Stalemate in Congress Irks Security Experts Meanwhile, some improvements that experts consider fundamental remain uncertain. The airlines oppose universal matching of checked bags with the passengers who actually board flights, arguing it would be costly but provide no protection against suicide bombers. Congress wants all checked bags screened for explosives but has not appropriated the $2 billion that officials say bomb- detection machines will cost. And though the House and Senate plans are in agreement on measures that experts say would bolster security � adding armed marshals to more flights, transferring oversight of airport workers from the airlines to the federal government and fortifying cockpit doors � action on those fronts has been held up by thetug of war in Congress. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/business/03AIR.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

Opponents' and Supporters' Portrayals of Detentions Prove Inaccurate "Public access to information is crucial," said Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil rights group in Washington. "If the attorney general says there's been more than a thousand people arrested or detained, they need to then say what that means." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/national/03DETA.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

Court Rejects 3-Strikes Term for Shoplifter In a 2-to-1 ruling, the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the sentence of the shoplifter, Leonardo Andrade, violated the Bill of Rights' prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Andrade was sentenced to 50 years in prison for stealing nine videotapes, valued at $153, from a Kmart store. The court noted that kidnappers and murderers could receive less time than Mr. Andrade, who had a record of nonviolent, petty crimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/national/03STRI.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

An Economic Stimulus Bill With Corporations in Mind Late last winter, when President Bush was shaping his $1.35 trillion tax cut, corporate lobbyists were told to wait, their turn would come. And now, their turn is here. Just 30 percent of the proposed tax relief would go to individuals, with the rest helping corporations, including large, prosperous ones like I.B.M. (news/quote) and General Electric (news/quote), which have done well even in the economic downturn. And though one of the bill's costliest provisions is intended to produce a rebound in capital spending by businesses, such a recovery is far from certain. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/27/business/27HAND.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

A Mass of Newly Laid-Off Workers Will Put Social Safety Net to the Test As former welfare recipients lose their jobs, a big unknown is how many will qualify for unemployment insurance. In the past, most failed to work long enough or earn enough to qualify. In Nevada, for instance, a jobless person has to earn $5,600 in a three-month period to qualify for the average unemployment benefit. That is more than twice what a woman leaving welfare typically earns. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/08/national/08LAYO.html

How Patients' Rights Became a Fight The Norwood amendment gutted our bipartisan legislation, and this is why: First, our original bill started with the premise that a health insurance company should be treated just like any other person or institution in the health profession. That is, if it makes a decision that results in harm to a patient, it should be held accountable for that action. The Norwood amendment creates a whole new category for H.M.O.'s. It gives them special protections that no other industry has � like new federal limits on damages in cases where a patient is hurt by the actions of an H.M.O. Second, the amendment may pre-empt most state laws, so that already existing patients' rights laws in places like Texas, California and New Jersey could be rendered void. And in states where case law has been building in favor of patients' rights, the Norwood amendment would basically kill years of legal progress. Third, the amendment calls for a legal device called "rebuttable presumption." Few people could tell you what this means, but we've figured out that it increases the presumption of innocence for H.M.O.'s, making it harder for a plaintiff to prove liability. The big question for all of us as Americans has to be: Why is this happening? Why did the White House oppose a real patients' bill of rights at every turn, even when a majority of Americans support one, and even when a coalition of Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress had united behind one? And why are we sitting here today without a law that holds health insurance companies accountable, when the health and livelihood of millions of Americans depend on such a law? http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/01/opinion/01BERR.html

Treaties Don't Belong to Presidents Alone Presidents don't have the power to enter into treaties unilaterally. This requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and once a treaty enters into force, the Constitution makes it part of the "supreme law of the land" � just like a statute. Presidents can't terminate statutes they don't like. They must persuade both houses of Congress to join in a repeal. Should the termination of treaties operate any differently? The question first came up in 1798. As war intensified in Europe, America found itself in an entangling alliance with the French under treaties made during our own revolution. But President John Adams did not terminate these treaties unilaterally. He signed an act of Congress to "Declare the Treaties Heretofore Concluded with France No Longer Obligatory on the United States." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/29/opinion/29ACKE.html

