McClatchy reports that while the Bush Administration adamantly opposes tax increases, "its proposed fiscal 2008 budget seeks to raise almost $81 billion in new revenue over the next five years by hiking user fees and other charges on taxpayers and businesses.  Technically, changes to these fees aren't taxes.  But for anyone who must pay them - everyone from recreational hikers to war veterans - it's a question of semantics." 

The Justice Department admitted yesterday to firing the US attorney in Little Rock "to replace him with a lawyer who had been an aide to Karl Rove" and a top aide at the Republican National Committee, reports USA Today.  A Justice Department official told a Senate committee that the new hire was not inspired by politics and was based on his prosecutorial experience, including "a stint in Iraq as a military prosecutor." 

The Chicago Tribune adds, "The current round of removals" of US attorneys "has attracted Democratic attention because of a little-noticed measure that was slipped into the Patriot Act Reauthorization last year allowing the White House to circumvent the Senate approval process for U.S. attorneys by making open-ended interim appointments." 

 

The Washington Times looks at the quandary facing Democrats as they contemplate how to deal with Bush's budget without proposing tax increases themselves.  "Democrats said Mr. Bush makes wrong assumptions on future tax revenue, such as the Alternative Minimum Tax, but admitted they will probably make the same choices when they pass their own budget so they can also show a balance by 2012, and so they can compare 'apples to apples' with Mr. Bush.  Democrats also will have to decide whether to show continued costs for the war past 2008... and whether to plan on having Mr. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in later years, which would help government revenue but would put them on a collision course with the president." 

House Democrats are offering hints of their longer-term domestic agenda, which they plan to roll out next week. 

Fed chief Ben Bernanke warns that Democrats' protectionist reaction to increasing globalization, in an effort to sympathize with "middle-class economic angst," is the wrong way to address the growing income gap.  Bernanke says "trends in technology were more important in widening the income divide," per the Financial Times. 

Rep. John Murtha (D) is applying his influence with the Pentagon to help Speaker Nancy Pelosi get the big jet which her office says she needs, and which the Administration has agreed to supply, so that she may fly cross-country non-stop.  But the deal is rankling Administration aides and congressional staffers and odd accusations are popping up.  For instance, Murtha's office is having to deny that he ever suggested there was sexism involved in the Administration not immediately fulfilling Pelosi's request. 

NBC's Tim Russert is expected to testify today.  The New York Times covers yesterday's developments, which included four hours of audiotapes featuring Libby's 2004 grand jury appearance "in which he repeatedly testified under oath that he had no recollection of several conversations about Valerie Wilson…  His denials were in sharp contrast to the testimony over the last two weeks of reporters and government officials who were colleagues of Mr. Libby." 

From NBC's Mark Murray
Per a campaign source, NBC News has learned that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) will officially announce he's running for president on Tuesday, Feb. 13, in his native Michigan. After this announcement in Dearborn, first reported by The Politico, Romney will then travel to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina over the next two days. And then on Feb. 15, he'll return to Boston, where he'll hold another major fundraiser at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center.

Michigan, of course, is not only the site of a key early GOP nominating contest, but it's also the state where Romney's father served as governor.

From NBC's Mark Murray
At a breakfast meeting with Washington reporters today, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), who formed a presidential exploratory committee last week, discussed his path towards winning the Republican nomination, answered questions about his foreign policy experience (or lack thereof), and emphasized the importance of domestic issues (education, transportation, and health care). Yet perhaps most interestingly, Huckabee -- who is trying to position himself as the true conservative in the field -- freely admitted his differences with President Bush, something that the GOP presidential front-runners have been reluctant to do recently.

For starters, he took issue with Bush's budget proposal that cuts Medicaid by lowering payments to providers, calling it "short-sighted." As he did on Meet the Press, Huckabee said it's "a huge problem" that most of his state's National Guard has been deployed to Iraq, saying it has taken an enormous toll on their families, communities, and employers. He also noted that, if elected president, he would try to speak to countries like Iran and Syria to help bring stability to Iraq -- something that Bush has been loathe to do. "I would not leave anything off the table," he said. "I don't think that talking to someone is a sign of weakness." Regarding the war itself, he added that the Bush Administration had a clear plan to topple Saddam Hussein, but didn't have one to bring stability to Iraq.

