In Policy Change, Greenspan Backs a Broad Tax Cut But Mr. Greenspan passed up an opportunity to endorse Mr. Bush's proposal specifically. And while he did not say how big a tax reduction would be appropriate, he suggested that he was sympathetic to the concern expressed by many Democrats that a stampede to cut taxes could come back to haunt the nation if the surplus falls short of expectations. Surplus projections are little more than educated guesswork, he said, and Congress should view them with some skepticism, at least until economists have a better understanding of why the economy has been generating far more tax revenue than expected in recent years. Analysts have been grappling in particular with how much of the surge in tax revenue came from the run-up in stock prices in the late 1990's and what would happen if the market remained flat or fell in coming years. "With today's euphoria surrounding the surpluses, it is not difficult to imagine the hard-earned fiscal restraint developed in recent years rapidly dissipating," Mr. Greenspan said. "We need to resist those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/26/business/26TAX.html?pagewanted=all

This is Leadership?

Democratic Leader Assures Bush on Ashcroft Nomination Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, told President Bush today that he need not worry about getting confirmation for his cabinet choices, including John Ashcroft, the embattled nominee for attorney general, Mr. Bush's spokesman told reporters. "You will not be denied your choice on nominees," Ari Fleischer quoted Mr. Daschle as telling the president in a White House meeting, an account that Mr. Daschle's office did not dispute. Few people, Democrat or Republican, would quarrel seriously with that assessment of how the Ashcroft nomination will end, probably in little more than a week. But the fight over whether to confirm Mr. Ashcroft has taken on a different political contour in recent days. The discussions are now less over whether he will be confirmed than over such questions as how much of a unified front the Democrats can present in opposition and what that will bode for the level of partisan confrontation in the early months of the Bush administration. href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/politics/25ASHC.html?pagewanted=all">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/politics/25ASHC.html?pagewanted=al

A Time of Upheaval and Dramatic Events

The Year of the Snake

News Analysis: Tradition and Legitimacy Unlike most of his precursors � but like John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison and a handful of other presidents past � Mr. Bush entered the White House without an unchallenged, universally accepted title to office. A half-million more Americans voted for Al Gore than for Mr. Bush, which counted for nothing in the legal sense but for something, at least, in the political sense. Mr. Bush became the first president since Harrison in 1888 to lose the popular vote but win in the Electoral College. Only the intervention of the United States Supreme Court, itself as deeply divided as possible, 5 votes to 4, tipped the Electoral College vote in Mr. Bush's favor. Arguments about the legitimacy of the Texas governor's victory have persisted even as the country accepted the fact that he had won. Thousands of the doubtful and disenchanted took to the streets of Washington today in angry protest. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/21/politics/21ASSE.html?pagewanted=all

This is, after all, the Year of the Snake

After the Ball Is Over George W. Bush seems like an earnest man. When he says he has come to Washington to "change the tone" and "unite, not divide," I don't doubt his sincerity. But so far his actions are those of another entitled boomer who is utterly blind to his own faults. He narcissistically believes things to be so (and his intentions pure) because he says they are. Change the tone? Hard as it is to imagine that anyone could choose an attorney general as polarizing as the last, Mr. Bush has outdone himself. With a single cabinet pick he has reproduced the rancor that attended the full Clinton legal troika of Reno, Hubbell & Foster. There's been much debate about whether John Ashcroft is a racist � a hard case to make against a man whose history of playing the race card to pander to voters is balanced by his record of black judicial appointments. But there has not been nearly enough debate about whether our incipient chief legal officer has lied under oath to the Senate. Perhaps his seeming fudging and reversals of his previous stands on Roe v. Wade and gun control can be rationalized as clever lawyerese. Perhaps some of his evasions can be dismissed as a politician's typical little white lies � and I do mean white � such as when he denies he knew that a magazine he favored with an interview, Southern Partisan, espoused the slaveholding views of Southern partisans. But it took a bolder kind of dissembling to contradict his own paper trail in public office. After he swore that the state of Missouri "had been found guilty of no wrong" in a landmark St. Louis desegregation case and that "both as attorney general and as governor" of the state he had followed "all" court orders in the matter, The Washington Post needed only a day to report the truth: A federal district judge in fact ruled that the state was a "primary constitutional wrongdoer" in the matter and threatened to hold Mr. Ashcroft in contempt for his "continual delay and failure to comply" with court orders. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/opinion/20RICH.html?pagewanted=allr

