Political Bulletin

WASHINGTON NEWS

McConnell Checks Reid On Iraq Bills

Senate Republicans yesterday blocked an up-or-down vote on the non-binding resolution offered by Sen. John Warner using a filibuster, a legislative maneuver that forces backers of the measure to round up 60 votes to end debate. The Los Angeles Times reports Republicans complained that Majority Leader Harry Reid "was giving preferential treatment" to the Warner resolution "to require benchmarks for Iraqi progress. The GOP asked for similar consideration for a measure by Sen. Judd Gregg." The AP notes "the 49-47 vote was 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain." The GOP-backed resolution, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, "says Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president's decision to deploy additional forces."

USA Today notes "all three Republican co-sponsors of the resolution opposed it in the 49-47 vote. The only Republicans voting for that resolution were Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Susan Collins. The New York Times says the Republican "show of unity, with war critics including Mr. Warner of Virginia and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, siding with the leadership, lent some credibility to Republican claims that Democrats were being unfair." The Washington Times says GOP Sen. Arlen Specter "called Mr. Reid's squelching of resolutions 'an effort to short-circuit debate.'"

The Washington Post reports the Democratic leadership "gave Republicans a choice: Allow all...versions to come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passing any of them, or debate and vote on the Warner and McCain resolutions, with both needing 60 votes to pass." McConnell "wanted all four resolutions to meet a 60-vote threshold, for a simple reason: Both Democrats and Republicans think the only measure that could attract 60 votes is Gregg's, because Democrats would be concerned about the political ramifications of appearing to take action that might harm troops in battle."

The vote is seen by some analysts as evidence the President retains some sway in the GOP caucus. On the NBC Nightly News, CNBC correspondent John Harwood said, "We are learning that President Bush may have more ability to hold Republicans together on Iraq than many assumed after the 2006 elections." And the CBS Evening News said the President "has been warning Congress against passing critical resolutions and today also cautioned against setting timetables for withdrawing troops. ... That argument has been hitting home even with some Republicans who are against sending more troops -- and there are quite a few of them. But privately expressing doubt is very different from casting a vote against a President's war plan."

On Fox News' Special Report roundtable, Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard said Sen. McConnell "is fantastic on this maneuvering and the procedural stuff. He knows that the minority has the advantage." Roll Call reports, "Following Republicans' successful filibuster...Senate Democrats are launching a national public relations campaign aimed at tying GOP moderates and incumbents facing difficult 2008 re-election races to Bush in the public's mind, Democratic leadership aides said Monday."

Bush Budget Sparks Partisan Battle

President Bush yesterday unveiled his budget proposal to largely negative media reviews. The New York Times says the President's plan "made few concessions to the political realities facing Mr. Bush. For a president less than two years from the end of his second term, and with his poll numbers low, it was a defiant statement of the principles he has championed for years." Likewise, the Chicago Tribune suggests Bush isn't taking into account "the political environment in which the president is delivering his newest spending plan." Similar stories appear in this morning's Los Angeles Times and Washington Times, among other newspapers, which emphasize the political "defiance" in Bush's spending plan.

Like some Democratic critics, most media coverage this morning tends to focus on proposed spending reductions on domestic programs, including Medicare, while casting a skeptical eye on the Administration's claims that its spending blueprint would balance the budget in five years. For example, the Wall Street Journal, in a story titled "On Deficit Cutting, Skeptics Abound," says Bush "often describes himself as optimistic about the nation's future, and he demonstrated that again with his 2008 budget request to Congress. ... Even if the White House is able to persuade Democrats to cut 141 federal programs, squeeze nonsecurity programs to a 1% annual growth rate and make sharp cuts in Medicare, Mr. Bush's projections still don't account for several big potential budget-busters, as budget analysts and Democratic critics were quick to note yesterday." Likewise, the Financial Times says the budget "fiscal maths rests on certain assumptions, some of which like the rapid decline in war costs look optimistic. The biggest assumption is that it is possible to hold non-security discretionary spending growth to 1 per cent in nominal cash terms."

The AP reports that the proposal "pinches programs cherished by Democrats," while the Washington Post says "Bush signaled he would attempt to squeeze spending on health care, education, housing and other domestic programs important to the Democratic majority for the duration of his term. Overall domestic spending would be held below the rate of inflation in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and frozen thereafter." The Los Angeles Times reports "the budget...calls for the deepest Medicare cuts of his six years in office and falls short in expanding health coverage to uninsured children -- a top priority for congressional Democrats this year." The Wall Street Journal runs a similar piece under the headline "Medicare Cuts To Be Painful," and the Washington Post notes Bush's call for "across-the-board cuts in provider payments if Medicare spending reaches certain levels."