Asked whether Bush's foreign policy record helps or hurts a presidential candidate like him -- since Bush was a governor running for president in 2000 without much foreign policy experience -- Huckabee replied, "I don't think it's necessarily helpful, but I also don't think it's detrimental." Also asked if GOP rival John McCain's support for the war is hurting him, Huckabee said, "That and a Washington address are probably not strong attributes at this point."

Huckabee admitted that he's trailing McCain and the other GOP front-runners, but noted: "In a marathon, it is not a good thing to be the guy who rushes out in front." He also quipped that when 800-pound gorillas fall, "they leave a huge thud." Laying out his path to winning the GOP nomination -- or at least breaking into the top tier of candidates -- Huckabee said he must beat expectations in August's Iowa straw poll, finish in the top three in the Iowa caucuses, and do well in South Carolina. If he doesn't accomplish those things, Huckabee said, he won't still be in the race a year from now. "But I'm betting the farm that I do."

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, and Huma Zaidi
Senate Republicans have indefinitely stalled debate on the non-binding resolution opposing a US troop increase in Iraq, putting them at risk of appearing to favor procedure over policy on the public's top concern.  Senate GOP leaders say they're concerned about fairness; Democrats are charging obstructionism.  Of course, since the resolution is non-binding, some argue that this is all really a matter of procedure versus policy.  Regardless, the party-line votes by John Warner, the lead sponsor of the resolution, and Chuck Hagel, the most vocal Republican opponent of a troop increase, put them in the position of having to explain why they were for the resolution before they voted against it.

It's now unclear when or if votes on the resolution will occur, NBC's Ken Strickland reports.  Tomorrow, the Senate is expected to shift its focus to a must-pass government funding bill that expires next week. 

Republicans blocked debate after Senate leaders Harry Reid (D) and Mitch McConnell (R) failed to agree over how many resolutions would be voted on, and how many votes would be needed for each measure to be considered passed.  As we wrote here yesterday, in addition to Warner's resolution "disagreeing" with the Bush plan, McConnell wants votes on two other, White House-friendly, non-binding resolutions requiring 60 votes for passage: a measure offered by Sens. John McCain (R), Lindsey Graham (R), and Joe Lieberman (I) that supports Bush's new strategy and requires benchmarks for the Iraqi government; and a resolution sponsored by GOP Sen. Judd Gregg asserting that Congress will not eliminate or reduce troop funding. 

McConnell suggested to reporters yesterday that if that there's going to be vote showing division within Republican ranks (as Warner's resolution objecting to the surge is expected to demonstrate), then there should also be votes on resolutions showing divisions among Democrats (such as Gregg's resolution on cutting off funding), Strickland reports.  There's "not nearly enough focus of the differences among Democrats," McConnell said. 

Democrats contend that Republicans, at the White House's direction, are trying to avoid a vote that could well demonstrate a bipartisan majority opposing President Bush's plan.  They asserted in their own press conference yesterday that the GOP move has not by any means ended the debate over a troop increase, and that they will return to the subject "again, and again, and again" until they get an up-or-down vote on Bush's plan, as Reid said.  Today, Strickland reports, they'll spend the bulk of the morning responding on the Senate floor, accusing Republicans of obstructing the Senate from debating and voting on what Reid called "the most pressing issue facing America."

Last Friday, McConnell promised united Republican opposition to a debate over Warner's resolution -- including from Hagel and from Warner himself.  Although these two have staunchly opposed a troop increase, like McConnell, they felt that Reid was not giving their caucus "fair treatment" by prohibiting a vote on the resolution saying that Congress would not eliminate or reduce troop funding, which could show divisions in Democratic ranks, Strickland says.

Yesterday, however, GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Norm Coleman jumped ship and joined the Democrats.  Strickland points out that both face potentially tough re-election campaigns in 2008.  McCain was out of town campaigning for president and missed the vote; an aide says he was monitoring the situation.  Lieberman voted with Republicans.

