Tuesday, May 03, 2005

'Hitler's nurse' breaks silence

BBC NEWS
'Hitler's nurse' breaks silence

A survivor of Adolf Hitler's wartime bunker in Berlin has been tracked down, a German newspaper claims.

The Berliner Zeitung relates 93-year-old Erna Flegel's account of the last days of World War II, under the headline "I was Hitler's nurse".

Mrs Flegel said she stayed in the bunker after Hitler killed himself and was there when Soviet troops arrived.


She said Hitler was so paranoid that he even suspected spies had filled his cyanide capsule with false poison.

From January 1943 until the end of the war, Mrs Flegel's job was to give medical treatment to Hitler and his inner circle, she told the paper.

She was interviewed by US secret service agents in 1945, but otherwise has kept silent about her experiences for the past 60 years, the Berliner Zeitung says.

Now, however, she said she had decided to speak out, telling the paper: "I don't want to take my secret with me to the grave."

'Merciless' mother

Mrs Flegel's story does not challenge what is already known, but does add new details.

She said of Hitler: "By the end, he didn't trust anyone any more - not even the cyanide capsule he swallowed."

She also recalled trying to save the lives of the six children of Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, but said his wife Magda, who poisoned them, was "merciless".

Mrs Flegel said that after Hitler's suicide, Goebbels took over as leader, but no-one paid any attention to him.

"His last subordinates shot themselves in succession," she said. "And those who didn't shoot themselves tried to flee."

She said she remained, however. "I had to look after the wounded."

In the newspaper interview, Mrs Flegel described the atmosphere in the bunker as the noise of approaching Soviet forces grew.

"You could feel that the Third Reich was coming to an end," she said. "The radios stopped working and it was impossible to get information."

Mrs Flegel added that when the Soviet troops arrived, they were well-behaved and advised her to lock her door.

She said she stayed for several days, and was one of the last people to leave the bunker.

Read More...

Pentagon Says Iraq Effort Limits Ability to Fight Other Conflicts

The New York Times
May 3, 2005
Pentagon Says Iraq Effort Limits Ability to Fight Other Conflicts
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, May 2 - The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.

The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.


A half dozen Pentagon civilian and military officials were discussing the outlines of the report on Monday as it was being officially delivered to Congress; one government official provided a copy to The New York Times. The officials who discussed the assessment demanded anonymity because it is a classified document.

General Myers cited reduced stockpiles of precision weapons, which were depleted during the invasion of Iraq, and the stress on reserve units, which fulfill the bulk of combat support duties in Iraq, as among the factors that would limit the Pentagon's ability to prevail as quickly as war planners once predicted in other potential conflicts.

The report this year acknowledges that the nation's armed forces are operating under a higher level of risk than cited in the report last year, said Pentagon and military officials who have read both documents.

Despite the limitations, General Myers was unwavering in his assessment that American forces would win any major combat operation. The armed forces, he concluded, are "fully capable" of meeting all Washington's military objectives.

The general's report appears to provide a slightly different assessment than President Bush offered at a news conference last week when he said the number of American troops in Iraq would not limit Washington military options elsewhere.

Mr. Bush said he had asked General Myers, "Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq?"

"And the answer is no, he didn't feel a bit limited," Mr. Bush said. "It feels like we got plenty of capacity."

Late Monday, a Pentagon official dismissed any serious contradiction between the president and the general. "The two comments are consistent in that no one in the military feels at all limited in the ability to respond to any contingency," the official said. "What the risk assessment discusses is the nature of the response."

Another Pentagon official emphasized that the risk assessment should be understood as a rating of the military's ability to successfully perform its mission based on a set of standards set by the Joint Staff, which is different from the broad statement of military capability given by the president at his news conference.

In the report, General Myers wrote, the military faces "moderate" risk in its mission to protect the United States, and he assessed the risk for preventing conflict - including surprise attack - as "moderate, but trending toward significant."

Though the general wrote that the military forces "will succeed in any" major combat operation, he added that "they may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision as detailed in our current plans."

The annual "Chairman's Risk Assessment," which is required by Congress, warned that additional major combat operations "may result in significantly extended campaign timelines, and achieving campaign objectives may result in higher casualties and collateral damage."

The classified assessment is a formal acknowledgment by General Myers, who serves as the senior military adviser to both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, of a series of strains: those placed on military personnel by large and lengthy overseas deployments; those placed on weapons and vehicles by wear and tear; and those placed on war planners trying to counter potential adversaries even though forces previously committed to such places as South Korea are now engaged elsewhere.

Even so, the assessment notes steps already under way to mitigate this risk, and concludes that at the broadest global and strategic levels, the risk "is significant, but trending lower."

The half-dozen senior officials who discussed the chairman's assessment seemed motivated at least in part by concerns that its findings might be misinterpreted by adversaries as an admission of vulnerability, and be seen as an invitation to adventurism that could lead to war.

In case of armed conflict, "There is no doubt what the outcome would be," said one senior official. "But it may not be as pretty," said another.

The assessment acknowledges the important role played by the demonstration of American military resolve in deterring adversaries.

"Our ability to manage the perceptions of our adversaries is critical," General Myers wrote. "Our nation's steadfast resolve has been demonstrated by our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and selected operations" in the campaign against terrorism. "This in itself is a strong deterrent and should serve to restrain" the actions of adversaries, he wrote.

General Myers noted that the American military does not face "extreme risk," the highest level, in any of the categories analyzed in the report. Among the steps he listed as being in progress were substantial improvements in coordinating military efforts with civil authorities, who are "playing a critical role in disrupting potential terrorist attacks against the United States," he wrote.

Overseas, terrorist sanctuaries have been reduced and the Navy and Air Force have shown they can quickly deploy weapons and personnel to deter adversaries. One example cited by General Myers was the decision to move heavy bombers from bases in the United States to airfields in the Pacific to deter potential hostile action by North Korea when ground forces in the region - those usually assigned to a contingency on the Korean peninsula - began moving toward Iraq in advance of the war there.

At the same time, the military has learned how to better "maintain and sustain a campaign level of effort" through the mission in Iraq, and the Army in particular is reorganizing its forces to create more units that can be deployed. But even though adjustments to the organization of the active and reserve components, and the Army's overall restructuring, will eventually correct shortfalls in deployable troop strength, "this will take several more years to complete," the assessment states. At present, there are about 138,000 American troops in Iraq, and about 17,000 in Afghanistan.

In an upbeat final paragraph, General Myers told Congress that the armed forces "remain the most professional, best trained, and best equipped military in the world.

"Our ability to project power, anywhere in the world, remains second to none," he added. "The dedication, commitment, and sacrifice of the men and women of our Armed Forces ensure success in every challenge."

Read More...

U.S. airport screeners lack training and standards, report says

FindLaw.com

U.S. airport screeners lack training and standards, report says

By LESLIE MILLER Associated Press Writer

(AP) - WASHINGTON-A congressional report released Monday criticized the Transportation Security Administration for failing to produce a standard to measure the quality of its airport screeners and for not providing them promised training.

The Government Accountability Office said while it may be impossible for screeners to detect 100 percent of dangerous items that airline passengers try to carry onto planes, the TSA should set a standard for the screeners so it can focus on where to improve, the GAO report said.

TSA screeners' inability to find guns, weapons and other dangerous items since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has been a continuing problem.



"Weaknesses and vulnerabilities continue to exist in passenger and checked baggage screening systems at airports of all sizes, at airports with federal screeners and at airports with private-sector screeners," the report said.

The GAO urged the agency to set standards for how many threat objects screeners intercept when undercover agents try to slip them through airport checkpoints.

"Without performance targets for covert testing, TSA will not have identified a desired level of performance related to screener detection of threat objects," the report said.

The TSA, responding to the GAO, said it has created broad performance indexes for airports, such as the percentage of screeners who pass annual tests and the numbers of passengers they screen. The TSA said it will have set individual performance standards by October.

Screeners are required by law to receive 40 hours of classroom instruction and 60 hours of on-the-job training before they can check passengers or bags on their own. The GAO acknowledged that TSA has been trying to upgrade training and improve screener performance.

A classified version of the report, and a separate report by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general, went further in their negative assessments of the screeners than those publicly available, according to members of Congress who were briefed.

Rep. John Mica of Florida, chairman of the House Transportation aviation subcommittee, said the GAO report showed private screeners perform better than public screeners. Several senior Democratic congressmen said both performed poorly.

TSA, in a statement, said the reports "observed consistent performance in the two groups."

Read More...

Monday, May 02, 2005

Data for 600,000 Time Warner employees MIA

Data for 600,000 Time Warner employees MIA
By Dawn Kawamoto, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: May 2, 2005

Personal information for 600,000 current and former Time Warner employees has been lost, the company announced on Monday, potentially setting the stage for one of the largest cases yet of identity theft.

Time Warner said the mishap occurred on March 22, when data storage company Iron Mountain was transporting its backup tapes to a storage facility away from its offices. The company lost the tapes while in transit, said Kathy McKiernan, a Time Warner spokeswoman.

