It seems most advocates of phasing out Social Security let out a squeal worthy of Deliverance when you insist they own up to naming their plan for what it does: namely, end Social Security. Yes, I know, many of them only want to 'partially' end the program. But anybody with the fiscal roadmap in front of them and a decent handle on policy geography can see that the 'partial' pretty quickly leads to the total.
But back to the main question again. Let's take a hypothetical and see if we can clarify matters. We'll call it 401k reform. And it's a good one since so many folks have a 401k.
Under my hypothetical 401k reform we change all the stuff about different companies deciding how much or how little they want to contribute. And we also change the part about your having a choice about how much or whether you contribute; now, it's all mandatory.
There's also a change in the part about your choosing which sort of investments you want to place your funds into. Under the reformed 401k everybody's money goes into government bonds in one lump sum pool. When you retire you can get your money, or rather, your slice of the pie back, with a few adjustments depending on how much you really need the money after all. Other folks may need it more.
And one final thing: the income now gets taxed when you earn it, not at retirement.
Now, if this 401k reform plan were on the table, wouldn't pretty much everyone say: 'Give me a break. You're getting rid of 401ks and replacing it with some sort of weird government pension plan where all the money goes into low yield investments and it's not even clear whether I get my return on what I put in.' Most people would say -- and most journalists would undoubtedly follow their lead -- that calling this '401k reform' was some cheap rhetorical hoodwink. As indeed it would be.
And that's just what the advocates of 'Social Security reform' with private accounts are up to. They want to phase out the program; but they're just too cowardly to say it. They lack the confidence of their ideological ambitions.
Even worse, I suppose, are the journalists who parrot this nonsense because they've never given the actual issue enough thought, or are too cowed by the parrot-masters. But let's save that for another day.
--Josh Marshall
Time to change the website?
"Nothing builds confidence in a leader more than a willingness to take responsibility for what happens during his watch."
Rudy Giuliani, as quoted on the Giuliania Partners website, explaining 'accountability', one of 'six fundamental principles' underlying the professional guidance GP imparts to clients.
[ed.note: I found the reference to this choice quote in today's Newsday.]
--Josh Marshall
Great first impressions.
Sunday's Times has an article about the Bush-Kerik relationship that is damning without quite saying so.
The upshot is that Bush and Kerik bonded at some very basic level when Bush toured ground zero just after 9/11 -- something that seems both very believable and very human. Kerik embodied traits, says the article, that Bush instinctively admires -- toughness, a clear sense of right and wrong, being down to earth rather than a phony or an elitist. The headline of the article says "In Kerik, Bush Saw Values Crucial to Post-9/11 World."
Bush's admiration grew as Kerik first accepted the summons to go to Baghdad to run the Interior Ministry and then campaign aggressively for his reelection.
It was on the basis of his instincts about Kerik, much more than Rudy's prodding, that prompted Bush to nominate him to run DHS.
It's a great example -- almost a morality play -- of one of the key flaws in the president's leadership. He gets clear first impressions and makes judgments based on instinct. And then there's almost no follow-up, no challenging instinct with the harsh light of facts. And certainly no accountability. More often than the not, or course, the instinct turns out to just be wrong. As with Iraq, and Putin's soul and now Kerik.
The turn in Baghdad? Even his supporters concede that it was at best a wash and by many measures it was a disaster. Whether there were any sweetheart contracts he might have signed off on, as some reports suggest, remains to be seen. The rest of his career -- as a bit of nexis research and reporting reveals -- is a string of scandals, unethical behavior, self-dealing and various other sorts of soft or hard corruption. And it seems you can't go far down the corridors and entry-ways of the guy's life without bumping into mafiosi or this or that mob racket to which he happened to be in close proximity.
I trust there's no need to belabor the point, with all we've reported here in recent days, that the president would judge Kerik a man of the sort of values that we need in the post 9/11 world. (If that's true, I guess 9/11 really did change everything.)
You can trust your instincts too much -- particularly if you have bad instincts.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, this one's a challenge. I'm not sure whether to file it under Kerik: subsection mob or Kerik: subsection Jersey condo that led to arrest warrant.
But here goes.
Remember the New Jersey condo for which Kerik fell behind on payments? This is the one that led to an arrest warrant being issued for him in 1998.
Well, apparently the bills went overdue because the girlfriend that he moved into the condo with, attorney Linda George, stopped paying the fees after he moved out. And right about the time she and Kerik split up, she, her estranged husband and slew of other folks were indicted in a multimillion-dollar, mob-run gambling ring.
So says today's Bergen Record.
Yeah, I'm having a hard time keeping up too.
[ed.note: Thanks to this blogger for pointing me toward the story.]
--Josh Marshall
From this morning's <$NoAd$>gaggle ...
QUESTION: Just getting back to the earlier topic about Secretary Rumsfeld. Last night Bill Kristol, of the Weekly Standard, was telling everyone within earshot, the White House really is encouraging him in writing these editorials, and wants the Secretary of Defense --MR. McCLELLAN: I was within earshot; I didn't hear him say that.
QUESTION: I did. I'm sure you've heard him say things like that. What's your reaction to it?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what he's referring to. The President believes that Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person for the challenges that we face going forward in the war on terrorism. And he remains firmly supportive of the actions that he has taken to win the war on terrorism and to defeat those who seek to do harm to America.
QUESTION: So there's no question whatsoever he'll stay on as Secretary?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President made that very clear recently when we said that he had -- the President asked him to continue serving, and he's pleased that Secretary Rumsfeld agreed to continue serving. These are very challenging times that we face as new threats have emerged in the 21st century. And Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job leading the Department of Defense forward to confront the threats that we face and to transform the military so that we're better prepared to confront the threats of the future.
So was the reporter bluffing? No idea.
Bill, can you help us out on this?
--Josh Marshall
If only it were so!
TPM reader LE sends word that the Social Security page on Sen. Sununu's website is "under construction."
The page maybe. But as the co-sponsor of the Sununu-Ryan partial Social Security phase-out bill, we figure he's pretty much made up his mind about eliminating the program.
--Josh Marshall
Viacom: Lobbyist Wanted. Must be Republican and have penis. (And no, they don't mean it metaphorically). Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility has the details.
--Josh Marshall
And just a little note on the DeLay Rule too. Many of you had representatives who were 'letter-writers' -- to use the lingo from a few weeks back. And now many of you, it seems, have actually gotten your letters. If your little piece of DeLay Rule history has come in the mail, can you let us know that too? We're eager to hear from you.