Bush takes his budget show on the road today, visiting a tech company in the Virginia suburbs, while Cabinet secretaries begin the usual parade before congressional committees to make their cases for the plan.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates' visits will be different from his predecessor's, though, because this budget is the first to include spending on Iraq.  Although Bush's message of the day is about fiscal responsibility, he's visiting a state where he has lost a lot of political ground on Iraq recently.  First Democrats ousted GOP Sen. George Allen and replaced him with former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D), whose critiques carry added weight because of his son's service in the war.  And of course, Virginia is John Warner's home state.

And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, in trouble for having an affair with a top aide's wife, is using what cynics by now might start calling "the alcoholism excuse" to help explain his bad behavior (think Reps. Mark Foley, Bob Ney, and Patrick Kennedy).  Newsom's office says his treatment "will not interfere with his day to day responsibilities."

The Los Angeles Times says of the GOP's move to block debate over the Warner resolution that the "gambit dealt a setback to the nascent campaign to take on the Bush administration's management of the war.  It also may mean that leadership in challenging Bush may shift to House Democrats...  Senate Republicans, meanwhile, could be taking a major political risk in casting themselves as the barrier to a war debate that American voters have indicated they want Congress to engage in." 

"Democrats said they would eventually find a way to put each senator on record," per the AP. 

Politico offers some useful head counts: 58 senators say they oppose a troop increase.  "Yet, a core group of Republicans remained undecided on whether to express that discontent with a 'yes' vote on a resolution critical of the president's plan."  And: "Half of the current Democratic senators who backed President Bush's call to war in 2002 say they now regret authorizing the invasion of Iraq." 

Sen. Barack Obama (D) holds a press conference today to talk about his proposal calling for specific benchmarks for success and a timeline to redeploy US troops by March 31, 2008.

The House Government Reform Committee starts its planned hearings on the government's process of awarding Iraq contracts.  Former Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer testifies today.  "The hearings by the new Democratic majority are not designed to embarrass President Bush but are 'just fact-finding,' a committee aide said...  White House officials say they welcome added oversight, but House Republicans said the hearings more closely resemble a botched firing squad than a fact-finding exercise," the Washington Times notes. 

The Boston Globe on Bush's budget: "While the outlines of the president's war request have been known for weeks, the fact that the administration is asking for money in fiscal 2008 and 2009 suggests the administration anticipates that US troops will remain in Iraq at least through 2009." 

The Hill says of Bush's budget that ironically, "differences of opinion over spending... may not extend to spending on the war, where Democrats are nervous about restricting money spent on the troops."  The story's headline calls the budget "dead."  "Dead on arrival because Democrats are eager to distinguish their priorities from the president's, and the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse." 

"The heat flared up immediately Monday as Republicans lined up squarely behind Bush's budget... while Democrats castigated it as both heartless and fiscally irresponsible," says the Los Angeles Times.  "The sharp divide seemed to shatter the spirit of bipartisanship that both parties had cultivated since the Democrats captured control of Congress in November's elections." 

USA Today on Democrats' charge that Bush's budget is "disconnected from reality:" "Bush eliminates the $248 billion budget deficit by leaving out three critical factors: The budget doesn't project war costs beyond 2009.  It underestimates future domestic spending.  And it assumes that the alternative minimum tax will raise taxes on tens of millions of middle-income taxpayers after this year, even though both parties have said they won't let that happen.  The AMT is intended to ensure that wealthy Americans cannot avoid all taxes." 

The Financial Times zeroes in on likely Democratic opposition to Bush's effort to make "greater means-testing for middle-class benefits a central part of his proposals to address entitlement reform." 

A New York Times analysis notes that, in theory, Bush's budget presents Democrats "their first real opportunity to rewrite the administration's policies, especially on tax cuts, that they have been attacking for six years.  But in practice, Democrats know that the only way they can find the revenue to restore the administration's proposed spending cuts would be to cut back on military spending, delay their stated intentions to balance the budget or rescind the Bush tax cuts in future years.  They are not especially eager to do any of these."  

"While the spending blueprint met resistance from Democrats, it appeared to shore up the president's position with conservatives in his own party, who have been deeply unhappy with the growth of federal spending over the past six years," the Washington Post reports.  "In comments to reporters yesterday, Bush emphasized his desire to reduce the number of congressional pork-barrel projects, known as earmarks, and acquire a line-term veto -- favorite initiatives of fiscal conservatives." 