"The tapes were discovered missing on the same day they were picked up," McKiernan said. "We launched an investigation, and when we could not rule out foul play, we contacted the (U.S.) Secret Service to investigate."

The Time Warner case is just the latest in a string of data theft cases to rock corporate America, from Bank of America to educational institutions such as the University of California at Berkeley.


Time Warner waited for more than a month before notifying current and past employees that their personal information may have been compromised.

"We didn't want to compromise the investigation," McKiernan said. "We determined we could notify people now without it impeding the investigation."

The media giant has set up an 800 number to answer past and current employees' questions and provide free credit monitoring for a year. A few days ago, the company began the process of encrypting its data.

To date, Time Warner says it has not received any notices of compromised personal information from current and former employees.



Read More...

A Gut Punch to the Middle

The New York Times
May 2, 2005

A Gut Punch to the Middle
By PAUL KRUGMAN

By now, every journalist should know that you have to carefully check out any scheme coming from the White House. You can't just accept the administration's version of what it's doing. Remember, these are the people who named a big giveaway to logging interests "Healthy Forests."

Sure enough, a close look at President Bush's proposal for "progressive price indexing" of Social Security puts the lie to claims that it's a plan to increase benefits for the poor and cut them for the wealthy. In fact, it's a plan to slash middle-class benefits; the wealthy would barely feel a thing.

Under current law, low-wage workers receive Social Security benefits equal to 49 percent of their wages before retirement. Under the Bush scheme, that wouldn't change. So benefits for the poor would be maintained, not increased.

The administration and its apologists emphasize the fact that under the Bush plan, workers earning higher wages would face cuts, and they talk as if that makes it a plan that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. But the rich wouldn't feel any pain, because people with high incomes don't depend on Social Security benefits.

Cut an average worker's benefits, and you're imposing real hardship. Cut or even eliminate Dick Cheney's benefits, and only his accountants will notice.


I asked Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to calculate the benefit cuts under the Bush scheme as a percentage of pre-retirement income. That's a way to see who would really bear the burden of the proposed cuts. It turns out that the middle class would face severe cuts, but the wealthy would not.

The average worker - average pay now is $37,000 - retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent of pre-retirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today, would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement.

But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of pre-retirement income.

In short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.

Beyond that, it's a good bet that benefits for the poor would eventually be cut, too.

It's an adage that programs for the poor always turn into poor programs. That is, once a program is defined as welfare, it becomes a target for budget cuts.

You can see this happening right now to Medicaid, the nation's most important means-tested program. Last week Congress agreed on a budget that cuts funds for Medicaid (and food stamps), even while extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. States are cutting back, denying health insurance to hundreds of thousands of people with low incomes. Missouri is poised to eliminate Medicaid completely by 2008.

If the Bush scheme goes through, the same thing will eventually happen to Social Security. As Mr. Furman points out, the Bush plan wouldn't just cut benefits. Workers would be encouraged to divert a large fraction of their payroll taxes into private accounts - but this would in effect amount to borrowing against their future benefits, which would be reduced accordingly.

As a result, Social Security as we know it would be phased out for the middle class.

"For millions of workers," Mr. Furman writes, "the amount of the monthly Social Security check would be at or near zero."

So only the poor would receive Social Security checks - and regardless of what today's politicians say, future politicians would be tempted to reduce the size of those checks.

The important thing to understand is that the attempt to turn Social Security into nothing but a program for the poor isn't driven by concerns about the future budget burden of benefit payments. After all, if Mr. Bush was worried about the budget, he would be reconsidering his tax cuts.

No, this is about ideology: Mr. Bush comes to bury Social Security, not to save it. His goal is to turn F.D.R.'s most durable achievement into an unpopular welfare program, so some future president will be able to attack it with tall tales about Social Security queens driving Cadillacs.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Read More...

A White House Adrift

Newsweek
A White House Adrift
Gas prices, Social Security, Tom DeLay. What else can go wrong for Bush?
By Holly Bailey and Richard Wolffe

May 9 issue - George Voinovich is not your typical Bush loyalist. A self-styled deficit hawk, the former Cleveland mayor and Ohio governor is so frugal that he once fished a penny out of a urinal in the Statehouse. To the White House, his independent spirit should have come as no surprise: he split with his party over the estate tax in 2000 and he opposed the size of Bush's tax cuts three years later. Yet when it came to the prickly question of John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador, the president's team assumed Voinovich would fall into line.

The warning signs were there if anyone had looked for them. About two weeks before senators were set to vote on Bolton's nomination, Voinovich "grilled" Bolton for an hour in private, according to officials familiar with the session, asking "tough questions" about allegations that Bolton sought to force out an intelligence analyst who disagreed with him. Yet in subsequent days, nobody at the White House asked the senator directly about Bolton. Others got the full-court press: Lincoln Chafee, the wavering Rhode Island Republican, took phone calls from Bush's chief of staff Andy Card and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But the administration didn't contact Voinovich directly until he announced to the world that he wasn't comfortable voting for Bolton. As the explosive Senate meeting ended, Matthew Kirk, the president's Senate liaison, ran up to Voinovich to tell him, "We'll get you whatever you need."

White House aides insist they were "in constant contact" with Voinovich's office before and after the Bolton grilling, and say that even the senator's staff was surprised that he got cold feet. Whoever is to blame, the president's relationship with his own party has faltered on the high-profile nomination, as well as other priorities like Social Security. Members of Congress have long complained about the Bushies' imperial attitude. Now, some suggest the White House team—headed by a former Dick Cheney aide Candi Wolff—may be too far outside the loop of power. It takes a call from the Committee That Runs the World—Karl Rove and Cheney—to lobby Congress effectively. Last week, both were working the phones on Bolton's behalf.

Whatever happens to Bolton's nomination, his public mauling underscores how the president has struggled in the first 100 days of his second term. On the single issue that seems to trouble voters most—the high price of gasoline—Bush found himself in the uncomfortable position of asking for help, first from Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. On Social Security, Republicans find themselves divided. Then there's the problem of a runaway Congress, diverted by the fate of Tom DeLay, the ethically challenged House Republican leader. Bush tried to regain the initiative with his Thursday-night prime-time news conference. But Republicans hardly cheered at the prospect of selling benefit cuts in Social Security, and Bush himself conceded that he had "no quick fix" for high gas prices. With his approval ratings slipping, Bush looks like he's running low on his precious supply of political capital.


To some in Congress, those problems are a sign that politics are simply getting more costly for the president—a development that some inside his party think is long overdue. One Republican Senate aide said there had been "a lot of frustration for a lot of people" over the postwar management of Iraq, leading to "more assertiveness on Congress's role" on a range of issues. Others say the party has been surprised by Democratic discipline after their defeat in November, denying Bush any time for a victory lap. "The Democrats, in a lot of ways, haven't ended the campaign," says Ed Gillespie, the former Republican Party chairman. "That's new. Nobody anticipated it."

Bush's senior aides and supporters insist they are making good progress—whether on Social Security or more technical legislation like bankruptcy and class-action reform. "We're exactly where we thought we would be," said one senior administration official. "We're three months into the second term, and we've already gotten some major legislation signed and out the door." GOP leaders agree, saying it's way too early to predict how Bush's second-term agenda will fare. "It's like judging who will win the Derby when they are just around the first turn," says the Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell. After all, for a political thoroughbred like George W. Bush, there's always a chance he'll come up on the rails.

With Tamara Lipper

Read More...

Bush vs. Bill on N. Korea nukes

New York Daily News
Bush vs. Bill on N. Korea nukes

Monday, May 2nd, 2005

WASHINGTON - After North Korea tested a new missile that plunged into the Sea of Japan yesterday, a top White House official pinned blame for the Communist nation's secret development of nuclear arms on President Bill Clinton.

Asked if North Korea became a nuclear power on President Bush's watch, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card retorted, "Or on President Clinton's watch."

"Some of those weapons may well have been produced as the North Koreans were violating the agreement that they had with President Clinton," Card told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Wendy Sherman, Clinton's special adviser on North Korea, responded, "The worst of this problem has happened on the watch of the Bush administration."

Sherman admitted North Korea "may have built one or two nuclear weapons in the 1990s," but said the pressure Clinton put on dictator Kim Jong Il was reversed under Bush and "six or eight" nukes may be in his stockpile.

"Things have gotten much, much worse," she said.


Card also downplayed the startling warning last week by a top Pentagon intel official, who said the regime could arm missiles with nuclear payloads.

"We don't know that [Kim Jong Il] can, but there is increasing evidence of capability," Card told CNN's "Late Edition."

Card said on CNN and Fox News that North Korea's missile test showed its leaders want to be the "bullies in the world."

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency warned last week that North Korea has the ability to mount a nuclear device on a longer-range missile and the Communist state could hit U.S. territory.

Still, U.S. officials said yesterday that the North Koreans had been having difficulty firing lower-range devices.

Asked what North Korea hoped to gain by testing the missile, Card told Fox, "I think they're looking to kind of be bullies in the world. And they're causing others to stand up and take notice."