It's a D@#! Shame

A Nation's Voices: Concern and Solace, Resentment and Redemption CHICAGO, Jan. 19 � Clearly the Blind Faith Cafe was not named with today's political climate in mind. On the eve of the inauguration of a president who won office after one of the most contentious and divisive elections in memory, a more apt name for a vegetarian restaurant in the Democratic-majority suburban town of Evanston, Ill., might be the Who-Do-You-Think-You're-Kidding Cafe. "We'll have an inauguration that a lot of people are not excited about, and it's just like it's a cartoon," said Joanna Baker, a 39-year-old executive search consultant and yoga enthusiast, who was eating a barbecued seitan salad and worrying what a Bush presidency would mean for abortion rights and other issues she cares about. "It's like it's not really real." At the next table, another Democrat, Dr. Ken Moses, a 58-year-old psychologist, gave a wry grin while describing how he was adjusting to the White House transition. "I happen to be a therapist that deals with nothing but profound losses," Dr. Moses said. "The issue of disappointment and how to deal with it is my trade." Here in the Chicago area, and across the country in Miami, Denver and Boston, there is a sense that the nation has been through an extraordinary upheaval, and many people have been left a little stunned. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/politics/20VOIC.html?pagewanted=all

Black America Isn't Buying

News Analysis: Selling Point Is a Sore One On Saturday, African-Americans will be prominent among those protesting at Mr. Bush's inauguration, even though he has chosen for his cabinet the first black secretary of state and a widely respected black educator. Ask black politicians about the appointments, and they quickly change the subject to Florida, where, they assert, antiquated voting equipment and unfriendly electoral officials in minority precincts illegitimately tipped the outcome to Mr. Bush. "A majority of African-Americans think that the election was stolen," said David Bositis, an analyst of minority voting at the Joint Center for Economic Studies, a think tank here. The bitterness that many black voters and their white allies feel toward the president-elect was on vivid display as the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed Mr. Bush's choice of former Senator John Ashcroft as attorney general. With attention centered on Judge Ronnie L. White of the Missouri Supreme Court, an African-American, and Mr. Ashcroft's success in blocking his nomination as a federal judge, the session was supercharged with racial tension. Studies by the Joint Center found that Mr. Bush's favorable rating among black voters dropped from 43 percent in May 1999, when he was pondering a run for president, to 29 percent at the end of September 2000, when the campaign was nearing a climax. The more African-Americans saw of Mr. Bush, said Mr. Bositis, who designed the polls, "the less they liked him." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/19/politics/19ASSE.html?pagewanted=all

There's a Will but is There a Way?

ZDNet: Sm@rt Partner - Say Goodbye to Chads But a few things have to happen before that vision of national e-voting becomes a reality. For one, the states need to certify Internet voting systems before they can be used in official elections. And before certification can take place, the states need to develop certification standards. Such standards don't exist at the moment, although industry executives say California and Florida are in the process of creating Internet voting standards. In addition, the Federal Elections Commission and the National Association of State Election Directors "are in the process of developing standards," adds Mark Strama, VP of government affairs at Election.com. The Internet-voting companies themselves are working with government officials to develop those standards. http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/column/0,4712,2672615,00.html

Democrats Facing Difficult Choices in New Congress In a sign of the tugs and pulls within their party, Democratic senators who initially signaled that they were likely to support Mr. Ashcroft have since tempered their remarks, caught by surprise by the intensity of the opposition from liberal interest groups. Strategists note that Southern Democrats, who are usually considered centrists, rely heavily on black votes to win elections, creating pressures on them to oppose Mr. Ashcroft. Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat, has been warning senators that they ignore the strong feelings of the party's base at their own peril. Noting that Mr. Ashcroft once said, "There are two things you find in the middle of the road, a moderate and a dead skunk, and I don't want to be either of those," Mr. Jackson said, "I'm in agreement with him on that quote � the only thing I'm in agreement with him on." He lambasted the Senate as "the only group in town talking of bipartisanship." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/15/politics/15DEMS.html?pagewanted=all

Ashcroft Battle Likely to Focus on Race Issues The most visible sign of the importance of these issues will come on Thursday, when Justice Ronnie White takes the witness chair to testify against Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. White, the first black member of the Missouri Supreme Court, was denied a federal judgeship in 1999 when Mr. Ashcroft, then a senator from Missouri, waged a successful campaign to depict him as "pro-criminal" and soft on the death penalty. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/14/politics/14ASHC.html?pagewanted=all