Roll Call suggests that one hurdle faced by White House budget director Rob Portman and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in selling Bush's budget to congressional Democrats is that from Democrats' perspective, even when Administration staff say everything's on the table, Bush and Vice President Cheney undermine what the staffers say. 

The Wall Street Journal says Bush's budget contains some "modest" proposals "to restrain the wealth gap, particularly by offering new tax breaks to help the uninsured buy health insurance, but... little to fundamentally strengthen existing government efforts to alter the distribution of income...  Rather than using the tax code to redistribute income more than it does already, Mr. Bush's budget looks to address inequality largely by helping people afford health insurance and providing more money for education, including increased Pell grants for college." 

The Dallas Morning News reports that supporters of a fence across the US-Mexico border aren't pleased with Bush's budget, which only gives them enough funding to build half a fence. 

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's just-filed statement of candidacy prompts even more speculation about whether or not someone with his personal history and moderate positions on social issues can win the Republican nomination.  The Washington Post: "Giuliani's challenge, aides believe, will be to convince Republican primary voters that, despite his disagreements with conservatives, he will not overturn what has been party orthodoxy on many social issues...  Giuliani also believes that, in a time of global terrorism, personal attributes such as leadership, decisiveness and strength of character can win over conservative voters who may differ with him on social issues." 

The New York Daily News says his move yesterday "seemed mostly aimed at quieting persistent rumors that Giuliani isn't serious about running for President and might eventually pull out - just as he did in his Senate run against Clinton in 2000." 

The Boston Herald similarly notes that in "recent weeks, Giuliani's cautious and noncommittal attitude has caused some critics to question whether he would abandon his bid even before formally entering the race, as he did in 2000 when he was considering a Senate campaign against Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton." 

The New York Times: "Appearing last night on the Fox News Channel program 'Hannity & Colmes,' Mr. Giuliani just skirted the line on declaring his candidacy.  'We still have to formally announce it and do a few more things,' he said, but added that yesterday's paperwork 'is about as close as you're going to get.'" 

Former Gov. Mitt Romney is edging out McCain in the race for members' support, Roll Call says.  "Members of Romney's team will appear at an afternoon news conference at the Republican National Committee.  About half of Romney's Capitol Hill supporters previously have been announced...  Giuliani has a quartet of Members supporting his candidacy but has yet to show he's been as aggressive as his two principal rivals in reaching out to Capitol Hill." 

Romney was in Texas yesterday meeting (and perhaps courting) Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, reports the Dallas Morning News. 

Surprisingly, McCain was also in Texas yesterday, where he said he's "pleased" with the relationship he has with conservatives and said he's not happy about how several states are trying to move up their nominating contests. 

The Boston Globe's Canellos looks at the not-so-impressive Republican field of candidates this year.

Politico's Simon reports that Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton may bail out on early debates because they require too much prep time and involve too much risk for the frontrunning candidates. 

Per the Chicago Tribune, conservative critics are latching onto Obama's "adherence to the creed of the prominent South Side church he attends, Trinity United Church of Christ.  The congregation posits what it terms a Black Value System, including calls to be 'soldiers for black freedom' and a 'disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness.'  In an interview late Monday, Obama said it was important to understand the document as a whole rather than highlight individual tenets." 

The Chicago Tribune also writes that Obama is trying to quit smoking again -- this time as he runs for the highest office in the land. 

Former Sen. John Edwards says his universal health care plan, which he would fund by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on Americans with the highest incomes, is "less complicated" than the proposal Clinton rolled out when she was First Lady. 

The Wall Street Journal says "Edwards's call for universal health care marks the opening volley in two debates facing Democrats running for president in 2008: How to provide health coverage to some 47 million uninsured people and what to do about [Bush's] tax cuts."  The Journal points out that the plan "assumes that the Bush tax cuts, most of which are set to expire in 2010, would be extended by Congress, even for the wealthiest recipients." 

The Des Moines Register says health care is "another issue on which Edwards has shifted since his 2004 campaign," along with saying his vote for the Iraq war was a mistake.  "Both issues distinguish him from the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, the New York senator who led a failed effort to create a government-run universal health care program during her husband's first term." 

It's no surprise, but Edwards makes it official: He won't accept public financing, either. 

Bill Clinton groupie Barbra Streisand says she likes Hillary Clinton, Obama and Edwards and has donated money to all three. 