Social Security (as We Know It) Is Here to Stay What matters about the trust fund is that its existence expresses the fact that Social Security is a liability of the government. The assets in the trust fund are Treasury bonds. And bonds, of course, are claims on general revenues, including money from taxes on capital gains and corporate income as well as the payroll tax. When Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says the bonds in the Social Security trust fund are not "real economic assets," he is denying that the full faith and credit of the United States stands behind the financing of Social Security benefits � at least as long as the Social Security system holds bonds. This rhetoric is dangerous because it could undermine confidence in the Treasury's bonds. As a matter of economics, the bonds in the trust fund are indeed irrelevant. When revenues from Social Security taxes no longer cover the benefits being paid out � which will happen somewhere around 2015 � the government will presumably sell bonds to make up the difference. The effect on the national economy will be the same whether the bonds are drawn from a stash at the Social Security Administration or printed fresh. Turning Social Security into a matter of individual private accounts, by contrast, would tear up the contract that Americans who paid Social Security taxes thought they had with their government. A government that promised justice for all would suddenly leave many of its older people at the mercy of the state of the market on the day they retire � or of the prevailing interest rate on the day they receive their annuities. No change in American society in the last half-century has been so dramatic as the reduction of the proportion of the elderly who are poor, and most of this change is the benign shadow of Social Security. That's a lot to put at risk. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/28/opinion/28MAYE.html

Report Says Lower Surplus Will Affect Social Security President Bush's tax cut and the nation's economic downturn will force the government to take $9 billion out of Social Security this year to pay for other operations, breaking a bipartisan commitment in Congress, congressional analysts reported Monday. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, offering a more pessimistic view of the government's finances than the Bush administration did last week, estimating the total budget surplus for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 at $153 billion -- down $122 billion from its May estimate. CBO says Social Security will be tapped for $9 billion in fiscal 2001. After a small non-Social Security surplus of $2 billion in fiscal 2002, CBO projects the government will use $18 billion out of the retirement program in 2003 and $3 billion in 2004.

Bush Projections Show Sharp Drop in Budget Surplus Largely because of the tax cut passed by Congress this year and the economic slowdown, the surpluses outside Social Security will remain tiny for the next three or four years before beginning to grow again, the White House said. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/23/politics/23BUDG.html

Global Arms Sales Rise Again, and the U.S. Leads the Pack American manufacturers signed contracts for just under $18.6 billion, or about half of all weapons sold on the world market during 2000, with 68 percent of the American weapons bought by developing countries. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/20/international/20ARMS.html

For a fleeting moment, it seemed as if he might propose federal subsidies for garlic and holy water.

At Night, Bush-Speak Goes Into Overdrive Nighttime is when the vampires come out. They haunted Mr. Bush in Denver on Tuesday when he spoke at a fund- raising dinner for Colorado Republicans and suddenly, in the middle of his remarks, began talking about his interest in "vampire-busting devices." For a fleeting moment, it seemed as if he might propose federal subsidies for garlic and holy water. He was at it again the next evening in Albuquerque, N.M., where he talked, in slightly revised terms, about "vampire-defeating devices." Stakes? Crucifixes? Buffy? Alas, Mr. Bush was simply trying to prove how committed to energy conservation he was. And the vampires in question were cell-phone chargers that continue to drain electricity even when the phone is not in the cradle. Mr. Bush has ordered that federal agencies correct the problem with new energy-saving gadgets. But his slightly herky-jerky introduction and explanation of the topic demonstrated again something that was more apparent during his presidential campaign, when his days were longer and his evening events more frequent. Bush at night is entirely different from Bush in the day. Bush at night is more likely to indulge odd digressions and unleash twisty, stuttering, imprecise sentences. "A vampire is a � a � cell deal you can plug in the wall to charge your cell phone," he said in Denver. It was an inauspicious first step toward technological Transylvania. Bush at night hatches quizzical new phrases. In Denver and Albuquerque, he talked about the "so- called surplus," making it sound as if he doubted the existence of the very money he deemed so bountiful that a tax cut was necessary. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/19/national/19BUSH.html