He also accused the North Korean leader of flaunting his weapons programs and violating agreements.

Read More...

Never Shy, Bolton Brings a Zeal to the Table

The New York Times
Never Shy, Bolton Brings a Zeal to the Table
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, April 30 - In the tumultuous days before John R. Bolton graduated from Yale University in 1970, he and his roommates leaned mattresses against the windows to keep out stray tear gas shells.

The trial of a top Black Panther in New Haven had ignited riots and set off a national uproar. The National Guard patrolled the campus in tanks. A bomb went off at the hockey rink.

At commencement, student speakers compared the United States to pre-Nazi Germany and called for an immediate end to the war in Vietnam.

But one student sounded a contrarian theme.

"The conservative underground is alive and well here," Mr. Bolton told his classmates and their parents, scorning a handful of hecklers. "If we do not make our influence felt, rest assured we will in the real world."

Mr. Bolton's prediction would prove true, and for no one more than for this brainy son of a Baltimore firefighter whose nomination as ambassador to the United Nations is now bitterly contested. Ten years after graduation, he would join the Reagan administration to begin what would become nearly two decades of service in Republican administrations.

Seemingly untroubled by self doubt, Mr. Bolton, whom former Senator Jesse Helms once called "the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon," has never shied from a dispute nor hesitated to shatter a consensus. In his office he displays a grenade designating him as "Truest Reaganaut," a telling gift from former colleagues at the United States Agency for International Development.

From his battle, as a Justice Department official, for the doomed Supreme Court nomination of Robert H. Bork to his dramatic declaration to poll workers tabulating presidential ballots in Florida in 2000 - "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team and I'm here to stop the count" - Mr. Bolton has proved himself a fighter, fiercely committed to a bedrock American nationalism.


But now his brash performance as under secretary of state threatens his nomination, as government officials high and low who have clashed with Mr. Bolton strike back. Complaints that he bullied intelligence analysts who rejected his views have particular weight with Congressional critics, who are still fuming that administration claims about Iraq's arsenal and Al Qaeda turned out to be wildly inaccurate.

But as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee extends its consideration of Mr. Bolton's candidacy, President Bush has shown no sign of wavering in his determination to win confirmation for this least diplomatic of diplomats.

"See, the U.N. needs reform," Mr. Bush said at a news conference on Thursday night. "If you're interested in reform in the U.N. like I'm interested in reform in the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who's not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations."

Mr. Bolton, 56, has won loyalty from other bosses, too. They include former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, whom he served at the White House and the State Department and who summoned him to Florida for the recount, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who told an American Enterprise Institute audience after the 2000 election that Mr. Bolton deserved "anything he wants" in the new administration.

He wins such plaudits partly because of an extreme work style that sometimes has him firing off e-mail messages to subordinates from home at 4 a.m. before arriving at the office at 6. In his current job, he has required staff members to stand - along with him - at morning meetings, to discourage long-winded discussions.

"When you go in to brief John Bolton, as I found out early, you better be prepared," said Thomas M. Boyd, who was Mr. Bolton's deputy when he was assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department and who remains a friend. "He's kind of like an appellate judge. He will read everything. If you have holes in your argument, he won't work with you."

He has also impressed superiors with his dogged pursuit of goals he believes in. As assistant secretary of state in the administration of the elder George Bush, he took on the task of repealing a United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, long resented by Israel and its American supporters.

For several weeks in 1991, Mr. Bolton devoted himself to what he called the "ZR campaign," according to one person who worked on it. Countries were singled out one by one, with Mr. Bolton systematically pursuing their ambassadors and tracking the results on charts until the vote - an unexpectedly lopsided 111 to 25.

"He's tough and he's relentless and he's very logical," said Frank J. Donatelli, a Republican consultant who has worked with Mr. Bolton both in government and party operations. "But I've never observed any kind of abusive behavior."

What really puts off Mr. Bolton's critics, Mr. Donatelli said, are his firm views. "Even in the Reagan administration, John would usually be the most conservative person in the room," he said.

The drive and ideological certainty that admirers believe make Mr. Bolton effective strike his critics as excessive. Avis T. Bohlen, who worked under Mr. Bolton as assistant secretary of state for arms control, said she agreed with several of his initiatives, including scuttling a protocol to the international ban on biological weapons. But she thought the United States should work with European allies to find a better approach to preventing biological weapons. Mr. Bolton did not.

"He was absolutely clear that he didn't want any more arms control agreements," Ms. Bohlen said. "He didn't want any negotiating bodies. He just cut it off. It was one more area where we lost support and respect in the world."

In handling disagreements, too, Ms. Bohlen said, Mr. Bolton sometimes went over the line. "What I find unfortunate is that he had a tendency to go after the little guys," she said. "I think Bolton is a bully."

The same traits, and the same divided views of them, go all the way back to Baltimore's McDonogh School, where Mr. Bolton discovered his intellectual gifts and his fascination with politics.

Raised in a working-class row house neighborhood in southwest Baltimore called Yale Heights - a far cry from the university where he would earn undergraduate and law degrees - Mr. Bolton won a scholarship to McDonogh, then an all-male military school.

That modest background is a key to his personality, some associates say. "He didn't come from money," said Mr. Boyd, his former subordinate. "Sometimes when you push the rock up the hill, you're hungrier. You have more of a drive to succeed."

From seventh grade on, he boarded at McDonogh, returning home on weekends to his father, Jack, who had been wounded in Normandy on D-Day, and his mother, Virginia, a homemaker. They also had a daughter, Joni, who is nine years younger and now works as a nurse near Baltimore.

"He had the same attitudes and beliefs then and now," said Marty McKibbin, 77, who taught at McDonogh for 46 years but still recalls clearly his debates with John Bolton about the Vietnam War in Asian history class and at lunch. "It's kind of surprising that Yale and Yale Law School and Washington, D.C., didn't change him much."

In 1966, Mr. Bolton, who has said he privately called the liberal teacher "Mao McKibbin," wrote an editorial for the school paper titled "No Peace in Vietnam," warning against "spurious" hopes for a settlement. When he stepped down as associate editor after his senior year, an unsigned notice of thanks said: "John Bolton has attacked his duties with the fervor of a political fanatic. His efficient, if sometimes controversial, management of the editorial page deserves more than conservative applause."

Ed Wroe, another McDonogh scholarship student, recalls John Bolton's fervor for the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. "When you hear people describe him as abrasive, you think, 'That sounds like John Bolton,' " said Mr. Wroe, an attorney in Idaho. "He didn't worry about what people thought of him."

But Dr. Bruce K. Krueger, his Yale roommate for five years and now a physiologist at the University of Maryland medical school, recalls Mr. Bolton as a far more pleasant character. "He might say something provocative - everyone else in the room might disagree with it - but he'd have something solid and well-reasoned to back it up."

Dr. Krueger said Mr. Bolton was the only conservative in their six-member suite and one of a shrinking minority of such students on campus. Yet Mr. Bolton seemed to enjoy his status as David versus the campus's liberal Goliath, Dr. Krueger said. "I thought he kind of liked that role - the loner, the sole counterpoint in the room."

Mr. Bolton joined the National Guard, in which he served for six years, before graduation. "I confess that I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asia rice paddy," he wrote in a recollection for his 25-year Yale reunion, in part because he felt that the war in Vietnam was "already lost" because of antiwar sentiment among Americans.

Today, associates describe Mr. Bolton as an avid reader, particularly of history and biography, and a political junkie. They describe him as a very private person who is devoted to his wife, Gretchen, a financial planner, and their daughter, Jennifer, who now attends Yale. When mother and daughter head off on ski trips, he stays behind.

"He can appear to be very stern," said Mr. Boyd, his former Justice Department colleague. "I think that's a product of his reserve. He's got a great sense of humor, a great cackle of a laugh - but he has to trust you."

In the loose shorthand of the news media, Mr. Bolton has sometimes been described as a neoconservative. That's wrong, said Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for a New American Century, a conservative strategy group.

The neoconservatives believe in spreading democracy; Mr. Bolton, with a less idealistic view of other countries' potential, prefers to focus on threats to the United States, Mr. Schmitt said. "He's a straightforward, traditional, national security conservative," he said.

On the Balkans, for instance, "John's view was that we didn't have a dog in that fight," Mr. Schmitt said. In Iraq, Mr. Bolton favored overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But, Mr. Schmitt said, "I think he would say we should not be in the business of transforming Iraq."

In a recent interview with the McDonogh School magazine headlined "The Patriot," Mr. Bolton, who is not talking to reporters during the confirmation period, defined his job as keeping American interests clearly in sight.

"Frequently you hear diplomacy described as a skill of keeping things calm and stable and so on, and there's an element of that," he said. "But basically, American diplomats should be advocates of the United States. That's the style I pursue."

originally published May 1, 2005

Read More...

Bush Social Security Plan Would Not Fully Close Financing Gap

Investor's Business Daily

Monday, May 2, 2005
Bush Social Security Plan Would Not Fully Close Financing Gap

BY JED GRAHAM

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

President Bush sought to shake up the Social Security debate Thursday night by touting a plan to protect low earners' benefits by enacting steep cuts for high earners.