--Josh Marshall
On checking where your Reps. and Senators stand on Social Security, if you drop us a line, tell us how you know. Did you see a press account? If so, drop us a link to the article in your email. If you called their office, let us know that. On their website? Send us the page.
And let me add that each of these emails gets read and noted. And your help with this is truly appreciated.
As I write this, I'm looking at an email from a moderate Republican congressman sent in response to a TPM reader query on Social Security. This guy's clearly right on the fence, or rather, he's keeping all his options open.
Finding out where people stand now matters.
--Josh Marshall
Now that's more like it. Edmund Andrews in the Times today ...
Introduced as a "single mom" from Iowa, Sandra Jaques was cool and confident as she praised President Bush's plan to partly replace Social Security with private savings accounts."I have a daughter at home. Her name is Wynter," said Ms. Jaques, sitting a few feet from President Bush at the White House economic conference on Thursday. "I want to make sure that she has Social Security when she retires as well."
Mr. Bush chimed in a moment later. "One of my visions of personal savings accounts is that Sandy will be able to pass her account on to Wynter as part of Wynter's capacity to retire as well."
The exchange was an example of how Mr. Bush promotes his agenda with testimonials from "regular folks," in the words of Joshua B. Bolten, the White House budget director, who introduced Ms. Jaques.
But Ms. Jaques is not any random single mother. She is the Iowa state director of a conservative advocacy group, FreedomWorks, whose founders are Jack F. Kemp, the former vice-presidential nominee, and Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader.
Ms. Jaques also spent much of the past two years as a spokeswoman in Iowa for a group called For Our Grandchildren, which is mounting a nationwide campaign for private savings accounts.
'turf galore! <$NoAd$> Read the whole piece.
--Josh Marshall
A (non-political) question for readers: If you've had experience, good or bad, using a Tablet PC, I'd very much like to hear from you. I need to get one for note-taking and for marking up .pdf documents for display on TPM. Unfortunately, few places stock more than one or two, if any. So it's hard to get any hands-on experience on which are user-friendly, simple-to-use or even reasonably functional. And I've heard that many of them are just hopeless and not worth the price of purchase. So if you have any tips, pointers or advice, I'd greatly appreciate hearing them.
--Josh Marshall
Next month, a former high-ranking New York <$NoAd$> City jails chief, Anthony Serra, who was promoted again and again by Bernard Kerik, finally goes on trial.
We pick up the story in progress from Dan Janison in Newsday ...
One former Correction Department official told Newsday: "This is about the integrity issues and questioning of whether you were 'on the team' that came up when Bernie ran the agency."Kerik -- who remains under scrutiny because he abruptly withdrew his nomination last Friday for the nation's top security post -- once warned correction subordinates he was a "hunter of men" and demanded loyalty.
The trial of former three-star correction chief Serra is scheduled next month in State Supreme Court in the Bronx on dozens of counts, including grand larceny. The allegations are related to Serra's paid role in running Republican campaigns and the rebuilding of his suburban house using labor and materials that belonged to city taxpayers.
Another high-ranking department retiree who declined to be identified said that depending upon how testimony is elicited, new questions could arise about Kerik's command of the agency.
And some of the water laps at Rudy's feet ...
More recently, a retired correction officer, who the Bronx DA says was ordered to work on Serra's house while being paid by the city, was hired for a joint venture involving Giuliani's consulting in Florida, private sources confirmed. "Giuliani-Kerik cannot comment on questions related to a private contract," said Chris Rising, a spokesman for the consulting business.
A hunter of men, mumbo meets jumbo.
--Josh Marshall
A word from the <$NoAd$>opposition:
Do you hear any proponents of this mandatory Ponzi scheme, dare to admit that it`s not a constitutional function of the central government?Does anyone speak to violating 10th Amendment rights, especially politicians who swear to support the Constitution? Hah!
It wouldn`t be anyone who supports mandatory Socialist Insecurity, but do you know of anyone who celebrated Bill of Rights Day, on Wednesday?
A great day to discuss Socialist Insecurity.
Do you hear of anyone addressing the fraud of this scam, that bilks FICA payers out of their contributions, if not living to collect any benefits, or having no eligible survivors?
We know politicians depend on Socialist Insecurity to keep their jobs, but it`s a national disgrace to defraud FICA payers out of their hard-earned pay.
Would the same politicians embrace private sector Ponzi schemes? I think not.
So many questions, so few answers.
Harry T.
Tucson, AZ
Maybe too much fluoride in the water out there ...
--Josh Marshall
Brief note: In today's Times piece on whether the Kerik nanny even exists, the authors report, apparently on Kerik lawyer Joe Tacopina's say-so, that "news reports that she was Mexican ... were mistakenly attributed to [Tacopina]."
On the contrary, says Tacopina, he has no idea where the woman came from or where she went.
As near as I can tell, the first published account to source this apparently false claim to Tacopina was the Sunday piece in the Post by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.
So did they get it wrong?
I dropped a line to Mike Allen. And he says, no way (my phrasing, not his). According to him, Tacopina did tell them that the woman returned to Mexico six weeks ago, just as they reported on Sunday.
--Josh Marshall
Drip, drip, drip. WNBC in New York is reporting that Kerik may never have filled out the proper forms that would have allowed for a background check for him to become police commissioner either.
Late Update: A reader tells me that this is the form in question.
Even Later Update: The Times has a detailed piece on claims by the city Department of Investigations that they have "been unable to find any evidence that Mr. Kerik had filled out a background form, as usually required, before his appointment to the post by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani." Pay particular note to the discrepancy between what experts say Giuliani should have been told, or would normally have been told, and what he claims he was, or rather wasn't, told.
--Josh Marshall
On Bernard Kerik, keep in mind the following. This isn't the first time the President appointed Kerik to a position of great importance. In May 2003 he sent him to Baghdad to run the Interior Ministry -- the Ministry in charge of maintaining domestic order and security in Iraq, so rather a big deal.
What did the White House find out about Kerik during his first background check? And did that have anything to do with his abrupt departure from Iraq roundabout September 1st, 2003, months earlier than he originally planned to stay?
In fact, the summer of 2003 wasn't even the first time there was a problem with Kerik and a background check.