Bush Rolls Back Clinton's Medicaid Rules Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said, "The Bush administration has taken every opportunity to side with the H.M.O. industry and against Medicaid patients in these regulations." A Medicaid patient who needs a life-saving treatment on Friday might have to wait until the next Wednesday because the "emergency protections don't apply over the weekend," Mr. Waxman said. About half of the 40 million Medicaid recipients are in managed care. Many are heavy users of medical care. They generally do not have the money to go outside the network of doctors and hospitals selected by their health plans. William A. Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said he was unaware of specific differences between the Clinton and Bush rules. But Congressional aides expressed concern about several differences when they met today with federal Medicaid officials. Under the Clinton rules, H.M.O.'s had to do a comprehensive assessment of Medicaid patients with "special health care needs," including pregnant women, foster children and people over 65. Most of those requirements have been dropped. The Bush rules would allow patients to appeal an overt reduction, suspension, termination or denial of services. The new rules drop a provision that would, in addition, have allowed appeals if an H.M.O. simply "delayed access to services to the point where there is a substantial risk" of harm to the patients' health. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/17/politics/17MEDI.html

Social Security Budget Revised Social Security Budget Revised The Bush administration says a change in budget accounting methods will make $4.3 billion in Social Security funds available for general spending or tax cuts. The change, which involves the manner in which payroll-tax revenues are calculated, would technically allow the White House and Congress to spend the money while maintaining their commitment to only use Social Security surplus funds to pay retirees and reduce the national debt. The accounting change comes at a time when officials in Washington are predicting the surplus for the entire federal budget will be much lower than expected because of the slowing economy. http://www.publicagenda.org/headlines/headline.htm

Pentagon Harbors Antimissile Skepticism The head of the Pentagon's missile defense programs said today that he was not fully confident in the "basic functionality" of the antimissile system that successfully intercepted a mock warhead in space last month. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/national/16MISS.html

Administration Reconfigures the Budget Pie The Bush administration is making an accounting change involving Social Security that will free $4.3 billion for Congress to use, officials said today. The increase could be important as the White House and its Republican allies in Congress try to fend off Democratic assertions that President Bush's tax cuts have drained too much of the surplus to meet government spending priorities. Even with the change, the revised surplus projections for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 will be much lower than the administration and Congressional Budget Office projected earlier this year. The $275 billion surplus, including Social Security, that was forecast by the budget office in May could fall to roughly $160 billion because of the tax cut and slowing economy. Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the accounting change more correctly describes revenue from payroll taxes, those dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. "There's a general consensus that the Social Security surplus should be used for debt reduction," one official said. Democrats described the change as an unprecedented accounting gimmick intended to mask the impact of Mr. Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut on the budget. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/national/16BUDG.html

States Dismayed by Federal Bills on Patient Rights "The House bill appears to pre- empt all state internal and external review laws," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "If that becomes law, I would have real concern about the ability of people to get an appropriate and adequate review of adverse decisions by H.M.O.'s. In regulating insurance and health care, it's critical to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of states and the role of the federal government." Democrats agree. In an interview, Gov. Gray Davis of California said: "The federal government is diminishing the health care rights of Californians. Congress should adopt minimum standards and allow states to exceed them. But instead, it's rolling back rights that we accorded to patients in a package of 20 separate bills that I signed in 1999." Under a federal bill passed by the Senate on June 29 and the companion bill passed by the House on Aug. 2, insurance companies could charge a filing fee of $25 for the external review of a health plan's decision. "Those fees are really a patients' rights tax, which I find wholly unacceptable," Mr. Davis said. California allows patients to sue health plans for any harm caused by the insurer's negligence, but the state does not limit the amount of damages. By contrast, the bill passed by the United States House of Representatives would set limits in state and federal court: $1.5 million for pain and suffering, plus $1.5 million in punitive damages. President Bush and many Republicans in Congress said the limits were needed to discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits and to hold down insurance costs. Mr. Bush has said he will sign the version that passed the House, but not the one the Senate passed. Daniel Zingale, the director of the California Department of Managed Health Care, said the potentially unlimited liability of health plans in California had been "an incentive for good corporate behavior" by H.M.O.'s. "We have not had a single lawsuit under the 1999 law," Mr. Zingale said. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/13/politics/13PATI.html