The idea would ensure that people who work hard won't retire in poverty and would "solve most of the funding challenges facing Social Security," Bush said.

The prime-time news conference afforded him a second chance to take his ideas for reforming Social Security straight to a national audience in a bid to lift at-best lukewarm public support. Bush used the opportunity to try and dispel fears raised by critics of his agenda and to at least partly fill in one of the biggest blanks in his Social Security plan — how he would restore solvency.

"A variety of options are available to solve the rest of the problem, and I will work with Congress on any good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll tax rate or harm our economy," Bush said.

The White House later released a fact sheet saying the progressive benefit formula backed by the president would solve about 70% of Social Security's financing shortfall.

That may underestimate the challenge ahead, experts said. That is because any Social Security legislation may well have to meet two tests: restoring the program to sustainable solvency and wiping out its $4.1 trillion, 75-year shortfall.

Bush's plan appears to fall far short of clearing that latter hurdle. And that doesn't factor in the challenge of making good on the IOUs in the so-called trust fund.

The difficulty with closing the 75-year gap comes because of the personal accounts Bush proposes.

While the accounts can be created so as not to worsen the long-term finances of Social Security, they do create a cash-flow challenge in the shorter run.

Consider how the accounts would interact with Social Security's finances. As people fund them with a share of payroll taxes that would otherwise have gone to the trust fund, their future benefits fall in tandem.

A Long, Long Loan

The transaction is similar to a loan that'll be paid off in the form of smaller benefit checks. So at the end of that 75-year actuarial window, millions of people still in the work force or recently retired won't have received enough smaller checks to cover the cost of their diverted payroll taxes.

The progressive benefit formula touted by Bush is the brainchild of Robert Pozen, chairman of MFS Investment Management and a Democratic member of the president's 2001 Social Security panel.

Pozen's idea is a gentler version of the panel's indexing idea, under which initial retirement benefits would only keep up with inflation, rather than keep pace with wage growth as they do currently.

Under Pozen's plan, the benefits of the bottom 30% of wage earners (about $25,000 and below) would still see benefits rise with real pay growth. But benefits for top earners wouldn't rise at all in inflation-adjusted terms. Initial benefits for midlevel earners would grow at a pace between inflation and wages.

Average earners (about $36,500) would see a 28% benefit cut by 2075. The highest earners would face a 42% cut.

But there would be across-the-board benefit cuts without any Social Security reform. After the so-called trust fund runs dry in 2041, the government would be able to pay only 74% of scheduled benefits; by 2079, it could pay just 68%.

The crunch really begins in 2017, when Social Security turns cash-flow negative and the government starts redeeming the Treasuries — IOUs to itself — in the trust fund.

Like Bush, Pozen supports personal accounts to let individuals seek a higher return to compensate for cuts in promised benefits. His plan includes an option for individuals to fund accounts with 2% of payroll.

Social Security's chief actuary found Pozen's plan would restore sustainable solvency within 75 years. But the plan would close only half of the 75-year financing gap. So it would need an infusion of $1.9 trillion in present value over more than four decades to reach solvency.

In an interview, Pozen said the politics make it "just too hard" to get the 75-year gap down to zero. He maintains it isn't necessary to do so, as long as the borrowing ends and solvency is reached within 75 years.

Ed Lorenzen, executive director of Centrists.org, which seeks bipartisan policy-making, said, "You need both 75-year solvency and sustainable solvency to be credible."

While the president's plan isn't an exact replica of Pozen's, the differences suggest it will be harder to fund his plan.

He offers a protection against poverty that appears more generous, and his plan protects all future benefits for the disabled, unlike Pozen's, says Brookings Institution senior fellow Peter Orszag. Bush prefers accounts that let workers contribute 4% of payroll, which creates bigger cash-flow issues.

Orszag figures that Bush's plan may wipe out only 40% of the 75-year shortfall.

"There's a huge chunk that is missing," Orszag said. All the options for filling the gap "involve pain."

For all the questions, some think Bush did boost the chances for Social Security reform Thursday night.

Lorenzen said Bush's support may help strengthen the hands of Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Robert Bennett, R-Utah, as they seek a consensus. Both have incorporated Pozen's ideas into their plans.

Michael Tanner, director of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security Choice, said Bush's support of a specific solvency plan will put pressure on Democrats to come up with their own plan.

"He didn't hit a home run, but there's a man on base," Tanner said.

Read More...

TV media echoed Bush spin on Social Security benefit cuts

mediamatters.org/

TV media echoed Bush spin on Social Security benefit cuts

Television news coverage of President Bush's April 28 press conference offered several misleading claims about Bush's proposed Social Security benefit cuts. Cable and network anchors and correspondents: 1) falsely suggested that benefit cuts would affect only high-income workers; 2) mischaracterized cuts in promised benefits as "slower increase[s] in benefits"; and 3) erroneously suggested that low-income workers will receive greater benefits under Bush's proposal than they are promised under the current system.

Ignoring middle-class benefit cuts

While television news reports acknowledged that Bush called for benefits cuts for "wealthier workers" or "higher-income" earners, many failed to report that these cuts would also impact lower-middle and middle-class workers. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Bush proposal would likely cut the level of guaranteed benefits promised under the current Social Security system for all workers making over $20,000 a year -- or just above the poverty threshold for a family of four with two children under 18 -- while leaving guaranteed benefit levels for those making under $20,000 unchanged.


* NBC White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell reported that Bush's proposal "could mean, in the future, a cut of benefits for more wealthy Americans." [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/28/05]
* Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle claimed Bush's plan will "make sure that they [benefits] go up as much as possible for the poor and ... reduce the increase in benefits for the wealthy." Angle later claimed that Bush's proposal will be "benefiting the poor, making this a system that tilts much more in favor of the poor and cutting the increase in benefits for the wealthy who can most afford it." [Fox News, press conference coverage, 4/28/05]
* Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume claimed that Bush's proposal involves "benefits which are diminished for the upper income people and enhanced perhaps or at least higher for lower income people." Hume then suggested that those who will be affected by this proposal include "Ross Perot and Bill Gates," but failed to note that anyone earning $20,000 or more a year is also in that group. [Fox News, press conference coverage, 4/28/05]
* Fox News co-host Steve Doocy claimed that under Bush's proposal, "people who make a lot of dough will not wind up with as large a benefit as people at the bottom of the economic food chain." [Fox News, FOX & Friends, 4/29/05]
* CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante reported that Bush's plan "would reduce future benefits for the highest wage earners, but leave them as they are for those who make the least." By Plante's definition, the "highest wage earners" who would face benefit cuts include those making over $20,000 a year. [CBS, Early Show, 4/29/05]
* CNN co-host Jack Cafferty claimed that Bush proposed "reducing long-term benefits for the more affluent members of this society." Cafferty later reported that Bush proposed cutting "future benefits for wealthier retirees," and criticized newspaper headlines that suggested -- accurately -- that the benefits would be more widespread than Cafferty claimed: "Headlines in The New York Times and The Washington Post this morning scream that President Bush wants to cut Social Security benefits. Granted, he was talking about future benefits for wealthier retirees, but don't be fooled -- Social Security is called the third rail of politics for a reason." [CNN, American Morning, 4/29/05]

Mischaracterizing benefit cuts as a slowdown of benefit increases

Cable news channels adopted Bush's characterization of his proposed benefit cuts as a proposed slowdown in the rate at which benefit levels go up. In fact, Bush proposed an actual cut in promised benefits for all but the lowest income workers, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

* CNN host Wolf Blitzer reported that Bush "did make a case ... that lower-income Social Security recipients would get more increases more rapidly than the higher income Social Security recipients." [CNN, press conference coverage, 4/28/05]
* Fox News' Jim Angle claimed that under Bush's proposal "everyone would get an increase in benefits, but the poor under this approach would get a bigger increase, and the wealthy, who have other ways of saving for retirement, would get less. It is as simple as that." [Fox News, press conference coverage, 4/28/05]
* CNN co-host Bill Hemmer reported: "The president says his proposal for Social Security would increase benefits faster for low-income workers than for wealthier ones." [CNN, American Morning, 4/29/05]
* CNN co-host Soledad O'Brien and conservative San Francisco radio host Jeff Katz had this exchange during the "Gimme A Minute" segment:

O'BRIEN: Last night, the president proposing during his news conference that Social Security benefits for lower income Americans increase more than for higher earning Americans. The headlines this morning say Social Security is being cut. Headlines wrong, Jeff?

KATZ: Headlines are incredibly wrong. Social Security is not being cut. [CNN, American Morning, 4/29/05]

* Los Angeles Times columnist Ron Brownstein reported that Bush "endors[ed] this notion that benefits in the future should grow faster for low- income people than middle and upper-income people as a way to close that long-term financing gap." [CNN, American Morning, 4/29/05]
* CNN host Carol Costello claimed that Bush proposed that "benefits for lower-income people should grow at a faster rate." [CNN, American Morning, 4/29/05]

Claiming low-income workers would receive greater benefits than currently promised

Pundits on all three cable news channels falsely suggested that low-income workers would receive greater Social Security benefits under Bush's proposal than they are promised under the current Social Security system. In fact, according to the CBPP report, under the plan developed by Robert C. Pozen, upon which the Bush proposal is reportedly based, "low-earners would continue to receive the Social Security benefits promised under current law, which are based on a formula that uses 'wage indexing.'"