From NBC's Mark Murray
Back in November 2006, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani placed his toes in the presidential waters when he formed an exploratory committee (that allows him to raise money for a possible presidential bid). Next, he lowered his legs knee-deep into the waters by hiring some key Republican operatives for a run. And now, he appears poised to jump right in.

NBC News has learned that Giuliani has filed a statement of candidacy today with the Federal Election Commission, a move that fellow Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney have already made, but not Giuliani -- until now. This statement of candidacy doesn't guarantee that Giuliani will run, but it certainly moves him one step closer toward taking the plunge.

From NBC's Mark Murray
By now, there has been plenty of coverage of the speeches by the Democratic presidential hopefuls at last weekend's DNC winter meeting. But here are two other observations that haven't received as much ink:

1) Dean and the 50-state strategy
Howard Dean's 50-state strategy -- investing the party's financial resources across the country, even in the reddest of states -- has been a subject of controversy among Establishment Democrats since he became DNC chair two years ago. But on Friday, the speakers seemed to be united in support of Dean's vision. Chris Dodd declared, "The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is being felt in 50 states across the country." Wesley Clark, whose own presidential campaign in 2004 was fueled in part to opposing Dean's bid, said: "The 50-state strategy is working." And even Hillary Clinton, who has been rumored not to be on the same page as Dean, credited the chairman for "helping to lead the charge for the victories we had in '06."

2) Criticizing Clinton
Many of the presidential hopefuls not named Clinton implicitly criticized the senator from New York (or some of her positions) in their speeches -- hardly surprising given her front-runner status. For starters, Dodd took aim at the non-binding resolution that she supports. "Frankly, I am disappointed that we can't find a way to do more than send a meaningless message to the White House." Obama railed against the current climate that has caused politics to become "small and calculating" -- which some have criticized Clinton for being. Edwards made the same point. "This is not the time for political calculation," he said. "It is the time for political courage." 

 

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, and Huma Zaidi.
The battle over funding for the war breaks out into the open today with President Bush's presentation of a $2.9 trillion budget that includes $245 billion in new funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Senate debate over Bush's planned US troop increase in Iraq may get derailed.

The highly anticipated vote on a non-binding resolution opposing a troop increase is on the verge of not happening at all, unless a deal is reached quickly between Senate leaders Harry Reid (D) and Mitch McConnell (R), NBC's Ken Strickland reports.  Reid has scheduled a 5:30 pm procedural vote that would allow the process to begin.  But McConnell announced late Friday that all 49 Senate Republicans, including those who are chief sponsors and supporters of the resolution, will vote against the "motion to proceed," thereby keeping Democrats from obtaining the 60 votes needed to move forward toward a vote. 

Democrats contend that Republicans, at the White House's direction, are trying to avoid a vote that is likely to demonstrate a bipartisan majority opposing Bush's plan.  McConnell says his conference is "using procedure to ensure a fair process."  Even so, it's striking that McConnell managed to get all Senate Republicans to agree to vote against the motion -- including John Warner, the resolution's chief sponsor, and Chuck Hagel, the GOP conference's most vocal opponent of a troop increase. 

As of Sunday evening, there was no sign of a deal in the offing, Strickland reports.  Reid and McConnell have failed to come to terms how many resolutions will come up for votes, and how many votes will be needed for a resolution to be considered "passed."  McConnell has said previously that all resolutions should be required to obtain a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority for passage (as is often the case), Strickland says.  He also wants votes on at least two White House-supported resolutions: 1) a measure offered by Sens. John McCain (R), Lindsey Graham (R), and Joe Lieberman (I) that supports Bush's new strategy and requires benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and 2) a resolution asserting that Congress will not eliminate or reduce troop funding.  Both are also non-binding.

Reid says he's made three different offers, but obviously the two sides can't reach an agreement.  With a 60-vote threshold, it's doubtful that either the McCain measure or Warner's bipartisan resolution "disagreeing" with the surge would pass, per Strickland.  Still, Reid is confident that Warner's measure could get a simple 51-vote majority.