We already know from Wednesday's piece by Elizabeth Bumiller in the Times that though he got limited CIA and FBI briefings in the aftermath of 9/11, he was also "offered a high security clearance by federal officials so he could receive classified intelligence about the city's security ... But he failed to return a questionnaire needed for the F.B.I. to conduct a background check, and he never received that clearance."
That's really a helluva thing to forget, isn't it? You're the head police officer in New York City on 9/11. And in the weeks and months after that, preventing another attack is priority numbers 1 through 100. And you don't get around to returning the form that will take care of the background check that will get you the highest level clearance possible? The access to the most detailed and most highly classified information?
Think about that. It's extraordinary.
When the Times asked him about on Tuesday, Kerik's spokesman said he didn't remember ever getting a questionaire.
Later, when he was sent out to Baghdad, says the Times, he never managed to fill out a key financial disclosure form.
On a lot of these special assignments abroad, after a certain point, if you haven't gotten your paperwork and your clearances taken care of, you have to come home -- suggesting a possible reason for Kerik's early departure.
So the White House already had experience with Kerik's resistance to any background checks. But that didn't seem to make him any less desirable as the president's choice to have him run domestic security in the United States.
Just how many forms did he lose or forget to fill out? And again, why the early trip home from Baghdad? Where the two things related? And where there forms he managed to lose in this nomination cycle?
Late Update: An article in Friday's Times retracts the claim that Kerik did not file the CPA financial disclosure form in 2003. In fact, says the Times, he did.
--Josh Marshall
It turns out that there is at least one House Democrat who's coming out for ending the Social Security program. That would be Rep. Allen Boyd of Florida. He recently signed on as the cosponsor of Jim Kolbe's phase-out bill.
So, as long as we know where Boyd stands, let's find out where everyone else stands on the issue too. Where do your representatives and senators stand on phasing out or keeping Social Security? If you find out from press accounts or by calling up and asking your representative or senator, let us know what you hear.
And as long as we're on the subject let's chart out a key issue to keep in mind to make sense of who stands where. There is a key difference between having private accounts made up by carving funds out of Social Security and private accounts in addition to Social Security. The difference makes all the difference in the world. And the president wants the former, which is phase one of abolishing Social Security and replacing it with loosely-regulated private investment accounts for individuals.
So let us know what you hear. We're quite eager to know where Democrats and Republicans are coming down on this all-important issue.
--Josh Marshall
For those of you who thought you might be seeing pro baseball played in Washington, a new website.
--Josh Marshall
Another point to consider -- or, perhaps better to say, reconsider -- in the whole Cash-n-Kerik drama.
It's been known for a longtime that the Iraqi Interior Ministry under the CPA was rife with corruption. Lots and lots of US tax dollars went missing.
We also know, at a minimum, that Mr. Kerik really played it to the hilt mixing public service and private profit. And that's probably an understatement. As we've seen in the last few days there appear to be numerous cases where departments and organizations run by Kerik bought goods from contractors for which they seemed to have no use -- a key example being these over-priced security doors the NYPD bought from Georal. The companies often turn out to have been ones Kerik was getting money from in one fashion or another. (The Georal case is a rather complicated story, which we discussed at some length last night.)
In any case, it suggests a pattern.
And on top of that we know that when Kerik went out to Iraq he took a leave from the Homeland Security rain-making gig he'd set up with Giuliani. And after his hasty departure he went back to the same outfit.
All of this suggests that Kerik's time in country might be in store for a bit more scrutiny. And it turns out there's a decent place to start.
Go back to an article by Patrick Tyler and Raymond Bonner that ran in Times on October 4th, 2003. The headline is "Questions are Raised on Awarding of Contracts in Iraq." The central issue examined in the piece is why the Interior Ministry payed $20 million to a company in Jordan for (50,000) pistols, (20,000) Kalashnikovs and (10,000,000) rounds of ammunition for the Iraqi police when the US military was confiscating tons of weaponry every month from Iraqi military arsenals.
One governing council member said "There is mismanagement right and left, and I think we have to sit with Congress face to face to discuss this. A lot of American money is being wasted, I think. We are victims and the American taxpayers are victims." Another said, "I don't have the evidence, but I think there is corruption. This is a common grievance that people tell me ... It is totally unnecessary to buy [the guns] from outside the country."
The explanation for the purchase of the weaponry was that there would just have been too many logistical problems involved in purchasing or requisitioning the revolvers and rifles in small lots in country. And without any greater context or being able to judge the challenges the folks on the ground were facing at the time, that seems like it might be a reasonable explanation.
But it turns out there is some context. As you might have expected already, the contract was okayed on the authority of Bernard Kerik.
All the Iraqis on the Governing Council at the time seemed to think the deal stunk to high heaven, that Kerik was spending millions to bring weapons into a country that was already bursting with weapons. And when the Times wanted to talk to Kerik about the deal he didn't want to talk to them.
The Iraqis wanted Congress to investigate. Sounds like a good idea. Read the article. See what you think.
--Josh Marshall
President Bush gives a thumbs-up to Al Gonzales over the Kerik vetting, say DeFrank and Bazinet in the Daily News.
"Rest assured, we did significant due diligence," says Dan Bartlett.
Come to think of it, Gonzales may have been on thin ice before this, having gone a while without a high-profile disaster.
--Josh Marshall
This guy, a self-described career professional gambling cheat, notes that Bernard Kerik was a member of the New York City Gambling Control Commission.
From the post above I thought perhaps that the police commissioner served ex officio on the Commission. But not so.
According to an August 20th piece in the Bergen Record, "Giuliani appointed [Kerik] to the newly formed New York City Gambling Control Commission ... [a] five-member panel [which] is charged with establishing and enforcing regulations for shipboard gambling."
--Josh Marshall
And there's more.
The Bronx DA has opened a preliminary investigation into claims that Bernard Kerik used a mobbed-up contractor to renovate an apartment he bought on West 239th Street. This was back in 1999 when Kerik was correction commissioner and was, in the Post's words, "experiencing severe financial problems."
The contractor in question is Ed Sisca, the son of a Gambino capo.
Another story in the Post reports that Kerik was not only stalking Judith Regan but her children too.
--Josh Marshall
So let's sum up a bit on the Kerik matter.