* MSNBC host Chris Matthews echoed Bush's false claim that his plan will provide "extra help to those most in need" by asserting that "the less wealthy people who retire would be able to get what he [Bush] called extra benefits." [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/28/05]
* Fox News host Brit Hume claimed that under Bush's proposal for means testing, benefits would be "enhanced, perhaps ... for lower-income people." [Fox News, press conference coverage, 4/28/05]
* CNN anchor Carol Costello reported that Bush "says benefits for lower-income people should grow at a faster rate," but failed to note that his proposal would not actually increase their benefits from what is currently promised. [CNN, American Morning, 4/29/05]
* CNN host Jack Cafferty asserted that Bush's plan involves "preserving the benefits or maybe even increasing them at a greater rate for the poor among us." [CNN, American Morning, 4/29/05]

— J.C., R.S.K., & A.S.

Read More...

If only Senate filibusters were this enlightening

Frist Protest at Princeton Is Lesson in Art of the Filibuster

By Charles Babington and Mike Allen
Monday, May 2, 2005; A04

If only Senate filibusters were this enlightening.

Princeton University students and faculty have been talking round-the-clock to protest the legislative strategy of a famous alumnus and benefactor, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). In what some might consider an act of ingratitude -- even by college students' standards -- protesters have lectured, read and generally droned on outside the Frist Campus Center, built with $25 million from the senator's family.

The speakers are protesting Frist's threat to change Senate rules to ban filibusters of judicial nominees.
washingtonpost.com
Democrats have used the parliamentary delaying tactic to block confirmation votes for 10 of President Bush's appellate court nominees.

The campus talk-a-thon started Tuesday and continued into the weekend. Some protesters honored Senate history by reading from phone books, but many were more high-minded. They read from biographies of federal judicial nominees, poetry, the Constitution and Shakespeare's plays.

Physics professor Chiara Nappi lectured on the origin and behavior of elementary particles. "I support the efforts of these students in defending the rights of the minority party and attacking conservative attempts to reduce civil liberties," she told the campus newspaper, the Princetonian. "I disagree with what Frist is trying to do, and because he has strong ties to Princeton, we have the duty to take a stand."

Besides, Nappi said, "perhaps I will convince students to study more physics." Try that in the Senate cloakroom.
Ethics Minutiae

With Democrats among the lawmakers rushing to update incomplete or erroneous travel disclosures, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) referred yesterday to missing reports as "technicalities on reporting" and said those should not be confused or equated with larger ethical issues.

One of Pelosi's aides did not report a trip to South Korea last year with a group that had registered as a foreign agent, which would make it ineligible to pay for trips for lawmakers and their aides. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking Democrat in the House, also has recently filed paperwork that had been missing for past trips.

Pelosi, asked by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" about her staff's disclosure violations, said that her own "reporting has always been complete and in a timely fashion."

"The staff didn't have the same experience in traveling, and so some of the filing was done -- was overdue when it was filed," she said.

But then Pelosi went on to refer to disclosure requirements as "technicalities," and criticized Republican leaders for replacing the chairman, two members and two top aides on the ethics committee, formally known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

"Do not fall into the Republican trap of equating technicalities on reporting -- timing of reporting with not upholding an ethical standard of the House," she said. "I don't get into anybody's ethical issues. That's for the ethics committee to do. But I do have a responsibility to uphold an ethical standard, and when the Republicans gutted the ethical process, purged the committee, firing the chairman and firing the staff, then that became an issue that we all had to play a role in."
Parties Get Head Start on '08 Race

Is it too early to talk about '08?

A new poll of Republican Party insiders gives the early edge in the race for its 2008 presidential nomination to one of its least well-known potential candidates: Sen. George Allen (Va.).

National Journal asked 85 GOP members of Congress, party officials and strategists to predict who would win the party's nod in three years. Allen, a former Virginia governor who is little known outside the mid-Atlantic region, took the top spot, edging Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) came in third, followed by, in descending order, former New York City mayor Rudoph W. Giuliani, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and New York Gov. George E. Pataki.

Allen, at a lunch Friday with reporters and editors of The Washington Post, said that he would leave poll interpretation to the pundits and that he is focused on winning reelection in 2006. "You can never predict the future." But he added this when asked whether he believes he is qualified to be president: "Common-sense Jeffersonian principles that work so well for Virginia, I think, make this country more competitive when applied to the national level as well, whether that's advocated by me or somebody else."

The 90 Democratic insiders surveyed were much more in agreement on who would win their party's nomination, giving the overwhelming edge to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) came in second, followed by outgoing Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.).

The rest of the top 10? New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark and former vice president Al Gore.

Researcher Brian Faler contributed to this report.

Read More...

Ad campaign to help GOP in judicial confirmation fight

USA TODAY

Ad campaign to help GOP in judicial confirmation fight

WASHINGTON (AP) — An organization with strong Republican ties intends to spend $1.5 million on television commercials over next two weeks to help Senate GOP leaders in a showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees.

The group, Progress for America, "will also run $350,000 of radio ads on Christian stations," according to a memo describing the plans.


The effort underscores the political stakes in a struggle that revolves immediately around seven controversial appeals court nominees — but also has implications for any Supreme Court vacancy that occurs during Bush's term.

Democrats blocked 10 of the president's first-term appeals court nominees by filibuster, a parliamentary tactic that requires supporters to post 60 votes to assure a final vote.

The president renominated seven of the 10 after he won re-election. Democrats say they are prepared to block some or all of them again on grounds that they are too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments to the bench.

Republicans have responded by threatening to use their majority to ban juidicial filibusters.

"Senate Democats have abused the rules and refused to even allow a vote," says the television ad produced for Progress for America. "So courtrooms sit empty, while thousands of Americans have their cases delayed."

Progress for America scheduled news conference for Monday to unveil its plans, and officials declined to discuss them in advance. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the material to be made public.

The ad praises two of Bush's seven stalled nominees, Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. It says it's the job of a senator to vote, adding, "Urge your senators to vote, up or down."

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, criticized the ad. "Apparently no one at Progress For America has studied the Constitution or a U.S, history book, because their advertising campaign is intended to undermine a carefully chosen system of check and balances that has served this country well for more than 200 years," he said.

Reid and Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee both outlined proposed compromises on the issue last week. At the same time, the two are trying to line up the votes needed to prevail in a showdown over doing away with filibusters on judicial nominations. There are 55 Republicans in the Senate, two of whom have publicly announced plans to side with the Democrats on the issue.

A relatively small number of senators is believed undecided or even vulnerable to political pressure on the issue, and the ad campaign is targeted toward those who are.

Progress for America intends to advertise in a half-dozen low-cost states in the coming week, Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Rhode Island according to the memo. GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has announced plans to vote with the Democrats while Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are publicly uncommitted. Some Republicans also have expressed concern about Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's willingness to follow the party leadership on the issue.

The ad campaign includes $750,000 for one week of statewide broadcast and cable advertising in the six states, to be followed by a week of national cable television commercials.

Including its web site advocacy and other measures, Progress for America claims it will spend $3 million over the next two weeks.

The organization has previously advertised in favor of Bush's proposal for voluntary personal accounts under Social Security. It spent several million dollars last year in an independent effort to help Bush win a second term.

Read More...

Bush: Cut Retirement Benefits for Middle Class

Apparently, "middle-income" workers are classified as those earning between $25,000 and $90,000. Bush proposes cutting benefits by 25% for "middle-income" workers currently under 55 years old.


USA Today

Bush takes on still more political risk
By Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON — George W. Bush is a well-known risk-taker — and well-known for not giving up when he has a bee in his bonnet.

As with Iraq, so with Social Security, the president has made clear that he is pressing ahead in his goal of dramatic change. Even though his much-vaunted "60-day, 60-stop" barnstorming campaign to sell the public on Social Security reform has ended, the events continue without a break.

On Tuesday, Bush will hold a "conversation on strengthening Social Security" at a Nissan manufacturing plant in Canton, Miss., and on Wednesday, Social Security will be the focus when he appears at the Latino Coalition's Small Business Conference here in Washington.

The only alteration will be the message: He has heightened public attention to Social Security's eventual shortfalls and made his pitch for "voluntary personal retirement accounts." Now, despite solid Democratic opposition to his plan and slippage in polls, Bush is ready to start addressing the system's solvency issue with a plan to reduce benefits for 70% of future retirees, while keeping low-income workers out of poverty.

"He doesn't have anything to lose," says John Zogby, an independent pollster. "But oddly enough, he still could emerge a winner on this by compromise, by being the guy who moved the dime on the issue. We're talking about indexing according to inflation, we're talking about raising the retirement issue. Those were equally third-rail pieces of Social Security, and now they're on the table, at least."