Bush rolls out his budget proposal at a Cabinet meeting this morning.  It will be his first budget to detail spending requests for Iraq and Afghanistan, diverging from his previous approach of seeking funding for the wars through supplementals.  Even with the increased military funding, Bush and his Administration assert that they can eliminate the deficit by 2012 without raising taxes by holding down domestic spending.  Democrats may zero in on suggested cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, student loans, and veterans' health care, one Democratic Hill advisor suggests.  Republican lawmakers will aggressively counter this opposition, but will be haunted by their failure to come up with a budget last year, even though they were in the majority. 

And former Sen. John Edwards releases his universal health care plan today, reminding us, not for the first time, of then-Rep. Dick Gephardt's 2004 presidential bid.  That cycle, Gephardt became the first candidate in the Democratic field to release a detailed health care plan.  Also as Gephardt did, Edwards is investing a lot of time in courting labor support and winning the Iowa caucuses.  Still, polling suggests that health care will be a top issue in 2008, whereas in 2004, the issue was overshadowed by Iraq.  Edwards told NBC's Tim Russert yesterday that his plan would require higher taxes and cost as much as $90 billion to $120 billion per year.

 

The New York Times reports that Iraqis are saying Bush's controversial troop increase set the stage for the single-worst suicide bombing of the war.  "The critics said the new plan, which the Americans have started to execute, had emasculated the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia that is considered responsible for many attacks on Sunnis, but that many Shiites say had been the only effective deterrent against sectarian reprisal attacks in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhoods." 

The Los Angeles Times says that even though passage of the non-binding resolution wouldn't directly affect the course of the war in any tangible way, "the immense symbolism of what may be the first formal rebuke of Bush's war strategy has produced the most passionate war debate on Capitol Hill since the invasion of Iraq...  At its core is a furious argument over what the challenge really means - not just to the president, but to the military, to the Iraqi government and to America's enemies and allies in the Middle East and elsewhere." 

The San Francisco Chronicle calls the debate over the non-binding resolution "a case study in how difficult it is for Congress to challenge even a weak president on a deeply unpopular war." 

The Washington Post takes its turn looking at how the prospective vote is agonizing some Senate Republicans who are up for re-election in 2008.  They "are loath to say that political calculations could weigh on their votes, but to GOP leaders battling to prevent their members from supporting the resolution against the troop buildup, politics present an unavoidable obstacle." 

GOP Sen. Jon Kyl urges that Bush's troop increase be given a chance to work in a USA Today op-ed.  "Although many have summarily criticized the new strategy, they have contributed no viable plan of their own.  No one has any illusions about the challenges we face, but we will be more likely to succeed if we are unified." 

The Financial Times previews House Government Reform Committee chair Henry Waxman's hearings on government contracts awarded on Iraq.  "The hearings, which begin tomorrow, are expected to mark the beginning of a new phase in which contracting practices are subject to tougher oversight." 

Politico reports that former Iraq coalition administrator Paul Bremer "plans to point to unexpectedly chaotic conditions in post-Saddam Baghdad as he defends his record" in tomorrow's session. 

The Iraq vote is preventing Sen. Joe Biden (D) from making a scheduled trip to New Hampshire today.  At a roundtable last Friday, potential presidential candidate and former Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) said he'd vote against the Warner resolution, while candidate and former Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) said the resolution doesn't go far enough. 

 

The Wall Street Journal puts Bush's new budget in the context of how, up until now, he has been able to spend on both guns and butter.  "Ingredient one: strong revenue growth driven by an economy distinguished by surging profits and rising incomes at the top, which are taxed more heavily than incomes at the bottom.  Ingredient two: tax cuts and spending increases, which arrived when the U.S. economy needed a boost.  Ingredient three, and perhaps the most significant: the willingness of foreigners to lend to the U.S., which finances the budget deficit without pushing up interest rates at a time when Americans don't save very much." 

The Chicago Tribune says that Bush, who has paid scant attention to deficit reduction, is sounding much more like a deficit hawk these days.  "Bush's problem, as well as that of future presidents, is that it is easier to sell giving than taking away.  So far, he has lowered taxes and raised military spending, and pushed through a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors." 

The AP previews the Bush budget and quotes an already resistant Senate Budget chair Kent Conrad (D).  "Critics contend that Bush is able to show declining deficits and a balance in 2012 by leaving out major expenses.  Bush does project the costs of extending his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost $2.3 trillion over 10 years.  He only includes a one-year fix for the alternative minimum tax, which was initially designed to make sure the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes but is ensnaring more middle class wage earners." 