Now we've got these penny-stocks and a business affiliation that Kerik was hastily unloading in the lead-up to his nomination. And he was somehow the chaperone for a marriage between that company and another one whose owner is going to be arraigned tomorrow for ripping off the city with padded contracts. And on Kerik's watch the NYPD bought a bunch of security doors they didn't have any use for from that same guy who's about to be sentenced. And if you're already having a hard time keeping up, fasten your seatbelts because another guy who's in business with the guy who's about to sentenced is Lawrence Ray, Kerik's 'financial benefactor' who worked for the allegedly mobbed up Jersey construction company and later got indicted for a mob-run stock scam.
So, without belaboring the point, let's just stipulate that there were probably some problems coming down the pike for Kerik's nomination even if he hadn't had this nanny problem come up.
And now we find out from the Times (and, truthfully, from the force of logic) that the nanny story, which has been the White House's first, second and third talking point all week, is probably totally bogus.
The Times found no evidence that such a woman ever existed. And even when pressed by people who suspect he made the whole story up, Kerik remains adamant in his refusal to provide any details whatsoever. It's very hard to read the Times story and not conclude that the whole nanny thing was a con.
So what's the White House's story? Did they just take Kerik's word for it, not ask for even the most perfunctory details and then repeat the nanny story from the press room lectern for days on end as gospel truth? Or were they in on the con too?
What's the story?
--Josh Marshall
As we just noted below, it now seems much more likely than not that Kerik's "nanny" never existed. But there was some other big news today on the Kerik front that seemed to go largely unnoticed -- an article in the New York Post of all places.
There was a good deal of attention to Andrea Peyser's piece chock full of torrid and melodramatic details about the Kerik-Regan power-fling. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the piece in the business section by Christopher Byron.
Here's the story ...
At the end of October, right about the time Kerik probably realized the DHS appointment might be coming down the pike, he resigned from the "advisory board" of a Long Island company called Defense Technology Systems, Inc. He wouldn't give any explanation to the company. And then three weeks later (about mid-November) he sent back 400,000 shares of the company's stock and coughed up a bunch of stock options they'd given him too.
Philip Rauch, who serves as the company's COO and CFO, didn't know what to make of it. And, like we said, Kerik wasn't talking. All Rauch could think of was that Kerik was trying to distance himself from Defense Systems' connections with another company called Georal Inc., a security door company in Queens. And the reason he might want to get some distance is because the head of Georal, Alan Risi, just plead guilty to padding invoices for work he'd done for the city.
(Here's a press release put out today by Defense Technology Systems, Inc., which confirms most elements of the story but seems to dispute the timing.)
So let's review. Kerik quickly cuts his ties with Company A because it does business with Company B, and the owner of Company B got caught over-charging the city and is probably going to do time.
So far so good.
But Kerik seems to have had some other connections to Georal.
When he was running the NYPD the department bought a few of Georal's security doors for pretty good money. But there was apparently no use for them; they never got installed and were eventually sent over to Riker's Island. Kerik has always insisted he had nothing to do wtih that purchase. But this summer, his successor, Ray Kelly, opened an investigation into the purchases.
And there's more.
It seems that the "advisor" who put Defense Technologies together with Georal was ... take a guess. Right: Bernard Kerik. And Rauch says he heard from folks at Georal that Kerik had a "very similar" arrangement there as he had with Defense Technologies. So, in other words, sign on as an "advisor" and get dealt in for about a kajillion shares of penny-stocks in the company.
Now, I'm just getting my footing here in the Big Apple. But I'm told by some pretty knowledgable people that big runs of penny-stocks are not infrequently used by some of your shadier business elements to cleanly move ... well, let's say 'thank you money' to politicians for services rendered. Pump the stock up a bit and there you go.
Such unfortunate manipulations of stock prices certainly do happen. Remember, for instance, that Lawrence Ray, Kerik's financial benefactor, who worked for the allegedly mobbed-up construction company in New Jersey, later got indicted in that "$40 million, mob-run, pump-and-dump stock swindle."
And the funny thing is, Mr. Ray's name comes up in this story too. According to the Post, SEC filings show that a man by the name of Lawrence Ray recently held more than 200 million shares of stocks and options in another penny-stock company called FINX Group Inc. And FINX lists Georal and our friend Mr. Risi (owner of Georal) as the sole supplier of the most of the products it sells.
Small world, isn't it?
This piece in tomorrow's Newsday has more details on Kerik and Georal, and other purchases on Kerik's watch as correction commissioner that "left [the Deputy Warden] scratching his head."
--Josh Marshall
Asking whether there was ever a "nanny" in the first place would seem suddenly to have gone legit. The Times devotes a whole article to the question <$NoAd$>in Thursday's paper.
And what'd they come up with?
It's pretty hard to prove a negative. But after what seems to have been a pretty exhaustive bit of reporting, they didn't come up with any solid evidence that such a woman existed. And they came up with a lot that points in the other direction.
All there seems to be is one neighbor who remembers seeing a woman with an olive complexion playing with Kerik's children. And there's a form Kerik filled out about the nanny a few weeks ago; but that form is apparently a secret, and no one can look at it. Meanwhile, press reports attributed to Kerik's lawyer claiming the woman was from Mexico? That's no longer operative; the lawyer says he never said any such thing.
The Times seemed to talk to everyone under the sun -- family, friends, neighbors, other nannies in the neighborhood -- and they either knew nothing about a nanny or wouldn't talk.
Perhaps the most telling passage is this one, about half way through the piece ...
Last night, Mr. Kerik was told that skeptics in city government circles were questioning the very existence of the nanny, and he was pressed to provide any kind of evidence to document that she was real. But after taking time to consider the request, Mr. Kerik again decided to remain silent on the subject.
So now it seems like this whole "nanny" story wasn't just an excuse, but quite probably a lie -- one which Kerik and the White House have been pushing for days.
(Of course, it's possible the nanny really exists [see ed. note below]. But if she does, there must be something awfully unfortunate about the story to work so hard and invite such suspicion to keep the details a secret.)
And one other thing. You'll remember that a couple days ago I asked if any reporters who'd seen details that made them think the nanny story was legit could drop me a line -- not breaking any confidences or revealing any details, just to say, "Yeah, I've talked to the people involved and it's pretty clear the story checks out, etc."
Not a peep.