Bush is also introducing "means testing" for entitlements, says the Financial Times, as "a central part of his proposals to address entitlement reform. The budget represents a challenge to parts of the system of entitlements enacted as part of the Great Society agenda of the 1960s, with plans to cut Medicare spending, the main publicly funded health insurance programme for those over 65, by raising premiums for wealthier recipients." For example, says USA Today, "Higher-income Medicare beneficiaries -- those earning more than $80,000 individually or $160,000 as a couple -- would pay more for the new drug benefit under the president's budget released Monday."

As a result, says USA Today, the proposed budget "sets the stage" for a partisan confrontation. The Los Angeles Times says "the heat flared up immediately Monday" as "Democrats castigated" the plan "as both heartless and fiscally irresponsible." McClatchy notes "the new Democratic chairmen of the congressional budget committees assailed" the plan "as a fiscal ruse that's based on inflated government revenue projections and understated future war costs."

Despite the partisan wrangling, Democrats are said to face limited options. The New York Times reports that "in practice, Democrats know that the only way they can find the revenue to restore the administration's proposed spending cuts would be to cut back on military spending, delay their stated intentions to balance the budget or rescind the Bush tax cuts in future years. They are not especially eager to do any of these." The Times adds, "The most likely result, even some Democrats acknowledge, will be a limited reshaping of the budget by restoring some proposed cuts in a variety of domestic programs, including children's health care, Head Start and home heating assistance for the poor and the elderly." The Christian Science Monitor reaches a similar conclusion in its analysis of the coming budget clash.

The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times run editorials on Bush's budget this morning, with the Journal celebrating the move toward a balanced budget and the Post and Times criticizing Bush's priorities.

Key Democrat: Cut Defense Spending? In addition to Medicare, one politically sensitive area where parties may clash is defense spending. The Wall Street Journal notes Rep. Ike Skelton, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, "suggested the Democratic-led Congress may move to pare back the defense budget. 'We cannot provide an adequate national defense on the cheap, but neither can we afford to simply ratify the president's request without performing the due diligence and oversight our Constitution requires,' Rep. Skelton said."

USA Today reports this morning Bush's budget "brings Pentagon spending to $623 billion for 2008," while the Washington Post reports the defense budget request "pushes US defense spending to levels not seen since the Reagan-era buildup of the 1980s." The Washington Times and New York Times running similar stories.

Budget "Winners" And "Losers" In an analysis of the budget, McClatchy lists the Defense Department, Veteran Affairs, and the State, Interior and Labor Departments the "winners," while it estimates the biggest "losers" are Amtrak, the Environmental Protection Agency, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Education Department, the Labor Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs, the Office of Disability Employment Policy and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Washington Post offers a similar overview.

USA Today reports the budget "would increase federal grants to low-income college students by 33% over five years and pay for it by reducing subsidies to private lenders. ... To offset the cost, the administration proposes reducing interest-rate subsidies to private lenders by half a percentage point." The Washington Post and Washington Times, meanwhile, note the plan shifts more than $1 billion to fund the new phase of the President's No Child Left Behind program.

On the other hand, says the Washington Times, the budget "would pay for only about half of the 700 miles of US-Mexico border fence he and Congress four months ago promised to build." In its Federal Diary, the Washington Post says the budget "contains nuggets of good news for federal employees: Their numbers would grow, as would their salaries." But "those retiring after relatively short careers would lose part of the standard health insurance subsidy." The Washington Post also reports "the federal cultural agencies and museums received solid support yesterday from the White House in the proposed budget for fiscal 2008."

Pelosi Gets Larger Plane Than Hastert

The Washington Post reports amid "rumblings from conservatives that she is seeking special treatment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) will receive use of an Air Force jet larger than the one used by her predecessor, Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, so she can fly nonstop to her home in San Francisco." The Post adds that "it is unclear, for example, who can travel with Pelosi and whether she can return home from a political event on the taxpayer-funded plane."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top

CAMPAIGN NEWS

Giuliani Moves Closer To Run

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani yesterday filed a formal statement of candidacy with the Federal Elections Committee, eliminating lingering doubts about whether he intends to run for president. The AP reports Giuliani said, "Today we just took another step toward running for president. It's a big step, an important one. Quite honestly, we're probably ahead of schedule." In an interview on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Giuliani was more straightforward: "I'm in this to win."

