sanger's, err, interest in the North Korea story. Note to David: YOU WERE RIGHT!!!!! Note to the President: Thanks for calling on Olivier Knox. Big casino budget politics: ding-ding-ding-ding-ding: "This year is the first time since 1997 that Congress has used the budget to trim the explosive growth of so-called entitlement programs, particularly Medicaid. It directs lawmakers to reduce the growth of entitlements - including farm subsidies and a federal pensions guarantee as well as Medicaid - by a total of $35 billion over the next five years," writes the New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg. LINK Economy: From one article in the Wall Street Journal: "Rising energy prices dragged U.S. economic growth to a two-year low, and there are signs it will ebb further in the coming months." From another: "Broader relief may be on the way, say economists who see signs that today's clouds will soon dissipate. Weaker-than-expected economic growth is likely to turn around, says Goldman Sachs economist Ed McKelvey, while the worst of the shock from oil prices is likely already past." More forward-looking graphs in today's economy stories: "Investors in financial markets were taken aback by the unexpected sluggishness, sending stocks tumbling and pushing bond yields down as the new data cemented expectations that the Federal Reserve will increase interest rates by another quarter of a percentage point at its meeting on Tuesday even as growth is decelerating," the New York Times reports. LINK "A slowing economy is not entirely unexpected. Most economists consider that the United States has the potential to grow at about 3.5 percent, on average, over the long term, substantially less than the 4.4 percent expansion recorded last year. Consumer spending, the main buttress for economic growth over the last three years, has been expected to slow somewhat as rising interest rates take some steam out of the housing market and consumer lending. Businesses, however, were expected to invest heavily and pick up some of the slack." Filibuster battles: OK, this article is from yesterday, but hey, it's from New Hampshire, and it's about John Sununu. Lauren Dorgan of the Concord Monitor submitted a story discussing the wary suspense surrounding Sununu's vote on the filibuster situation. Preferring to remain clandestinely tight-lipped on the subject and leave the rest of us to hedge our bets, he did profess a belief consistent with bipartisanship. "Like any rules change, I want to ask the question: If the rule is changed, is it something I am comfortable with whether in the majority or the minority, whether we have Republican president or a Democratic president?" LINK The Los Angeles Times' Maura Reynolds has Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) calling Sen. Frist's compromise offer insincere: "'What I think we haven't seen yet is a willingness . . . to say no to some of the outlandish claims of their base,' Obama said." LINK Reynolds also reports that Columbia Pictures has moved to take Mr. Smith out of the partisan debate. LINK USA Today's Kathy Kieley calls the coming filibuster fight a "politically explosive confrontation." LINK The Wall Street Journal editorial board opposes anonymous holds. Abramoff and DeLay, ethics and travel: "The no-bid contract to promote 'ethics in government' was awarded in 1996 to David Lapin, a rabbi whom the lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, later hired to run a private Jewish school, now defunct, near Washington. The contract was one of several totaling about $9 million given to Mr. Abramoff and his associates that have provoked questions about the lobbyist's activities in the Commonwealth." Carl Hulse in the New York Times writes of potential perception problems with the ethics committee and members having ties to Mr. DeLay. LINK Writes John Harwood in the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire: "Rep. Emanuel of Illinois, who chairs the party's House campaign committee, joins Meehan of Massachusetts in offering a bill to increase disclosure and require traveling lawmakers to determine underlying financiers of their trips. Both provisions target issues raised by DeLay controversy." "Even moderate Republicans such as Connecticut Rep. Shays, who has suggested DeLay step down, keep their distance to avoid appearance of piling on the majority leader. 'I'm not sure we can legislate anything' to curb abuses, says ex-Ethics Chair Hefley of Colorado." "House Republicans plan push next week to shift attention from ethics to spurring job growth." The Los Angeles Times' Mary Curtius writes that everybody better settle in for a long ride -- six months to a year -- for the ethics committee to complete its investigation of DeLay. Curtius also throws in some advice for and expectations from some experts on how the panel should operate. LINK Gebe Martinez of the Houston Chronicle focuses on campaign donations between Tom DeLay and other Congresspeoples sitting on the Ethics Committee LINK Michael Hedges of the Houston Chronicle Notes the NBC News report last night that concluded DeLay's 1997 trip to Russia was paid off by both lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a Russian company. LINK The DNC released this statement yesterday: "Given the numerous charges against Jack Abramoff and his close association with President Bush and prominent Republican Party leaders who are now facing charges of ethics violations, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on President Bush to return funds received from Mr. Abramoff and sever their close personal and financial