[Ed.Note: What remains obscure to me is this mystery form that Kerik is said to have filed last month. In a piece in yesterday's New York Post, Deborah Orin suggests that Kerik had shown the Post the form in question and that the state issued it on November 17th. But the way she phrases it is ambiguous as to what she actually saw. The Times, as I noted above, says the document is secret. But setting aside whether the name and social security number are private, it still wasn't quite clear to me from the Times article whether they had actually been able to independently verify that the form was even submitted and registered. If we're just taking Kerik's word for it, that seems pretty weak. If he really did file the form a few weeks before the need for a nanny cover developed, that suggests that there either was some nanny or some foreknowledge of a need to create a paper trail. Between those two choices, it would probably make sense to choose the more plausible, commonsense explanation -- that there was a nanny. But if there were, why all this caginess and obfuscation? And why is it that this woman seems to have disappeared without a trace, with no one available beside Kerik, it seems, who can vouch for her existence?]
--Josh Marshall
Sen. Coleman gets word from HQ, turns his attention to Rumsfeld, though needlessly to say, with kid gloves for now. "Coleman says he needs more information before deciding if Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the lack of armor on military vehicles."
--Josh Marshall
More on Gerald "No Gay Books in my Library!" Allen's visit to the White House, from the Anniston Star.
Late Update: One possibility, of course, is that Allen was invited to the White House because Lynne Cheney wanted to see if she could get an exemption for Sisters, the lesbian romance novel she wrote in 1981.
--Josh Marshall
George W. Bush, international economist: "There's a trade deficit. That's easy to resolve: People can buy more United States products if they're worried about the trade deficit."
From comments just now in the Oval Office with Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi. And I'm told it was a bit difficult to tell whether or not he was joking.
--Josh Marshall
Focused as I've been on the Kerik meltdown, I've given little attention to what will certainly be the defining issue of the next two years, for Democrats as much as the president: Social Security. Specifically, whether to phase out the program or maintain it as the anchor of retirement security in the United States.
As Paul Krugman, Kevin Drum and many others have been making clear in recent days, the entirety of the president's argument is based on a series of well-constructed lies. The president's advisors were never more truthful than they were when they compared the coming round of disinformation and fear-mongering to their public campaign in support of the Iraq war in 2002.
The Social Security "crisis" is manufactured; there is no crisis. To the extent there are long-term financing problems, the president's plan will gravely worsen them. The problem we face isn't over Social Security, which continues to run up huge surpluses (just as it was intended to under the early-80s reform), but that our non-Social Security budget continues to run massive structural deficits. Or rather, it has returned to running massive structural deficits after getting into the black in the late 1990s through the combined exertions of a Democratic president and a Republican congress. Social Security isn't the problem, but rather George W. Bush's reckless fiscal policy.
In any case, as I say, the whole thing is lies. This isn't about the program's problems but about its success. That's why the president and his allies want to phase it out. It's not about financing but about ideology.
I'm going to try to dive more deeply into the dishonesty of the president's plan and explanations of different aspects of the debate, though much of it will simply be steering readers to the most concise and straightforward explanations from other sites and sources.
Much of what we'll be focusing on here is strategy: how to defeat the president's plan, which will rip-off men and women across the country who, in President Clinton's much mocked but still apt phrase, "work hard and play by the rules."
So, a few points on strategy.
One thing that Democrats must understand is that they cannot win this battle legislatively. At one level what I mean by that is simply the math we can all see. The president has comfortable majorities in both chambers and in his first term (when he was a minority president and had smaller majorities) he commanded historic levels of party discipline. If he can hold those caucuses together, he can pass this and sign it and that's it. Doesn't matter what Democrats do.
This is, of course, obvious, as simple as the math, as I noted. But the implications for strategy are not necessarily that obvious.
As I wrote a month ago, the Democrats have to start seeing themselves as a true party of opposition in large part because of the way President Bush has reshaped the capital into something much more like a parliamentary system. There's no point in Democrats trying to improve legislation at the margins, because they won't be given any real opportunity to do so. The logic of the situation dictates coming up with an alternative plan not only to make the differences clear to voters now but to set the issue stage for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
So point one is party unity. The Democrats don't just need to keep their caucuses overwhelmingly together on this issue. They need to avoid even a single defection in the House or the Senate. From what I hear from knowledgable sources this is already pretty close to doable in the House; and probably no more than three or perhaps four are even in play in the Senate.
Such unity has the obvious advantage of giving Republicans less breathing room in putting together majority votes in both houses. But it does much more than that. Making the elimination of Social Security a strictly Republican gambit raises the political stakes dramatically. Many Republicans will be far more cautious without bipartisan cover. Democrats must deny them even the thinnest of fig leaves. Making it a strictly Republican affair will also provide valuable clarity in the coming election, rather than the muddled picture created by Democratic defections on the 2001 tax bill.
Still another important benefit is the boon it will give to Democratic morale and energy in opposition. The coming debate over Social Security could become an engine for unity or disunity for Democrats. And the leaders of the party should be doing everything they can right now to lay the groundwork for making it the former rather than the latter. And party unity is the place to start.
If everyone isn't on the same page, that disunity will exacerbate the NewDem/Labor-Liberal divide -- something Dems simply can't afford right now. If they can achieve unity, they can demonstrate to themselves that they have points of common purpose that transcend their divisions. And that realization will itself make those divisions more manageable.
Luckily, such unity should not be that hard to achieve -- for two reasons. First, very few Democrats support privatization. Second, those relatively few in the centrist wing of the party who are open to the idea in the abstract are scared off by the budget-busting debt the president wants to take on to pay for his plan.
The worst thing that can happen for Democrats is that a few of their members of congress get played for fools by signing on to President Bush's plan in the hopes that they can secure some small improvements in the legislation or reflected glory for themselves -- slightly less money carved out of Social Security, bumping up the payroll tax cap, etc. Whatever miniscule benefits could be achieved in such a fashion would be greatly outweighed by the way that it would lessen the chances for fixing the damage after the next election.
The question will be how to enforce discipline at the margins. And here Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook in 1994 (on health care) and 1998 (on impeachment).
I think Democrats should consider pulling together the major funders of the party, the official committees, the major organizations, basically the entire infrastructure of the Democratic party and making clear to individual members that if they sign on to the president's plan to phase out Social Security, those various institutions and individuals won't fund their campaigns. Not in 2006, not ever.
Similar committments can come from voters, activists and volunteers. And free rein to primary challengers. If a couple folks lose their seats because of underfunding or tough primaries, so be it. (In a subsequent post, we'll discuss how this compares to what the House Republicans did in 1998).
It's that important. And there is an importance to unity on this issue that transcends the particular debate over Social Security.
