Cheney running Domestic Policy too

[Moses]

www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/politics/18cheney.html?th=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

[Moses]

www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/opinion/18krugman.html?th

....White House officials themselves concede - or maybe boast - that their plan to sell Social Security privatization is modeled on their selling of the Iraq war. In fact, the parallels are remarkably exact.

Everyone has noticed the use, once again, of crisis-mongering. Three years ago, the supposed threat from Saddam somehow became more important than catching the people who actually attacked America on 9/11. Today, the mild, possibly nonexistent long-run financial problems of Social Security have somehow become more important than dealing with the huge deficit we already have, which has nothing to do with Social Security.

But there's another parallel, which I haven't seen pointed out: the politicization of the agencies and the intimidation of the analysts. Bush loyalists begin frothing at the mouth when anyone points out that the White House pressured intelligence analysts to overstate the threat from Iraq, while neocons in the Pentagon pressured the military to understate the costs and risks of war. But that is what happened, and it's happening again.

Last week Andrew Biggs, the associate commissioner for retirement policy at the Social Security Administration, appeared with Mr. Bush at a campaign-style event to promote privatization. There was a time when it would have been considered inappropriate for a civil servant to play such a blatantly political role. But then there was a time when it would have been considered inappropriate to appoint a professional advocate like Mr. Biggs, the former assistant director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization, to such a position in the first place.

Sure enough, The New York Times reports that under Mr. Biggs's direction, employees of the Social Security Administration are being forced to disseminate dire warnings about the system's finances - warnings that the employees say are exaggerated.

Still, there are two reasons why the selling of Social Security privatization shouldn't be another slam dunk.

One is that we're not talking about secret intelligence; the media, if they do their job, can check out the numbers and see that they don't match what Mr. Bush is saying. (A good starting point is Roger Lowenstein's superb survey in The Times Magazine last Sunday.)

The other is that we've been here before. Fool me once ...

[Moses]

pril 23, 2005

Cheney Backs End of Filibustering
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

ASHINGTON, April 22 - Vice President Dick Cheney plunged the White House into the judicial confirmation battle on Friday by saying he supported changing the Senate rules to stop the Democrats from blocking judicial nominees and would, if needed, provide the tie-breaking vote.

In addition on Friday, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority Republican whip, asserted that Republicans would have the votes needed to execute that change.

"There is no justification for allowing the blocking of nominees who are well qualified and broadly supported," Mr. Cheney told a gathering of the Republican National Lawyers Association. "The tactics of the last few years, I believe, are inexcusable.

"If the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up-or-down vote," he said. "On the merits, this should not be a difficult call to make."

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic minority leader, responded by accusing Mr. McConnell of bluffing and President Bush of lying.

"Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules," Mr. Reid said in a statement, referring to a breakfast held between President Bush and Congressional leaders. "Now it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Mr. Cheney's comments showed that the White House had "stepped over the line by interfering with the Senate to reduce checks and balances," adding, "The White House has always wanted to reduce the Senate's power."

The statements by Mr. Cheney and Mr. McConnell redoubled the Republican commitment to making good on their threat. Senate Republican leaders have faced advertisements from liberal interest groups attacking the move, internal polls showing the public is of two minds about the issue, a chilly response from business-group lobbying allies and several expressions of reluctance from a handful of Republican senators.

....On Thursday afternoon, Dr. Frist convened a meeting with top officials of major business groups, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, to enlist their support for the fight, officials of the groups said.

But the business groups pointedly declined to back him, these officials said, in part because in response Democrats have threatened to tie the Senate in knots that would block the group's legislative priorities like the energy bill and tort reform. The next morning, Tom Donohue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, told a gathering of journalists that the group had no interest in supporting the fight over the confirmation rules.

Some Republican senators continue to express reservations. Two, John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, have said they oppose the move.

On Wednesday, Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, warned that the parties were headed for "mutually assured destruction."

"At certain junctures of American history," Mr. Specter said in a speech on the floor, "the fate of our system of government has rested on the ability of members of this body to transcend party loyalty for national interest," he said. "I believe the Senate currently faces such a challenge between party-line voting on filibusters and potential voting on the 'constitutional or so-called nuclear' option."