ties until all these matters are fully resolved." Bolton: We aren't really sure what that is based on. There are some new accusations this news cycle (egad: Bolton set up meetings on his own!!!); Sen. Voinovich tells a Cleveland audience he is still fence sitting; and a key(ish) Republican comes out publicly against. "On Thursday, John C. Whitehead, who was deputy secretary of state under President Reagan, said in an interview that he had urged Republican senators to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination on the ground that Mr. Bolton was 'a difficult person to work with' who would not command respect at the United Nations," reports the New York Times' Douglas Jehl. LINK Jehl also has has new bureaucrats with their noses out of whack. The Washington Post's Dafna Linzer said that Sen. Voinovich "whose concerns promoted the delay in the committee's decision, told a luncheon of the Cleveland Club that he was still undecided. 'I am concerned about people's interpersonal skills,' he said in response to a question about Bolton." LINK Linzer has Jehlian details of the conversations of a former Bush Administration official and a former CIA WMD chief who told Senate staff members about incidents in which they said John Bolton tried to punish State Department officials for disagreeing with him on nonproliferation issues. LINK Bush agenda: Excerpts from Ken Mehlman's speech today: "Conservatism is the ideology of the future. Republicans are driving the course of history with new solutions to promote opportunity at home and freedom abroad. And it is the left, including unfortunately many of today's Democratic leaders, who seek to turn back the clock and obstruct the march of history . . . . President Bush's leadership in facing tomorrow's problems is not unique. Throughout our history, America has benefited from farsighted leaders who confronted tomorrow's problems by reforming government today. Like President Bush, such leaders often face obstacles. Franklin Roosevelt explained, 'The most serious threat to our institutions comes from those who refuse to face the need for change.'" "We registered 3.4 million Republicans over the past 4 years. Our goal must be to add 4 million new Republicans by 2008, including 1.5 million in this cycle. On top of this new voter registration, we will identify 19 million more Republicans, independents and discerning Democrats to add to our turnout rolls, and recruit 1 million new volunteers over the next 2 years." E.J. Dionne lays out his explanation of why he thinks President Bush is an "egghead" -- committed to theoretical principles and grand ideas that he's just had to sell in a more concrete way. LINK "The Secret Service has requested racial information on journalists and guests scheduled to attend a reception tomorrow night with President Bush," the Washington Post's Dana Milbank reports, Noting that the Secret Service said such a request has been routine for years. LINK 2008: Republicans: He leads in today's National Journal insider poll of who GOPers think will be the nominee in 2008. And he's second to Rudy Giuliani in an on-line poll of savvy Republican politico-techno-geeks who voted on Patrick Ruffini's must-read Web site: LINK and LINK For the first time since its abolishment in 1984, a Massachusetts governor -- Mitt Romney, in this case -- has filed a bill that would reinstate the death penalty in the Bay State. The bill sets a high bar in proving "beyond reasonable doubt" in death penalty cases by allowing accused defendants to be represented by a certified capital case lawyer for proper representation and proper DNA testing to ensure "no doubt" when possible. Romney has been a vocal death penalty supporter since 1994 and this bold legislation could attract the attention needed from other conservatives as he decides on his possible 2008 race for the White House. LINK Since the Boston media will ask eventually, we will now: how does this play for re-elect versus national aspirations? The Boston Herald's Kimberly Atkins and Dave Wedge write that Democrats are lampooning Romney's decision. LINK Romney gets New York Times ink, too. LINK 2008: Democrats: Her husband's book-signing visit to New Hampshire included an endorsement of the NH primary. LINK We don't need to tell you who won the Democratic insiders poll in National Journal. Chris Matthews spoke at Georgetown University and predicts Hillary Clinton will run in 2008, but says if McCain were to run on the GOP ticket, he would "clobber" her. LINK 2006: Michael Cooper of the New York Times on Eliot Spitzer's two hats: candidate and law enforcer: "Republicans are jumping on what many Democrats consider Mr. Spitzer's strongest point - the investigations of fraud on Wall Street and elsewhere in the financial sector that helped make him a nationally known figure - and are trying to turn it against him, saying he is killing jobs." LINK California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said yesterday he's going to avoid what he predicts will be a nasty fight for governor and run for state treasurer instead, the Los Angeles Times' Robert Salladay reports. LINK 2005: House of Labor: But it was immediately rejected by dissident labor labors, including Andrew Stern of the SEIU and James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters, two of the largest and most powerful American unions, and it boosted the chances that these unions would field a candidate against AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who is up for re-election in July, or else secede from the labor body itself. The proposal would encourage, but