Hoist on Her Own Petard

Bush Choice for Labor Post Withdraws and Cites Furor of Illegal Immigrant Issue Law enforcement officials said that the F.B.I. had interviewed Ms. Chavez three times and was about to meet with her for a fourth time when she withdrew. In addition, these officials said that in Ms. Chavez's initial interview, she did not disclose that Ms. Mercado had lived in her house. The officials said the F.B.I. thought that her accounts were becoming muddier, rather than clearer, about whether she knew that Ms. Mercado was in the United States illegally and whether she employed her as a housekeeper. Ms. Chavez portrayed herself today as a victim, accusing her critics of engaging in the politics of personal destruction. On the other side, her critics noted that she often criticized President Clinton in her newspaper columns and was fiercely critical of his first nominee for attorney general, Zo� Baird. Ms. Baird's appointment was sidetracked following disclosures that she employed an illegal immigrant as a nanny and had failed to pay Social Security taxes. Appearing on PBS's "MacNeil- Lehrer NewsHour" in December 1993, Ms. Chavez said: "I think most of the American people were upset during the Zo� Baird nomination that she had hired an illegal alien. That was what upset them more than the fact that she did not pay Social Security taxes." http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/10/politics/10CHAV.html?pagewanted=all

It's not Bush's but the U. S.'s Atty General

Far, Far From the Center We are about to embark on a rough ride into the distant past. John Ashcroft, Mr. Bush's choice for attorney general, believes, for example, that if a 13-year-old girl were raped by her father and made pregnant, she should be required to carry that pregnancy to term. Most Americans do not feel that way. Mr. Bush gave the impression during the campaign that he would preside over a reasonably moderate administration. Mr. Ashcroft's politics are somewhat different. He once said that the two things you find in the "middle of the road" are "a moderate and a dead skunk." Linda Chavez is Mr. Bush's selection to head the Labor Department. The secretary of labor is supposed to serve the interests of working men and women. If Ms. Chavez's career to date is any guide, America's working men and women should run for cover. We have been enjoying the greatest period of prosperity in the nation's history, but Ms. Chavez has steadfastly opposed even a modest hike in the minimum wage. A few years ago she derided a proposed minimum wage increase as Marxist, saying, "The folks at the Clinton Labor Department seem to think wage policy should follow Karl Marx's dictum, `From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."' http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/08/opinion/08HERB.html

Religious Right Made Big Push to Put Ashcroft in Justice Dept. Within days of Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri's narrow re-election defeat by a candidate who died three weeks before Election Day, religious and conservative leaders began promoting him for a major position in a Bush administration. If confirmed by the Senate in hearings expected to begin this month, Mr. Ashcroft would reach the highest office ever attained by a leading figure of the Christian right. The appointment would place him at the head of the Justice Department, a sprawling government legal agency that is often at the front lines of the pitched battles over emotion-laden social issues like abortion, the death penalty, crime, civil rights and the selection of federal judges. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/politics/07ASHC.html?pagewanted=all

One Missouri Compromise Is Enough One Missouri Compromise Is Enough Democrats Should Vote "No" On John Ashcroft Saturday, January 6, 2001 Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. today said that "one Missouri Compromise in America's history is enough. There is an attempt by some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to turn 'bipartisanship' into a code word for compromising on justice. That has not worked well and has led to tragedy in our history, and now must be resisted by rejecting John Ashcroft as Attorney General. We had a Missouri Compromise on justice in 1820, similar compromises in 1850 and 1877. We don't need another compromise on justice in the name of bipartisanship in 2001. "Democratic voters must focus their attention on Democrats in the Senate -- that's where our votes are invested -- and they should especially keep their eyes on conservative and southern Democrats. This is a Senate vote that must be 'scored' by all national civil rights, women's rights, abortion rights and justice-oriented organizations. And all Democrats must be held accountable at the polls in the 2002, 2004 and 2006 primary and general elections. Democratic party compromises on justice with respect to welfare reform, crime, corporate responsibility, tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich and corporations, the death penalty, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, PNTR for China, the World Bank and the IMF led to a third party candidacy that cost Democrats the White House in 2000. Democrats should not continue down this path of self-destruction. "Mr. Ashcroft's defenders say he's not a racist -- that he's a dedicated Christian, a lawyer, honest, smart and was an effective public servant as a Missouri Attorney General, Governor and Senator - and President-Elect Bush should be allowed his choice in a new administration. Those are all legitimate arguments, but there is another view. Obviously, I don't know what's in Mr. Ashcroft's heart and no one can measure his intent, but we can review his words and document his actions. http://jessejacksonjr.org/issues/i0106012226.html