Next, as we've discussed before, this isn't a debate about 'reform', 'privatization' or 'saving' Social Security. It's about phasing out the Social Security program, or not. Framing it any other way concedes half the battle before the fighting even begins.
(There is a subsidiary question here of whether Dems take a stand-pat stance in general, or come up with their own 'plan' to go up against the president's. That's a question we'll return to.)
Third, beware the risks of arguments about risk.
Republicans want to make this an argument about people who believe in markets and people who don't. That's not true. But Democrats can make it seem true by framing too much of the debate on 'risky scheme' lines. Letting the argument be framed that way is a losing proposition because most Americans instinctively believe in markets and largely for good reason.
The issue here isn't markets. Most Democrats favor plans that would make it easier for middle- and lower-income families to save and invest money for retirement. That would make the overall retirement picture much better.
The issue is balance and commonsense. A breadwinner with dependents who gets a lump sum salary at the beginning of the year and invests it all in a few hot start-ups doesn't believe in the market; he or she is just a fool. A wise investment portfolio is balanced between riskier and more conservative investments. The best way to make this argument (and the most valid one) is to make it clear that Democrats want people to be able to invest. That really is the path to wealth. But Social Security is different. It is, among other things, a baseline of guaranteed retirement security and income for everyone. You get it whether you retire in boom times or bust times, whether life has dealt you good cards or bad cards. The two things are simply different.
A related danger is placing too much, or rather an incorrect emphasis on the windfall of money Wall Street would make because of phasing out Social Security. This is true, of course. And it helps impugn the motives of those pushing for the abolition of the program. But fundamentally it doesn't matter.
If privatization really were a good thing for most Americans, the fact that some people would make money on it wouldn't be a reason to oppose it. The reason to oppose it is that it's a very bad deal for most Americans. The fact that lots of Wall Streeters will get rich racking up fees on these tiny accounts only serves to show why they're pushing so hard for it.
Again, it's a matter of emphasis that I fear too many Democrats miss. Focusing too much on the Wall Street windfall risks placing the emphasis of the Dems opposition on something that is, fundamentally, beside the point. It can also make the opposition appear to be based simply in bitterness or resentment.
And this brings me to my final point. Focusing on the Wall Street stuff evades the key issue. And Democrats have built up a habit of doing that a lot on many issues -- thinking they can skirt against the wind, play up ancillary issues, and generally muddle through without facing up to the heart of the matter. The reasons they've developed this habit are many and for another post. But in the case of Social Security it is almost sure to lead to defeat.
This isn't about financing. It's about whether Americans get to keep Social Security, a program of guaranteed retirement insurance, which unlike the other key elements of a good retirement plan -- investments and pensions -- cannot be taken away.
Social Security has been overwhelmingly popular for well over half a century. Nothing suggests that popularity has diminished, save scare-mongering telling people that they won't be able to enjoy its benefits.
Democrats should run into this fight, not away from it.
--Josh Marshall
(Ed.Note: The following is a guest post from long-time New Republic and Slate editor Mike Kinsley, who now edits the editorial page for the LA Times. He invites your responses at michael.kinsley@latimes.com. Note too that you'll probably see this post on at least a few other blogs.)
My contention: Social Security privatization is not just unlikely to succeed, for various reasons that are subject to discussion. It is mathematically certain to fail. Discussion is pointless.
The usual case against privatization is that (1) millions of inexperienced investors may end up worse off, and (2) stocks don't necessarily do better than bonds over the long-run, as proponents assume.But privatization won't work for a better reason: it can't possibly work, even in theory. The logic is not very complicated.
1. To "work," privatization must generate more money for retirees than current arrangements. This bonus is supposed to be extra money in retirees' pockets and/or it is supposed to make up for a reduction in promised benefits, thus helping to close the looming revenue gap.
2. Where does this bonus come from? There are only two possibilities: from greater economic growth, or from other people.
3. Greater economic growth requires either more capital to invest, or smarter investment of the same amount of capital. Privatization will not lead to either of these.
a) If nothing else in the federal budget changes, every dollar deflected from the federal treasury into private social security accounts must be replaced by a dollar that the government raises in private markets. So the total pool of capital available for private investment remains the same. b) The only change in decision-making about capital investment is that the decisions about some fraction of the capital stock will be made by people with little or no financial experience. Maybe this will not be the disaster that some critics predict. But there is no reason to think that it will actually increase the overall return on capital.
4. If the economy doesn't produce more than it otherwise would, the Social Security privatization bonus must come from other investors, in the form of a lower return.
a) This is in fact the implicit assumption behind the notion of putting Social Security money into stocks, instead of government bonds, because stocks have a better long-term return. The bonus will come from those saps who sell the stocks and buy the bonds.
b) In other words, privatization means betting the nation's most important social program on a theory that cannot be true unless many people are convinced that it's false.
c) Even if the theory is true, initially, privatization will make it false. The money newly available for private investment will bid up the price of (and thus lower the return on) stocks, while the government will need to raise the interest on bonds in order to attract replacement money.
d) In short, there is no way other investors can be tricked or induced into financing a higher return on Social Security.
5. If the privatization bonus cannot come from the existing economy, and cannot come from growth, it cannot exist. And therefore, privatization cannot work.
Q.E.D.
--Josh Marshall
One other point that's there in the <$NoAd$>Bumiller article, though not quite centerstage, and has been dancing around the margins of much other reportage on the Cash-n-Kerik drama.
For the play-by-play and ins-n-outs and details, the nub was President Bush. He liked Kerik. He thought he was a tough guy. And he wanted to appoint him to the job. And he didn't really want to hear any objections.
One graf from the piece ...
Throughout the process, the Republican close to the administration said, everyone at the White House knew that Mr. Bush liked Mr. Kerik, placing him in the special category of "this guy's our guy." Mr. Bush admired Mr. Kerik for his service as New York City's police commissioner on Sept. 11, 2001, for his willingness to try to train the police force in Iraq and for campaigning tirelessly for the president's re-election.
(Note also in Bumiller's piece that someone seems to be leaking volubly on Al Gonzales's behalf about how much the AG-to-be grilled Kerik for skeletons in his closet; guess that didn't work that well.)
The Post puts it a little more charitably ...
In hindsight, according to people close to the White House, it appeared Bush or his aides allowed their affection for Kerik to cloud their judgment. Kerik traveled extensively on behalf of Bush's reelection campaign and became a popular figure within the president's circle. His hero status from the Sept. 11 attacks and his colorful personality, Bush advisers figured, would help inoculate Kerik from questions about his past.