not require, each of the AFL-CIO's unions to devote 30 percent of their dues to organizing new members, create a $22.5 million central fund to pay for it, and restructure the labor body's coordinating committees to reduce inter-union friction. Sweeney said his ideas would fund approximately $400 million for organizing over the next several years. Stern, Hoffa, and leaders of the Unite-Here, Laborers and commercial workers unions, said that labor should require unions to devote resources to recruiting new members, cut the bureaucracy of the AFL-CIO staff, and, in some cases, mandate coordination between unions. It was clear that, short of a proposal that adopted most of the dissidents' agenda, that Sweeney's proposal would face opposition from unions representing about 40 percent of current AFL-CIO members. Writes Steven Greenhouse in the New York Times: "In a clear response to some of Mr. Stern's criticisms, Mr. Sweeney called for the creation of industry wide coordinating committees to develop strategies for organizing and bargaining. He would like to encourage union mergers and better settle disputes between unions trying to organize the same workers." LINK "Embracing a suggestion from the Teamsters, he also recommended that unions do far more political work in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states with heavy union membership." The Washington Post's Tom Edsall ledes this way: "AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, who is facing challenges from some of the labor federation's largest member unions, yesterday acknowledged that the organization is financially squeezed and may have to lay off a quarter of its workforce." LINK Politics: New Hampshire: Media: There aren't that many people in American political journalism who are legendary; Judy is one of 'em; and anyone who cares about standards and quality better help us hold her to her promise to keep working and setting her constant grand example.
The New York Times: "President Bush called Thursday night for cutting Social Security benefits for future retirees to put the system on sound financial footing, and he proposed doing so in a way that would demand the most sacrifice from higher-income people while insulating low-income workers." [Italics ours.] LINK
"President Bush on Thursday used a format he does not like to discuss issues he cannot resolve in hopes that he can sell the American people on policies most say they don't want," writes the Chicago Tribune's Michael Tackett. LINK
Writes the New York Times' Jacques Steinberg: "After lobbying by NBC executives, the White House announced that it had agreed to move the president's starting time to 8 o'clock. That enabled NBC to show the president live while protecting Mr. Trump at 9 and the start of the highly-rated "E.R." show at 10." LINK
In all serious, this could be the key foreign policy issue of the 2008 campaign, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton can claim to be on top of it.
The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman takes a closer look at the five-year, $14 trillion budget that Congress passed last night, which included drilling in ANWR, tax cuts, and cuts in the growth of entitlements -- the first since 1997 -- designed to cut the deficit. It also raises the government's debt limit to $8.96 trillion. LINK
Watzit?
Writes David Kirkpatrick in the New York Times: "On Thursday, Dr. Frist and other Republicans singled out another blocked nominee, Priscilla R. Owen, for praise, signaling that they planned to make her the first test of the Democrats' commitment to their blockade." LINK
"The government of a United States territory in the Pacific said Thursday that it had been unable to determine what work was performed for a $1.2 million contract awarded to a close associate of a Washington lobbyist at the center of a growing corruption scandal here," the New York Times' Kate Zernike reports. LINK
There's a new CW that says that Bolton's chances for confirmation are looking better.
Former RNC research director (and proud new husband) Tim Griffin becomes deputy White House political director. Congrats to him! (and to Sara Taylor and Karl Rove for snagging him . . . . )
Two checks (and therefore, lots of check$) for Sen. George Allen.
Lots of ink for Sen. Clinton's Wisconsin visit today: LINK
The New York Post has details of a $25,000 a head DSCC fundraiser. LINK
The Los Angeles Times' Richard Fausset and Jennifer Oldham report that Antonio Villaraigosa, as pressure mounted over his campaign contributions from Florida, decided Thursday to return them. LINK
After months of contentious internal debate, the AFL-CIO's leadership offered its formal proposals for reform Thursday, combining a carrot-without-stick approach to growing their ranks with a commitment to build on their political program that seeks to elect labor-friendly politicians to office.
The Washington Post's Mike Allen reports that President Bush is urging the Senate to consider a measure passed by the House that would criminalize the actions of doctors or other adults who enable minors to cross state lines to evade parental notification laws and obtain abortions. LINK
In a nod to SCOTUS from New England, the New Hampshire Senate -- devoid of much polemical discussion on the topic -- approved a bill yesterday that exempts minors from confronting the death penalty in court, writes Garry Rayno in today's Manchester Union Leader. LINK
We're going to remain in tearful denial for a little while, even while we're happy for Judy Woodruff, who announced yesterday that she's leaving CNN. LINK
Top Stories
ABC News Live