Indeed, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center agrees that Bush has succeeded at least in putting Social Security on the public's radar screen. A center poll in February found that three-quarters of Americans want the government to act on the system's eventual shortcomings either right away or in the next few years.

But if Bush must ultimately compromise on private accounts — most likely, give up on them — then that could doom any deal. Democrats face criticism for having "no plan," but in fact, individual members have proposals, and Senate aides have been formulating proposals on future financing for Social Security if the president is willing to drop personal accounts carved out of Social Security payroll taxes.

Analysts noted that in his press conference last Thursday night, Bush did not issue any ultimatums requiring that legislation include personal accounts. Such a move could kill any chance of reform, as it did for President Clinton when he demanded early in his presidency that healthcare reform must result in universal coverage.

Bush seemed to choose his words carefully. When asked if he would consider it a success for Congress to pass legislation without personal accounts, he came close to, but at least did not threaten, a veto. Such accounts have "got to be a part of a comprehensive package," he said.

Mike Tanner, a booster of personal accounts at the libertarian CATO Institute, does not believe Bush would sign a bill without personal accounts. But "one would never reach him," he adds. "House Republicans, among others, would never accept that."

Severe polarization on Capitol Hill makes it all the more difficult for the two parties to find common ground. So ultimately, on his No. 1 domestic goal, Bush may wind up famous for advancing the conversation but not radically changing the way Social Security works. In last week's press conference, held during TV prime time in the White House's ornate East Room to lure network coverage, Bush made news by unveiling the "spinach" portion of his Social Security plan: benefit cuts.

The president's proposal is known as "progressive indexing," and would leave benefits intact for low-income workers but phase in cuts for workers earning $25,000 or more. The plan would not apply to current workers age 55 or older, and would address about 70% of the projected shortfall in Social Security.

For workers earning $90,000 or more, the limit on income that faces payroll taxes, their benefits would be cut by 37%. Middle-income workers would lose 25% of their benefits.

According to the Pew survey, a majority of Americans support the idea of limiting "benefits for wealthy retirees." But Bush has so far not embraced another concept that Pew found 60% support for: raising the cap on taxable income. Economic-conservative activists oppose such a change, which they see as a tax increase.

Among opponents of Bush's Social Security plans, reaction to the latest move came as no surprise. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California called it "the single biggest cut in Social Security benefits for the middle class in history."

John Rother, the top lobbyist for AARP, does not expect any change in approach (i.e., opposition) by the seniors lobby.

"He came out for specific benefit cuts that were widely understood as something he favored anyway," says Mr. Rother. But at least, he added, "the awareness of Social Security's fiscal challenges has increased."

Read More...

Suit reheats Washington election debate

USA TODAY
Suit reheats Wash. election debate
By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

WENATCHEE, Wash. — The Chelan County Courthouse is a three-hour drive and mountain range away from all those liberals in Seattle who keep Washington on the blue-state side of the political ledger.

Despite the remote locale, this conservative community soon will be the site of a historic court battle to determine who won Washington's governor's race in the fall.

Democrat Christine Gregoire took office in January, after a third count of 2.8 million ballots overturned two previous counts that gave the election to Republican Dino Rossi.

But the Republican Party is suing to have the election, the closest in state history, set aside. The suit claims that so many illegal ballots ended up in the final count that Gregoire's whisker-thin, 129-vote margin would disappear if those ballots were discarded. The trial is scheduled to begin May 23.


In a hearing Monday, the judge will consider how to assess ballots cast by felons, as well as provisional ballots that were counted without being validated beforehand.

In filing the lawsuit in Chelan County, where not a single Democrat holds an elective office, GOP lawyers were looking for a more receptive ear — somewhere other than King County, where Seattle is.

"The Republicans decided to mainly get out of King County to make sure they have a fair chance," says Clyde Ballard of East Wenatchee, a former GOP speaker of the state House.

A state divided

The Republican Party's choice of counties, which voted 63% for Rossi, underscores the deep divisions in state politics. Eastern Washington is fruit orchards, wheat fields and sagebrush. Residents here have more in common with Idaho next door than they do with the urban counties that surround more Democratic Seattle near the Cascade Range.

This spring, the state Senate took up a favorite of eastern Washington lawmakers — seceding and establishing the 20 eastern counties, which all voted for Rossi, as the 51st state.

Washington is not the only state where rural regions quarrel with the population centers that dominate them. Counties in northern California periodically campaign to become part of Nevada. Last year, residents of Killington, Vt., angry at the state's method of financing education, endorsed a plan to secede and be annexed to New Hampshire, where their taxes might be lower.

Few people here take secession seriously, especially not on the west side of the Cascades, where most of Washington's population lives. The local joke is: What would eastern Washington be without western Washington? Answer: poor.

"This is silly. It's political theater. It's kerosene on a candle. It will make a big poof, but there is not any fuel to sustain it," says Walt Crowley, director of HistoryLink.org, a Web site about the state. "For every dollar in transportation taxes the rural counties pay, they get about $7 back. They can't seem to do that math."

The election challenge is focused on King County, which aggravates divisions in the state. The county has 1 million voters, compared with the 650,000 voters in all of eastern Washington combined, and Gregoire outpaced Rossi in King County by 150,000 votes.

Republicans complained in court papers about how King County's election was run. Former U.S. senator Slade Gorton, who lost his seat in a squeaker in 2000, recently declared that King County "has the worst elections administration" anywhere in the country.

Ballots scrutinized

Republican lawyers have drawn a list of 1,335 ballots cast by dead people and felons, as well as provisional ballots they allege should have been disqualified. The majority of those were cast in King County.

"You've got over a thousand illegal votes," says Harry Korrell, the Republicans' lawyer.

But several things are working against the GOP, not the least of which is Gregoire has been in office for four months.

Chelan County Judge John Bridges did not bow to GOP pressure to rush the case to a swift conclusion. But neither did he accede to the Democrats' efforts to drag it out.

"He's reasonable and fair," says Kel Groseclose, a Methodist minister here. "He has a lot of common sense."

Groseclose got to know the judge when he challenged the validity of a recent mayoral election because Wenatchee's newly elected mayor lived outside the city limits. Bridges overturned the mayoral election. His ruling was upheld by the state Supreme Court. The recount case probably will be decided by that court, too.

Bridges has ruled that he does not have the authority to call a new gubernatorial election. Should he set aside last fall's election, the Legislature would have to call a new one. Until then, the lieutenant governor would serve.

What's next?

Democrats say in court papers that the Republican list is inaccurate.

David Olson, University of Washington political scientist, says he expects Bridges to reject the GOP's analysis of the felon votes. "It's too confusing. Some felon voters have had voting rights restored. It is surrounded with so much uncertainty, the court is not going to accept it," he says.

After the recounts, Rossi got some sympathy from voters. Stuart Elway, a Seattle pollster, says that when Gregoire took office, 56% of voters did not consider her the legitimate winner.

But that was then. A new Elway Poll last month indicates voters have moved on. Two-thirds say they accept the result and don't want a new election.

Rossi now risks losing that voter goodwill, says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics: "At a certain point, people expect you to yield gracefully."

Read More...

Vietnam marks 30 years since war's end

USA TODAY

Vietnam marks 30 years since war's end

By Steve Komarow, USA TODAY

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — Fireworks, a parade, musical shows and the country's first laser light display marked the 30th anniversay Saturday of the fall of this city, the former Saigon, to the North Vietnamese army.

But the celebration was light on dogma from the Communist dictatorship and instead focused on economic prosperity. To further fuel strong industrial growth, its leaders say they are ready to strengthen ties with the United States and other countries that once fought to preserve South Vietnam as a separate, Western-leaning country.



( Related: More on the fall of Saigon
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/fallsaigon30/flash.htm )

Vietnam wants "to strengthen relations with countries that took part in the Vietnam War," said Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, in a speech Friday kicking off the celebrations.

A two-month North Vietnamese offensive culminated on April 30, 1975, when North Korean tanks crashed through the gates of South Vietnam's Presidential Palace. The end came amid a frantic American evacuation to ships offshore. The war cost the United States 58,000 lives. Many times that many Vietnamese were killed in the fighting.

Saturday's ceremonies were held on the road outside the palace, now a museum, where those tanks traveled 30 years earlier. Veterans of the Communist campaign were on hand to watch, beneath giant posters of Ho Chi Minh, their late leader. Marchers wore the red shirts with yellow stars of the Vietnam Communist regime and the honored guest was Raul Castro, brother of Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castrol.

"I was listening to the radio with my family and heard that Saigon had been liberated. I was very happy because for many years we weren't free. After 30 years we have rebuilt our country. Our land is safe and secure and I think the future will be better for my children," said To Thanh Nghia, 51, a government worker marching in the parade.

The focus on economic growth, however, was reflected in many of the elaborately-decorated floats. They depicted industries and consumerism. Young women in matching blue outfits pushed shopping carts filled with goods. A giant replica of a Vietnam Airlines jet reflected the country's push for tourism and floats sponsored by banks sported the logos of Western credit cards.