Most papers have covered this point somewhere in their coverage. But none I think (correct me if I'm wrong) has devoted a whole news article to this dimension of the story, which is probably the most significant one.
--Josh Marshall
Straight Outta Battery Park ... an update on 'Da Luv Shack.
A couple days ago we speculated about how Bernard Kerik could have afforded his second luxe Manhattan apartment, the one where he held his workouts with celeb publisher Judith Regan and Corrections Officer Jeanette Pinero (not simultaneously, but, it seems, and one rather hopes, serially).
Now the Times tells the story.
It's buried pretty far down in Elisabeth Bumiller's story in Wednesday's Times. But there it is. The Luv Shack was "an apartment ... donated as a resting spot for police officers at ground zero."
I guess it's like they say: 9/11 changed everything.
Another piece in the Times, by Charles Bagli, gives further details. It seems that once the 9/11 clean-up settled into a routine in the late fall of 2001, Kerik asked Anthony Bergamo, "a well-connected vice chairman of the Milstein family real estate company and a police buff," if he could rent the apartment for his own use.
"Mr. Kerik paid for use of the apartment," the article goes on to say, "but the amount was not clear. Many apartments that were available in Battery Park City after the attack on the trade center were rented at well below market rates for months afterward."
The article goes on to say that Mr. Bergamo is quite tight with the NYPD. He was made an "honorary commissioner" a few years ago and the Department licenses him to carry "a Colt .45 handgun and two Smith & Wesson handguns, a .38-caliber revolver and a 9-millimeter pistol."
--Josh Marshall
A couple days ago we briefly discussed Sandy Jaques, the GOP astroturfer and Social Security privatization activist who President Bush has on his Social Security privatization panel this week.
Here's how the New York Times identifies her today: "To drive that point home this week, White House officials scheduled a single mother from Iowa, Sandy Jaques, to speak on the advantages that private accounts could offer to divorced spouses and widows."
Go Times!
Thanks to this eagle-eyed blog for the catch.
--Josh Marshall
A week or two back Andrew Sullivan called attention to Gerald Allen, the Alabama state legislator who introduced a bill to ban funds for any books "that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." If the bill passed, Allen said, "novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed."
At the end of the post, Sullivan asked "But in Karl Rove's Republican party, how is this in any way out of place?"
Well, it seems he didn't know the half of it.
According to an interview Allen gave to The Guardian, just a few days after word of his proposed legislation hit the news, President Bush invited him up to the White House. Allen was supposed to be there just yesterday, Monday the 13th.
Perhaps Allen was just blowing smoke. But I'd be curious to know more about this meeting and whether it took place. Did Karl want pointers on how he could bring Allen's bill to the big leagues?
Late Update: Another blog got Gerald on the horn and asked him how his visit with the president went. Apparently they just talked about taxes, not gay sex. Oh well.
--Josh Marshall
I must confess that I'm still trying to find out any solid details about Bernard Kerik's alleged nanny.
On Sunday, December 12th, the local paper, the Bergen Record, reported that Kerik spokeswoman Sunny Mindel told them that "the housekeeper worked in his Old Mill Road home in 2003 while Kerik was in Iraq training police in Baghdad."
The very same day, though, the Washington Post -- usually a reliable outfit -- reported that Kerik's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, told them that "she worked for Kerik for about 18 months and had returned to Mexico six weeks ago, in keeping with a plan she had for several months."
But, yet again on the same day, the LA Times reported that the woman, "left the country about two weeks ago, under circumstances Kerik has not described."
Perhaps someone can help me straighten all this out?
--Josh Marshall
In Tuesday's Kerik round-up, Newsday reports that one thing the background checkers came across was a wife Kerik had never mentioned to anyone before -- his first wife, the former Ms. Linda Hales of North Carolina, who Kerik married in 1978. Regrettably, Newsday adds that there is some question as to whether marriage #1 and marriage #2 (to Jacqueline Kerik) may have well ... overlapped.
Contacted yestereday, an aide to Kerik told Newsday that Kerik disputed both the date of his second marriage found in his autobiography and the date of his divorce in his first marriage provided by an attorney for the former Ms. Hales (now named Linda Priest).
Said the aide: "[T]hey made a mutual agreement between the two of them never to talk about it."
Another Newsday article explores how Rudy and the New York City managed not to find out about any of Kerik's shenanigans when he was on the public payroll.
--Josh Marshall
The competition is heating up in the TPM-Giuliani "I really never knew Kerik all that well" TPM-Shirt contest.
Last night reader RB made a strong early entry with this quote from today's piece in the Times. Later on, TPM reader HR wrote in with another strong contender from the same article.
And through the course of the day I've been getting unconfirmed reports from readers about various statements Giuliani has made on the talk shows (we'll check those by the transcripts when they come out).
Now TPM reader KS just chimed in with another good one from tomorrow's Times.
In a story about the New York City's Department of Investigation's look at Kerik's alleged ties to mob figures, Giuliani said this ...
But Rudolph W. Giuliani said in an interview yesterday that none of those facts were brought to his attention in August 2000 when, as mayor, he appointed Mr. Kerik as New York's top police official....
"I didn't get to consider it then," Mr. Giuliani said, "and I did not know much about it all until this confirmation process started for homeland security."
But while KS's entry gains points on alleged lack of (Rudy) knowledge grounds, that passage is followed by this one ...
Mr. Giuliani said he did not believe any of the revelations he had heard would have changed his mind on Mr. Kerik's appointment.
And there this entry seems to come up short on true betrayal and abandonment grounds.
In non-contest-related news, the article notes that New York City officials say that such highly sensitive information would likely only have been shared with the Mayor and the city's top lawyer. So maybe Rudy's got his own problems.
--Josh Marshall
Two names now getting a lot of play for the Secretary of DHS are Fran Townsend,White House homeland security adviser and Joe Allbaugh, Bush right-hand-man and former Director of FEMA.
I would think a big qualification for DHS would be some major executive experience, given the organizational challenges facing the new Department; and Allbaugh probably has a stronger resume in that regard.
On the other hand, the words I hear about Townsend are competent, honest, clean and other such terms.