Internal polls conducted for Senate Republicans by the Winston Group show they have their work cut out for them, said a person familiar with the results. Asked about the plan to end the Democrats judicial filibusters, 51 percent of respondents oppose the idea and 37 percent support it. But 80 percent believed that nominees deserve a yes-or-no vote, this person said.

Several conservative groups, including the anti-union National Right to Work Committee, the Gun Owners of America and the National Pro Life Alliance, oppose the change, arguing that conservatives have often relied on filibusters too.

Theodore B. Olson, President Bush's former solicitor general, wrote in an op-ed article published Thursday in The Wall Street Journal that both parties should "stop using judicial appointments to excite special interest constituencies and political fund-raising."

Still, Friday morning, Senator McConnell told the Christian Broadcasting Network that "what Senate Republicans are simply trying to do is get us back to the procedure that operated quite nicely for 214 years" when judicial appointments were voted up or down on the floor.

Mr. McConnell added, "We will have the votes."

[Moses]

April 23, 2005

As Senators Agree to Extend Hearings, Cheney Backs Bolton

By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, April 22 - As members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed Friday to allocate two more weeks for their examination of John R. Bolton, Vice President Dick Cheney called for solidarity with the embattled nominee, who is seeking Senate confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations.

"If being occasionally tough and aggressive and abrasive were a problem, there are a lot of members of the United States Senate who wouldn't qualify," Mr. Cheney said in a speech to Republican lawyers.

He made clear that the administration was not backing down over Mr. Bolton, despite the concerted opposition from Democrats to his nomination and indications of deep misgivings among some Republicans.

"I have looked at all of the charges that have been made; I don't think any of them stand up to scrutiny," Mr. Cheney said in answer to a question.

He was referring to what Democrats have portrayed as a troubling record that cast doubt on Mr. Bolton's temperament and credibility. Mr. Cheney seemed to suggest that the bullying of subordinates, one of the charges leveled against Mr. Bolton, was not so unusual in Washington.

In saying that many United States senators also had a record of being heavy-handed, Mr. Cheney hastened to add, "They're all friends of mine," drawing laughter from the audience. As vice president, Mr. Cheney presides over the Senate.

The new agreement between Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the panel's Republican chairman, and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the top Democrat, sets a timetable for further inquiry into charges that have emerged since Mr. Bolton testified before the committee on April 11.

The plan left open the possibility that Mr. Bolton might testify again, either at his request, at the request of the Republican chairman, or at the request of a majority of the committee's members.

But Democrats and Republicans remained divided on some details of how the inquiry should be conducted, according to Congressional officials from both parties.

The new plan follows the committee's abrupt decision on Tuesday to put off a scheduled vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination. Three of the 10 Republicans on the Senate panel have now voiced uneasiness about Mr. Bolton's nomination, and a fourth, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, also believes that the committee "did the right thing delaying the vote on Bolton in light of the recent information," a spokeswoman, Kristin Pugh, said Friday. That represented a change in tone from Ms. Murkowski's comments before Tuesday's meetings, when she told reporters from Alaska that she planned to vote in favor of Mr. Bolton.

On Friday, Ms. Pugh would say only that she could not speculate on how the senator might vote.

The agreement, described by Republican and Democratic aides, allows the panel time to investigate at least a half-dozen allegations against Mr. Bolton that have emerged since his daylong appearance before the committee on April 11.

Senate Democrats have been united in their opposition to Mr. Bolton's nomination. One of the Republicans on the panel who have expressed reservations, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, has suggested that Republicans may meet to decide whether to recommend that the White House withdraw the nomination.

President Bush has dismissed the Democratic opposition as being politically motivated. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has repeatedly expressed confidence in Mr. Bolton.

The agreement between Mr. Lugar and Mr. Biden calls for the inquiry to be completed on May 6, and for a business meeting on May 12 in which Mr. Bolton's nomination would be put to a final vote. As much as five hours will be set aside for debate at that May 12 meeting before a final vote scheduled for no later than 3 p.m., the Senate aides said.

Mr. Cheney made his comments a day after it became known that Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state, had expressed reservations about Mr. Bolton. On Friday, neither the White House nor Mr. Cheney would discuss Mr. Powell's reported comments.