Vietnam, an economic basket case for years after the war, has been actively courting outside investment in its industries, notably textiles and clothing. Last year's economic growth was 7.7%, one of the fasted in the world. The signs of new prosperity are most apparent in Ho Chi Minh City, where new glass-walled skyscrapers have transformed the skyline.

This summer will mark 10 years since the United States and Vietnam re-established diplomatic relations. The United States bought $5 billion in Vietnamese goods last year and American warships have visited its harbors.

Michael Marine, the U.S. ambassador to Vietnam, says he hopes for even closer ties between the two countries. But he says remaining obstacles include the Communist regime's continued repression of political debate.

"The government of Vietnam continues to be intolerant of political dissent and significantly restricts freedom of speech, the press, assembly and association," Marine said in a speech at Texas Tech University in advance of the anniversary.

Contributing: Wire reports

Read More...

Angry at Rulings, Some Judge the Judges

ABC News
Angry at Rulings, Some Judge the Judges
Unpopular Decisions, Personal Grudges Bring Judges Under Fire -- Figuratively and Literally

- When Terri Schiavo died, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, issued a forceful warning to certain judges.

"We will look," he said, "at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

From the most powerful leaders in Congress, including DeLay, to television ads run by conservative groups and their well-organized allies, judges are under withering attack in a new and escalating front in the culture wars.

"There's a level of invective and venom that's unprecedented historically," said Jeffrey Rosen of the George Washington University Law School. "There have been plenty of times when Congress has threatened the judiciary with impeachment, with bills to overturn its decisions. But the hatred and the desire to get a new judge if you don't like the results of the old judge seems to be new in some way."

One of the most recent symbols of this outrage is the Terri Schiavo case. The refusal in late March of judges -- liberal and conservative -- to bend to the will of Congress prompted DeLay to issue this blunt threat.

"We're going to start hearings on the definition of good behavior that's in the Constitution, as it comes to impeaching judges," DeLay said.


DeLay's conservative allies are willing partners in an ongoing campaign to impeach, recall or otherwise pressure judges with whom they disagree.

"They don't want to take direction," said David Barton of Wallbuilders, a group that seeks to draw attention to the religious roots of U.S. government. "As we've seen in recent weeks, they don't even want to take criticism.

When asked if judges should be independent, Barton added, " 'Independent' is an interesting thing, because if independent means unaccountable, that's wrong. We have no unaccountable branch."

The judiciary, according to the Constitution, represents an equal branch of government that by design is supposed to interpret the law, not bend the politics or passions of the moment.

"I completely agree that as a coordinate branch of government the judiciary is appropriately subject to criticism," said Kenneth Starr, a former judge who is dean of the Pepperdine University Law School, and was the independent counsel on the Whitewater investigation of the Clintons.

"But where we do, in fact, step over the line, in my judgment, is when we say, or our political leaders say, that we so fervently disagree that we think that impeachment is appropriate or necessary, when those judges are -- whether right or wrong -- exercising their independent judgment, under article three of the Constitution."

Activists Battle Judges

Over the years, only seven judges have actually been impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. Most were for criminal misconduct.

But across the country, activists are attempting to oust judges who have issued rulings they believe are incorrect.

In Sacramento, opponents of gay rights are collecting petitions to recall a state Superior Court judge who upheld California's expansion of legal benefits for domestic partners. California Superior Court judges are elected by the voters, but a recall effort goes beyond simply trying to vote a judge out of office.

"He's making decisions for me that are supposed to represent the values of the voters of Sacramento County, and he's not," said Craig Deluz of the Judge Recall Committee. "And so, my main focus is on making sure we get him out of office."

But supporters of Judge Loren McMaster, who is not permitted to speak on specific cases, note that an appeals court has unanimously upheld his ruling.

"Any recall attempt on a sitting judge, based upon a decision that they have made, in my opinion, is an act of intimidation over judges," said Glen Craig, the former Republican sheriff of Sacramento County. "I mean literally, any group -- you pick a group: pick police, for example; police unions, very powerful, lots of money -- suppose they took on every judge that rendered a decision or a sentence that they didn't like.

"I would hate to live in a society where judges sitting there are fearful of being recalled, based upon an honest decision, a good-faith decision based upon the law," he added.

When a federal judge in Kentucky ruled displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings are unconstitutional -- in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court -- activists at a Washington conference called on Congress to remove her and any others who ruled the same way.

"The conservative charge that the courts are running amok and thwarting the will of the American people is flatly wrong," Rosen said. "Polls suggest that on all the great issues that people are all excited about, abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, the court is basically in tune with the views of a narrow majority of the American people."

'Nut File'

California appellate judge Alfred Goodwin -- who was appointed by President Nixon -- knows something about political pressure.

"I'm probably the first person since Adolf Hitler to be unanimously denounced by the United States Senate," he said.

In 2002, Judge Goodwin ruled that requiring students to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional -- a decision that was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals before being overruled by the U.S Supreme Court. Within hours of Goodwin's decision, he was attacked from the Senate floor.

"I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

"This decision is just nuts," said then-Sen. Tom Daschle, D-Neb.

The judge also received more than 10,000 letters protesting his decision.

"We filled one room in the San Francisco courthouse with that mail," Goodwin said.

But he accepts that criticism is part of the job -- even the occasional threat.

"My secretary keeps a 'nut file,' " Goodwin said. "When I get letters offering to kill me, I just give them to my secretary and say, 'Put it in the nut file.' "

Violence

Sometimes, though threats turn real. The recent murders of a judge in Atlanta, and the husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago were apparently tied to personal grievances, not hot-button social issues. Yet, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, recently ruminated about a possible link.

Cornyn mulled a possible "connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions, yet are unaccountable to the public -- that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence."

Cornyn later backed off those remarks. But Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, citing an increase in threats, recently said, "I don't think the harsh rhetoric helps. I think it energizes people who are a little off-base to take actions that maybe they wouldn't otherwise take."

But other justices appeared to take the harsh criticism in stride, including Anthony Kennedy, the one some conservative activists call "the poster boy for impeachment."

"We learn of threats in different ways, often with letters -- and when we get those, we immediately turn them over to our people," Kennedy said. "It's healthy. It's very important. That's the democratic dialogue that makes democracy work."

For activists demanding more conservative rulings, it may be ironic that a clear majority of federal judges across the country have now been appointed by Republican presidents, including seven of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But with several of those justices in poor health and nearing retirement, the red-hot rhetoric over judges may soon get even more overheated.

ABC News' Chris Bury originally reported this story for "Nightline" on April 21, 2005.

Read More...

Abu Ghraib guard England to be sentenced this week

Yahoo! News
Abu Ghraib guard England to be sentenced this week

By Adam Tanner

U.S. Army reservist Lynndie England, who was shown holding a naked Iraqi on a leash at Abu Ghraib prison, will hear her sentence this week after she pleaded guilty to most of the abuse charges against her.

Pfc. England, 22, became the face of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal by posing in some of the most inflammatory photos from the prison, which embarrassed the military and touched off an international furor.

She was photographed holding a naked detainee on a leash and pointing at the genitals of a naked male prisoner while smiling and smoking a cigarette. She also posed beside naked prisoners in a human pyramid.

The Pentagon has cleared all but one of the top five commanders at Abu Ghraib of any wrongdoing, despite concern that a drive to squeeze information out of detainees initiated at a high level created the atmosphere in which the abuses could occur.


One commander, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, was relieved of her command and given a written reprimand.

Faced with overwhelming evidence because of the photos, England will plead guilty to seven of nine charges on Monday before a Fort Hood, Texas, military court, her lawyer Capt. Jonathan Crisp told Reuters.

England could face a maximum sentence of 11 years, down from 16 1/2 years but Crisp said he hoped she would receive a lesser punishment after the court hears evidence about her mental deficiencies.

"Justice is being done based on the evidence that has been brought forward at this point," he said. "The government has certainly been more amenable as of late than they were initially. I think they recognize her ultimate role in this is not what it was initially thought to be. She was a pawn."

AMERICAN REPUTATION

The abuse photos were a major blow to America's reputation worldwide at a time when many nations already distrusted U.S. intentions in Iraq.

The most serious remaining charge against England is one count of indecent acts, which carries a maximum of five years in prison. A second indecency charge, of committing an indecent act with her boyfriend Charles Graner, has been dropped, Crisp said.

In January, a military tribunal sentenced Graner to 10 years for his role in the scandal. Graner, the father of England's baby born in October, contended he had been following orders to soften up prisoners for military intelligence.

England made similar arguments, including one in describing the leash incident, in which she said shed was tethered to a mentally ill prisoner who had smeared his body with feces.

"I was instructed by persons in higher rank to stand there and hold this leash and look at the camera," she told KCNC television in Denver last year.

Such arguments failed to convince the jury in Graner's trial. Witnesses testified that the naked Iraqi prisoners stacked naked into a pyramid and later forced to masturbate had no military intelligence value.

