Taking on Republicans, but Not Their Leader When he arrived in Texas for a respite at his ranch last week, Mr. Bush proclaimed 2002 as "a war year." (Translation: Democrats better not attack me because I'm staying above politics for as long as I can.) http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/30/weekinreview/30BERK.html

Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers Black precincts had more than three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts in last fall's presidential race in Florida, a disparity that persists even after accounting for the effects of income, education and bad ballot design, The New York Times found in a new statistical analysis of the Florida vote. The analysis of 6,000 precincts uses far more definitive data than previous studies and shows a strong pattern of ballot rejection in black precincts that is not explained by socioeconomic differences or voting technology. Similar patterns were found in Hispanic precincts and places with large elderly populations. It did not matter whether the precinct used punch cards or paper ballots, whether the neighborhoods were rich or poor or the ballot was straight or butterflied. Precincts with more black, Hispanic and elderly voters had substantially more spoiled ballots, The Times found. The analysis did not suggest why blacks' ballots were more likely to have been rejected, but critics of Florida's voting system have suggested that black precincts were more likely to have older, unreliable voting machines and poorly trained poll workers. Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers

Cheney, Shrinking From View, Still Looms Large Did he spend his Thanksgiving in his "secure and undisclosed location" or in the sleekly redecorated Naval Observatory, the vice president's official residence that has taken on the characteristics of an armed camp? His staff did not want to say. But one thing is certain: In a nation where vice presidents have always complained about being invisible, Mr. Cheney really is. And yet, he has turned his disappearing act on its head. The more invisible he becomes, the more powerful he seems. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/26/politics/26LETT.html

The Vanishing Act Seldom in the last half-century has the U.S. been so poorly prepared to assist individuals and families struggling with the effects of a recession. Example: the unemployment insurance system, which was established to ease the pain of temporary joblessness, covers less than 40 percent of the people who are out of work. Example: the food stamp program, which was supposed to slam the door on hunger in the world's greatest nation (and which once served 90 percent of eligible families), now serves just 60 percent of the poverty- stricken folks who qualify for help. And then there's welfare. In the summer of 1996 Bill Clinton signed the so-called reform bill ending "welfare as we know it." Among other things, it imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance to needy families. The potentially tragic consequences of that legislation were concealed for a while by the extraordinary economic boom in the last half of the decade. But Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others had warned all along of the dire implications of ending the guarantee of federal help to the nation's poorest families. Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund noted that supporters of the welfare bill assumed there would be "no recession in the next decade, which is unprecedented." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/opinion/19HERB.html?todaysheadlines

Small Vote for Universal Care Is Seen as Carrying a Lot of Weight The state's primary health insurer spent hundreds of thousands of dollars � more than some Congressional candidates here spend � to try to defeat the referendum, even though it was purely advisory. Opponents of the measure broadcast a battery of television commercials contending that government-run health care would mean long waits, rationed medical care, prohibitively high taxes and bureaucratic nightmares. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/16/national/16MAIN.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

Ideology As Usual George W. Bush has focused effectively on the need for an international alliance against terrorism. But he has not yet understood what a wartime president has to do at home: Put aside ideological politics so he can be president of all the people. With his evident approval, the ideologues in his administration are riding their conservative hobbyhorses as if the country did not have a higher purpose now. They, and the president, seem oblivious to the way those actions threaten national unity. A striking example is the decision by Attorney General John Ashcroft this week to try to overrule the voters of Oregon and undo that state's assisted-suicide law. He said he would move to revoke the drug prescription license of any Oregon doctor who used drugs to help someone who wanted to die. In another strange example of his priorities, Mr. Ashcroft last month sent federal agents to raid a Los Angeles center that supplied marijuana to desperately ill people under a state law allowing medical use. Does a wartime Justice Department really have nothing better to do than deprive cancer and AIDS patients of relief from their pain? Two weeks ago the British government decided to stop arresting marijuana users, adopting the policy now followed by most European governments. The U.S. law against users has not changed, but Mr. Ashcroft has discretion to use Justice Department resources where they are most urgently needed � especially in a war situation. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/10/opinion/10LEWI.html?todaysheadlines

Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11 The Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine New York station was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center, seriously disrupting United States intelligence operations while bringing the war on terrorism dangerously close to home for America's spy agency, government officials say. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/national/04INTE.html?todaysheadlines&pagewanted=all

G.O.P. Moderates See Dangers in Bush's Stance on Aviation Security "I simply do not understand it," said Representative Marge Roukema, a moderate New Jersey Republican who did not vote the president's way. "I just have to shake my head. The Democrats will beat us up and down on it, no question about that. But besides the politics, we'll be inviting more airline disasters and putting more lives at risk." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/03/national/03BUSH.html

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