Fairness for Whom? We keep hearing that George W. Bush's choice for attorney general, John Ashcroft, is a man of honor, a stalwart when it comes to matters of principle and integrity. Former Senate colleagues are frequently quoted as saying that while they disagree with his ultra-conservative political views, they consider him to be a trustworthy, fair-minded individual. Spare me. The allegedly upright Mr. Ashcroft revealed himself as a shameless and deliberately destructive liar in 1999 when, as the junior senator from Missouri, he launched a malicious attack against a genuinely honorable man, Ronnie White, who had been nominated by the president to a federal district court seat. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/04/opinion/04HERB.html

2000 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary

We Didn't Break the Constitution, We Just Bent the Hell Out of It

The 2000 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary is my 15th report as Chief Justice. Despite the seesaw aftermath of the Presidential election, we are once again witnessing an orderly transition of power from one Presidential administration to another. This Presidential election, however, tested our Constitutional system in ways it has never been tested before� Chief Justice Rehnquist http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2000year-endreport.html

How They Blew It SO WHAT, EXACTLY, had gone wrong? The bad Gore call was not because of flaws in the exit polls or a data entry error, despite dozens of inaccurate media reports to that effect. Experts agree there was no bias in the exit polls, as there had been in New Hampshire. And the Duval County mistake, made an hour after the Gore call, played no part in the blunder, VNS Editorial Director Murray Edelman explained in a confidential November 14 memo to members. Nor were other errors to blame, such as one made by a VNS staffer who inaccurately recorded figures for Lake County at 9:01 p.m. and again at 10:47 p.m., coming up with totals larger than was possible. By 11:59 p.m., the errors were corrected. Nor was it due to a VNS operator shortchanging Gore by 4,000 votes in Brevard County, punching in 93,318 instead of 97,318 at 10:13 p.m., though that error may have played a role later in the evening since it wasn't corrected until 3:51 a.m, according to a VNS memo. "http://ajr.newslink.org/ajrlisajan01.html

A War on Poverty Subtly Linked to Race The shift in antipoverty policy, though sold in race-neutral terms, is central to the racial legacy Mr. Clinton leaves. At times he spoke explicitly, even eloquently, about racial justice; he defended affirmative action; and he appointed record numbers of blacks and Latinos to positions of influence. Yet much of his work consisted of more subtle efforts to reshape racial perceptions. "Clinton understood that welfare had become a racially stigmatized program," said Theda Skocpol, a political scientist at Harvard University who studies programs for the poor. "He ended the most controversial aspects of welfare, but at the same time, he built up supports for working families. And he certainly did see this as an effort to quiet racial disputes about social supports for the vulnerable." http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/26/politics/26CLIN.html?pagewanted=all

Economic Engine for Foreign Policy "Bob came in and essentially told us that Mexico had 48 hours to live," recalled Samuel R. Berger, Mr. Clinton's national security adviser. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/28/politics/28CLIN.html?pagewanted=all

A War on Poverty Subtly Linked to Race "Clinton understood that welfare had become a racially stigmatized program," said Theda Skocpol, a political scientist at Harvard University who studies programs for the poor. "He ended the most controversial aspects of welfare, but at the same time, he built up supports for working families. And he certainly did see this as an effort to quiet racial disputes about social supports for the vulnerable." Citing initiatives from urban tax breaks to college scholarships, Hugh B. Price, president of the National Urban League, put it this way: "He has attempted to do things that have been of enormous benefit to communities of color, without labeling them that way. The idea was that you could build a stronger consensus for public policies that were cast in race-neutral terms." http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/26/politics/26CLIN.html?pagewanted=all

The Wisdom to Let the Good Times Roll Mr. Clinton's fiscal policy served as a laboratory for a change in economic thought. For decades, governments had operated in the belief that running deficits was often good because it would stimulate activity and employment in an economy running at less than its potential. But that traditional assumption, based on the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, has been turned on its head, at least in the United States. Deficits are now considered growth-sapping, draining capital from the private sector, pushing up interest rates and creating uncertainty on Wall Street. Balanced budgets � or better yet, surpluses � are believed to hold down interest rates, free capital for the private sector and reassure investors about long-term economic stability. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/25/politics/25CLIN.html?pagewanted=alll