Members of England's military police unit say she was not authorized to be in the "hard site" area where the abuses took place but was a frequent visitor to see her lover Graner.

"There was absolutely no reason why she was there for any kind of mission or administrative duties," said one member of her unit who did not want to be named.

"Before he got mobilized, at the unit, she was really a very favorable soldier," he said. "After this relationship began with him, you know, things deteriorated rapidly."

Crisp said Graner would testify during the penalty phase of England's trial. "You're going to learn about the power differentials, the manipulations and things along those lines and how her mental history plays into that," he said.

Read More...

Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases

The New York Times
May 2, 2005
Republican Chairman Exerts Pressure on PBS, Alleging Biases
By STEPHEN LABATON, LORNE MANLY
and ELIZABETH JENSEN

This article is by Stephen Labaton, Lorne Manly and Elizabeth Jensen.

WASHINGTON, May 1 - The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias, prompting some public broadcasting leaders - including the chief executive of PBS - to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

Without the knowledge of his board, the chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, contracted last year with an outside consultant to keep track of the guests' political leanings on one program, "Now With Bill Moyers."

In late March, on the recommendation of administration officials, Mr. Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications as a senior staff member, corporation officials said. While she was still on the White House staff, she helped draft guidelines governing the work of two ombudsmen whom the corporation recently appointed to review the content of public radio and television broadcasts.


Mr. Tomlinson also encouraged corporation and public broadcasting officials to broadcast "The Journal Editorial Report," whose host, Paul Gigot, is editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. And while a search firm has been retained to find a successor for Kathleen A. Cox, the corporation's president and chief executive, whose contract was not renewed last month, Mr. Tomlinson has made clear to the board that his choice is Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee who is now an assistant secretary of state.

Mr. Tomlinson said that he was striving for balance and had no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, explaining that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support.

"My goal here is to see programming that satisfies a broad constituency," he said, adding, "I'm not after removing shows or tampering internally with shows."

But he has repeatedly criticized public television programs as too liberal overall, and said in the interview, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance."

Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive of PBS, who has sparred with Mr. Tomlinson privately but till now has not challenged him publicly, disputed the accusation of bias and was critical of some of his actions.

"I believe there has been no chilling effect, but I do think there have been instances of attempts to influence content from a political perspective that I do not consider appropriate," Ms. Mitchell, who plans to step down when her contract expires next year, said Friday.

Robert Coonrod, who stepped down as corporation president in July 2004, has known Mr. Tomlinson about 20 years and considers him a good friend. "I believe that his motives are exactly what he says they are," he said. Mr. Tomlinson is "trying to help the people in public broadcasting understand why some people in the conservative movement think PBS is hostile to them and, two, imbue public broadcasting with the notion of balance because he thinks that long term it's a winner in getting Congressional support."

"Whether people like the way he goes about it or not is a different issue," Mr. Coonrod added.

Though PBS's ratings have stabilized lately after several years of decline, the network has faced criticism that much of its programming - shows like "Antiques Roadshow" and "Masterpiece Theater" - is little different from what can be found on cable television. Though a huge bequest to National Public Radio from the estate of Joan Kroc, widow of the founder of McDonald's, has furthered the independence of public radio, corporate support and state financing for public television have slipped in recent years, making the nearly $400 million in federal money annually funneled through the corporation increasingly important.

Nor have administration officials and lawmakers been shy about challenging certain programming. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, for example, earlier this year publicly denounced a program featuring a cartoon rabbit named Buster who visited a pair of lesbian parents.

The corporation is a private, nonprofit entity financed by Congress to ensure the vitality of public television and radio. Tension is hardwired into its charter, where its mandate to ensure "objectivity and balance" is accompanied by an exhortation to maintain public broadcasting's independence. Mr. Tomlinson said that in his view, objectivity and balance meant "a program schedule that's not skewed in one direction or another." Some corporation board members say that complaints about ideological pressure are premature.

Beth Courtney, president and chief executive of Louisiana Public Broadcasting and one of three non-Republicans on the nine-member board, said there had been no chilling of journalistic efforts. "What we should look for are the real actions," she said. "We shouldn't speculate about people's motivations."

But Mr. Tomlinson's tenure has brought criticism that his chairmanship has been the most polarizing in a generation. Christy Carpenter, a Democratic appointee to the board from 1998 to 2002, said partisanship was "essentially nonexistent" in her first years. But once Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, joined in September 2000 and President Bush's election changed the board's political composition, the tenor changed, she said.

"There was an increasingly and disturbingly aggressive desire to be more involved and to push programming in a more conservative direction," said Ms. Carpenter, who is now a vice president of the Museum of Television and Radio. One of the more disturbing developments, she added, was a "very vehement dislike for Bill Moyers."

It is not a shock that Mr. Moyers's work exercised Mr. Tomlinson. He is a reliable source of agitation for conservatives, who complain that "Now" under Mr. Moyers (who left the show last year and was replaced by David Brancaccio) was consistently critical of Republicans and the Bush administration. Days after the Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, Mr. Moyers - an aide in the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and a former newspaper publisher who has been associated with PBS since the 1970's - said the entire federal government was "united behind a right-wing agenda" that included "the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives."

In December 2003, three months after he was elected chairman, Mr. Tomlinson sent Ms. Mitchell of PBS a letter outlining his concerns. " 'Now With Bill Moyers' does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting," he wrote.

Shortly after, Mr. Tomlinson hired a consultant to review Mr. Moyers's program; one three-month contract cost $10,000. The reports Mr. Tomlinson saw placed the program's guests in categories like "anti-Bush," "anti-business" and "anti-Tom DeLay," referring to the House majority leader, corporation officials said. The reports found the guests were overwhelmingly anti-Bush, a conclusion Mr. Moyers disputed.

Mr. Moyers said on Friday that he did not know a content review was undertaken but that he was not surprised. "Tomlinson has waged a surreptitious and relentless campaign against 'Now' and me," he said, dismissing complaints that he is biased. Mr. Moyers left "Now" to write a book but is back on public television as host of the series "Wide Angle."

Mr. Tomlinson said he conducted the content review on his own, without sending the results to the board or making them public, because he wanted to better understand complaints he was hearing without provoking a storm. "If I wanted to be more destructive to public broadcasting but score political points, I would have come out with this study a year and a half ago," he said.

Recently, PBS refused for months to sign its latest contract with the corporation governing federal financing of national programming, holding up the release of $26.5 million. For the first time, the corporation argued that PBS's agreeing to abide by its own journalistic standards was not sufficient, but that it must adhere to the "objectivity and balance" language in the charter. In a January letter to the leaders of the three biggest producing stations, in New York, Boston and Washington, the deputy general counsel of PBS warned that this could give the corporation editorial control, infringing on its First Amendment rights and possibly leading to a demand for balance in each and every show.

The corporation said it had no such plans, and the contract was finally signed about a month ago.

Mr. Tomlinson did help get one program, "The Journal Editorial Report," on the air as a way of balancing "Now." Ms. Mitchell backed the program, but public broadcasting officials said Mr. Tomlinson was instrumental in lining up $5 million in corporate financing and pressing PBS to distribute it.

Public television executives noted that Mr. Gigot's show by design features the members of the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, while Mr. Moyers's guests included many conservatives, like Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition; Richard Viguerie, a conservative political strategist; and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Mr. Tomlinson said that it was his concerns about "objectivity and balance" that led to the creation of a new office of the ombudsman at the corporation to issue reports about public television and radio broadcasts. But the role of a White House official in setting up the office has raised questions among some public broadcasting executives about its independence. In March, after she had been hired by the corporation but was still at the White House as director of the Office of Global Communications, Mary Catherine Andrews helped draft the office's guiding principles, set up a Web page and prepare a news release about the appointment of the new ombudsmen, officials said.

Ms. Andrews said she undertook the work at the instruction of top officials at the corporation. "I was careful not to work on this project during office hours during my last days at the White House," she said.

Mr. Tomlinson has also occasionally worked with other White House officials on public broadcasting issues. Last year he enlisted the presidential adviser Karl Rove to help kill a legislative proposal that would change the composition of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board by requiring the president to fill about half the seats with people who had experience in local radio and television. The proposal was dropped after Mr. Rove and the White House criticized it.

Mr. Tomlinson said he understood the need to reassure liberals that the traditions of public broadcasting, including public affairs programs, were not changing, "that we're not trying to put a wet blanket on this type of programming."

But his efforts to sow goodwill have shown that what he says he tries to project is sometimes read in a different way. Last November, members of the Association of Public Television Stations met in Baltimore along with officials from the corporation and PBS. Mr. Tomlinson told them they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate.

Mr. Tomlinson said that his comment was in jest and that he couldn't imagine how remarks at "a fun occasion" were taken the wrong way. Others, though, were not amused.

"I was in that room," said Ms. Mitchell. "I was surprised by the comment. I thought it was inappropriate."

Stephen Labaton reported from Washington for this article, Lorne Manly from New York and Elizabeth Jensen from Columbus, Ohio.

span>

Read More...