A New Threat to the President's Agenda: The Tax Cut Democrats are indeed gasping. They are already warning that Congress will face painful tradeoffs when it returns from its summer recess next month and begins wrangling in earnest with Mr. Bush over next year's spending bills and the array of policy choices within them. But Mr. Bush cannot breathe freely, either. Just two months after he signed it into law, the tax cut that once seemed an unalloyed triumph now threatens to complicate the rest of his agenda and expose him to political peril. From his plans for modernizing the military and developing a national missile defense to his aspirations of becoming the education president and tackling long-term issues like Social Security, Mr. Bush might have trouble paying the tab. At the same time, he has left himself open to accusations from Democrats that the tax cut will plunge the government back into budget deficits of a sort. The buffer left in the surplus following his tax cut appears to be eroding rapidly because of the flagging economy. Both Congress and the White House will update their surplus projections by the end of the month. It is possible the new figures will show the budget in the current fiscal year dipping into money that Democrats and most Republicans had considered off limits � the excess revenues being generated by Medicare. Raiding Medicare, as the Democrats put it, would be a tricky enough charge for the White House to deal with. But it could get worse. Within a year or two, the government may again start spending the Social Security surplus, breaching a bulwark against fiscal irresponsibility agreed to by both parties and the administration. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/12/weekinreview/12STEV.html

Data Permanently Erased From Florida Computers The examination, paid for by a group of news organizations including The New York Times, also found that some information had probably been permanently erased earlier this year after new operating systems were installed on three of the four computers, experts from Ontrack Data International Inc., a firm based in Minneapolis, said yesterday. While finding "bits and pieces" of hundreds of partly deleted files, they said there was no way to know the full extent of the destruction. But they also said they had found no evidence that records had been systematically purged as part of an intentional effort to destroy election documents. "If somebody did that, then it was a pretty poor attempt to cover their tracks," said Mike Rands, manager of operations for DataTrail, a division of Ontrack Data that specializes in data recovery and forensic computer examinations. Indeed, the company's examination unearthed dozens of election- related documents that had never been released by Ms. Harris's office. Among other things, the examination showed that Ms. Harris's lawyers and aides used the machines to send and retrieve e-mail messages, conduct legal research via the Internet, prepare Ms. Harris for potential questions from reporters and even to hunt for snappy quotations for her speeches. For months, Ms. Harris's lawyers have insisted that the computers had been used solely to write news releases. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/politics/08FLOR.htm

Reform and an Evolving Electorate Although we don't like to acknowledge it, there have always been strong antidemocratic forces in the United States. Large numbers of Americans, throughout our history, have not believed in universal suffrage and have acted accordingly. Their presence delayed the achievement of a fully enfranchised population until roughly 1970 and produced many episodes in which the right to vote contracted. The most extreme and well-known examples involve African-Americans in the South who were deprived of their constitutionally protected right to vote for more than 70 years. But antidemocratic Southerners have had plenty of company, and not just in the early days of the republic when voting was limited to men of property. National women's suffrage was not finally adopted until 1920. Rhode Island imposed a property qualification on all foreign-born citizens for much of the 19th century; California went to great lengths to prevent Asians from voting; New York adopted an English language literacy test in 1921 that was still disfranchising hundreds of thousands of people in the 1960's. In the 1930's, an organization headed by George Wickersham, a former United States attorney general, actively sought to disfranchise unemployed workers who were receiving federal relief. The resistance to democracy affected voting procedures as well as the right to vote itself; indeed, the erection of procedural obstacles to voting was often a strategic response to the formal enfranchisement of people considered undesirable. The registration systems that emerged in the late 19th century, for example, were not simply good government reforms designed to eliminate corruption (which is how the Carter-Ford commission describes them); they were also efforts to keep immigrants and the poor from voting by interposing layers of paperwork and deadlines between potential voters and the ballot box. The decline in turnout in American elections, which began at the end of the 19th century, was not an accident or the symptom of a mysterious malady. Both in the North and in the South, turnout was reduced, in good part, by laws designed to keep citizens from the polls and to prevent popular dissident parties from effectively contesting elections. Alabama's disfranchisement of men convicted of crimes like vagrancy and adultery � even after time had been served � was expressly crafted at the turn of the century to limit black participation in politics. (Similar laws limit black Alabaman voting today. Such permanent disfranchisement would be eliminated by the Carter-Ford recommendations.) In 1907, Pittsburgh's newly created voter registration board crowed about the "good results obtained" under a recently passed Pennsylvania registration law: in two years, the number of registrants was nearly halved. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/opinion/05KEYS.html