Much of the coverage of Giuliani's first day as a candidate focused on whether his moderate social views will fly with GOP primary voters. For example, in a front-page story, the Washington Post says that Giuliani's "support for abortion rights and gay rights puts him sharply at odds with the majority of his party, a situation that many GOP strategists think will present a substantial obstacle to his hopes of winning the nomination." In a report on the NBC Nightly News, John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC, said, "The question about Giuliani is whether his first day as a candidate will be his best day once primary voters look at his personal life, mayoral record and his stance on social issues." The Wall Street Journal says that "perhaps no candidate faces more trouble in gaining the nomination than Mr. Giuliani, which is ironic, given his early lead in many polls. His long-shot status in the nomination sweepstakes is based on his well-known moderate stances on litmus-test social issues. Such positions, along with his two divorces, won't enamor him to social conservatives."

On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Giuliani previewed how he intends to deal with these questions. The former Mayor was asked to respond to criticism that he will not be able to "just explain away the fact that he's consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear." Giuliani said, "I don't think anyone has campaigned much more than I have for Republican candidates, going back to 1998. I mean, I've been in 45 states on behalf of 200 candidates, all Republicans. Sometimes differences on issues here and there, but the same basic philosophy of strong foreign policy, being on offense against terrorism, smaller government, lower taxes. And in my case, those are things that I did." Asked about his position on abortion, Giuliani said, "Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against. However, I believe in a woman's right to choose." But Giuliani added he would appoint judges "very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed. Chief Justice Roberts is somebody I work with, somebody I admire, Justice Alito someone I knew when he was US attorney, also admire."

Edwards Healthcare Plan Calls For Tax Increases

The AP reports that John Edwards "is embracing a position that has been political suicide in the past -- admitting he would raise taxes." Edwards is "betting" that voters would back a tax increase in exchange for "the promise of quality health coverage for all." The AP adds that the Edwards plan would cost about $120 billion per year, and would require "every business provide health care coverage for employees or help them pay for it and every American has insurance." The New York Times reports that Edwards' "plan would be partly financed by eliminating tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000 a year, cuts that Congress approved in the Bush administration. Mr. Edwards said he would also offset the program's cost by using the estimated $15 billion in capital gains taxes that go uncollected each year by requiring brokerage houses to report capital gains from taxpayers' stock sales to the Internal Revenue Service, just as interest and dividend income is reported now."

Edwards was asked on CNN's The Situation Room "if it was a "smart move" to say he would be "raising taxes if you're elected president" to pay for his health care plans. Edwards said, "No one can propose universal health care and say they can pay for it without doing anything to the tax structure. That is not the truth. And I think the American people deserve and are entitled to the truth, that I suspect there will be other Democratic candidates as we go forward who will follow the lead that I've put out there today and will come forward with their own universal health care plan."

Edwards Rejects Public Financing. Separately, Edwards announced yesterday that he would not accept public funds for his presidential campaign, USA Today reports this morning, following a similar move by Sen. Hillary Clinton. Edwards told USA Today "that he expects major candidates in both parties to raise unlimited private dollars rather than participate in the public system. He said he needs to do the same 'to have the funds to be competitive.'"

Obama Trying To Kick Smoking Habit For Run

The Chicago Tribune reports that after "struggling to quit smoking in the past," Sen. Barack Obama (D) "is trying a cessation aid not available over the counter: public attention." Obama "resolved to quit his cigarette habit over the winter holidays, just weeks before his expected presidential campaign would make photographers and reporters an even more regular part of his life." Obama said, "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I don't succumb. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top

POLITICAL HUMOR

The Latest From Late Night Comedians

Jay Leno: "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice predicted -- she predicted that the Colts would win. Isn't that unbelievable? A Bush Administration victory announcement that actually came true. That has never happened."

Jay Leno: "And congratulations to Tony Dungy, the first African-American coach to win the Super Bowl. Very exciting. In fact, as the first African-American, Jesse Jackson called it a groundbreaking moment. Al Sharpton called it a positive step. And Hillary Clinton called it a bad omen."

Conan O'Brien: "Arnold Schwarzenegger is in trouble. Did you hear about this? Arnold Schwarzenegger is in trouble after tapes surfaced of him saying negative things about other Republicans. Yeah. Actually, the Schwarzenegger tapes surfaced last year, but they weren't deciphered until this week."

Sign up here to get the US News Political Bulletin emailed to you each morning at 8 a.m.

Top