Allbaugh, meanwhile, checked out at FEMA right about the time the first bombs started falling over Baghdad to hang out a shingle in the Iraq contracts rain-making biz as New Bridge Strategies in order to trade on his connections to President Bush.
New Bridge, as you'll recall, was set up for Allbaugh by uber-GOP-lobbyist Haley Barbour's firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Inc, which was also generous enough to let New Bridge operate from their offices.
So I guess you could say that at least a couple of those adjectives don't apply to him.
--Josh Marshall
We've mentioned this a couple times. But a reader just brought it up again, so I think it's worth returning to. Who's the nanny? Or, rather, is there really a nanny?
Let me be clear. I don't think there's any reason to reveal this woman's identity, if she exists. And I'm certainly not trying to.
On balance, I figure it's probably more likely than not that she does exist. But as near as I can tell, no specific details about this woman's identity or what she did for Kerik's family have ever been published. Nor have I seen any reports in which a given journalist writes as though he or she was privy to such details, even if he or she chose not to publish them to protect the woman's privacy.
And I don't think I can remember any "nanny" story in which such details have remained so secret. Given the fact that we now know there were a few dozen revelations (and counting) that would have sunk Kerik's nomination, you have to wonder. To paraphrase the old saw, if this nanny hadn't existed, the White House or Kerik might have been awfully tempted to invent her. And perhaps they did.
So, a couple questions. If you're a journalist who's working this story and you've been given details about the nanny issue that give you confidence that this person exists and that the basic outlines of the story we've been told are true (that she worked for Kerik, that she was an illegal, that she's returned to her country, etc.), I'd appreciate if you'd drop me a line. Your identity and the details will remain private. I just want to hear if any details at all have been shared.
If you're following the story and you think you've seen a report which fleshes this out more than I've seen, drop me a line too.
--Josh Marshall
Halliburton hires retired Colombian police and army officers to provide security for oil installations in Iraq.
--Josh Marshall
And back for a moment to Jim Tobin, former New England Bush-Cheney campaign chief arraigned today on charges stemming from his role in the 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal. Who was he working for at the time he did the deed? Right, Sen. Bill Frist, then-chair of the NRSC.
Maybe he and Rudy can commiserate over fallen lieutenants?
--Josh Marshall
Talk to me like a man, baby!
Bernard Kerik on Judith Regan, in the perhaps somewhat awkwardly-timed (unless you're VF Editor Graydon Carter or writer Judith Newman) Regan profile out now from Vanity Fair ...
"She is brash, very assertive, extremely demanding, and talks like a man…. But you know what? I've run the largest police departments in the country, I've run the largest jail. Sometimes it takes a person like that to get things done."
--Josh Marshall
New Hampshire judge gives hookers a bad name!
I'd heard about this over the transom throughout the day. And now the AP provides confirmation.
Former New England Bush-Cheney campaign chief Jim Tobin was arraigned today in federal court in Concord. Tobin, as first reported here on TPM, was at the center of the 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal.
Prosecutors said they thought he posed no flight risk and asked that he be released on his own recognizance.
But U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muirhead disagreed. He ordered Tobin to surrender his passport and any weapons and report to pretrial services.
"He’s no different," said Muirhead, "than a street hooker in Manchester. If he’s guilty, then I find his crime as offensive as any other crime."
Election tampering, he went on to say, is an "outrage against the constitution."
--Josh Marshall
Another thought to consider.
As we've noted earlier, after the end of Bernard Kerik's and Judith Regan's affair or the end of their workouts, whichever you want to call it, she hired a bodyguard to protect her from Kerik's 'hounding'.
Now, TPM has a large readership (I was going to say a 'broad' readership, in an unintentional double entendre, but caught myself). So I'm wondering, if you were a successful, high-profile female book publisher and you were carrying on an affair with the police commissioner, and things went sour between you, how threatened would you have to feel before you hired a bodyguard?
I figure you'd have to feel pretty threatened -- at least, harassed in a pretty serious fashion. And I guess you'd reason that calling the police for help probably wouldn't work out all that well.
On top of that, there's that never-quite-adequately-explained incident from March 2002 when Regan lost her cell phone and a necklace at Fox Studios in New York and Kerik followed up by sending homicide detectives out to question five Fox employees he suspected of possibly being the thiefs. (Kerik claimed a subordinate had given the order. Police later found the phone in a garbage can outside the studio and Regan found the necklace in her purse.) The five who were visited told the Times (see NYT, 3/11/02) that the officers came to "question them, fingerprint them and tell them they would have to take lie detector tests."
After the Fox employees went public about Kerik and threatened legal action, Kerik told the Times that "they should be worried about [the theft of Regan's property] more than who sent the people there. They should be worried about the thief among them."
So, a couple questions.
How serious was the harrassment and/or threats that Regan faced? When did the workouts stop? And is this bizarre incident about six months after 9/11 have anything to do with it?
--Josh Marshall
Andrew, doesn't this qualify for one of <$NoAd$> your awards?
It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go. I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back.
Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis, as quoted in the Times.
Late Update: TPM reader JB sends in this election listing for Davis in which Davis writes "People are tired of silly political games. I always have treated everybody with dignity and honor regardless of our political affiliations. Likewise, I have colleagues from both parties who show me a great deal of respect. My goal is to stand up for principles, not politics (emphasis added)."
Even Later Update: TPM reader SS writes in to note that further down on the aforementioned election listing, Davis says that the current tax system is unfair and that "the only way to have a fair tax is to have a flat tax or a poll tax (emphasis added)." A poll tax. Base our national tax system around a poll tax. I'm ashamed that this woman got elected to anything in the state where I was born.
--Josh Marshall
Scott fields the inevitable questions on <$NoAd$> Kerik ...
Q: Scott, there are reports that the White House was surprised by the revelations about Bernard Kerik's past. Did the White House have no idea about any of these details until he picked up the phone and called on Friday and said, I've got to --McCLELLAN: You mean regarding the nanny?
Q: Yes.McCLELLAN: No, he -- I mean, he, himself, said he should have brought it to our attention sooner, and I think Mayor Giuliani and Commissioner Kerik pointed out that this was a mistake. But, no.
Q: You knew nothing?
McCLELLAN: Not before it was -- in terms of the issues related to the nanny, no, not before it was brought to --
Q: But you knew other things?
McCLELLAN: -- not before it was brought to our attention, as we indicated.
Q: Scott, what about other issues? I mean, there's a story in The New York Times that they're looking into the possibility he had a rela