"Republicans hope to make the tax cuts a central feature of this year's budget debate," the Washington Post reports.  "Both the White House and Democratic leaders have vowed to eliminate the federal deficit by 2012, but Democrats have signaled their intention to do it in part by targeting tax breaks for corporations and taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year." 

USA Today lists how the White House has started reaching out more to Democratic lawmakers and notes the potentially key roles to be played by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and budget director (and former member) Rob Portman.  "Both Cabinet members want to make progress on what may be the toughest issue next to Iraq: making Medicare and Social Security whole for the long-term.  Without changes in benefits, taxes or both, the programs will be insolvent within decades." 

Hill Democrats believe the federal government "could collect as much as $100 billion more a year by whittling the tax gap - the unpaid taxes, mostly on unreported earnings, that the I.R.S. estimated was about $300 billion a year.  But the Treasury Department... says it cannot realistically recover one-tenth as much as Democrats suggest."  More: "Democrats badly want the money because they have adopted strict 'pay as you go' budgeting rules that require Congress to pay for any new programs or tax cuts with revenue from other areas." 

 

The New York Daily News says that Sen. Hillary Clinton will launch her first big fundraisers this Friday.  "First, Clinton is holding a closed-door powwow at a Manhattan law office, where would-be "HillRaisers" in Clinton's New York/New Jersey/Connecticut finance committee will be asked to commit to raising a minimum of $25,000 each.  After that, the New York senator will host a 'conversation' at tony Cipriani for the 'under-45 effort.'" 

Bloomberg looks at how Clinton has won some fans in the health care industry and other corporate sectors since her Harry and Louise days.  She tells Bloomberg in an interview that "there was no master plan to change her image as the bogeyman of the business world." 

The Daily News also reports that "consumer advocate Ralph Nader said yesterday he'd be sorely tempted to mount his own 2008 presidential campaign if she wins the Democratic nod." 

Clinton has rescheduled her first trip to New Hampshire as a presidential candidate for this Saturday, the same day Sen. Barack Obama is scheduled to announce his candidacy in Springfield, IL.

The Washington Post, examining Obama's efforts to convert the excitement about his candidacy into a support network, says that unlike Clinton, he "will seek a more pared-down image that focuses on the substance of his message... rather than on proving his ability to win a general election."  More: "Rivals in the Democratic contest contend that he could raise as much as $40 million, potentially raking in $1 million in a single Hollywood fundraiser, and will all but fail an early test of his viability if he comes up with less than [Edwards] before April.  Edwards is expected to raise as much as $15 million in the first quarter, and Clinton is expected to raise as much as $30 million." 

The Washington Post points out that Edwards is having to find other ways to make his opposition to the war public because he won't have a chance to vote against a troop increase. 

MSNBC.com reports on the theme music the Democratic candidates unveiled at the DNC winter meeting.  "As the saying goes, you can learn a lot about someone from his musical play list." 

The Des Moines Register writes up Vilsack's speech to the DNC winter meeting, in which he "painted himself as an outsider and a truth-teller..., calling for an immediate end to financing for the war in Iraq." 

Democratic "party officials, especially those in New Hampshire, which prides itself on giving any candidate a chance to compete, worry that the dismissal of so-called second-tier candidates is bad for the process and bad for both parties," notes the Boston Globe. 

Al Gore has agreed to testify on global warming at a joint hearing of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality and the Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on Wednesday, March 21.  He will be the only witness.  The Washington Times covers Gore's latest demurrals on another presidential bid: "nothing about his lifestyle suggests that he'll mount a bid.  His friends and former advisers say privately that he is happy with his life as a somewhat regular -- albeit wealthy -- public figure.  He closes events to the press while other Democrats seek headlines.  His Web site, AlGore.com, is far from a campaign site." 

The New York Times writes that Edwards' former running mate, John Kerry, "endures the peculiar pariah status that his party reserves for its losing nominees…  As the 2008 campaign begins in earnest, Mr. Kerry has been forced to adapt to something resembling a normal Senate life.  This has been no small challenge for a man whose identity has long been steeped in becoming president, or trying to." 

 

The New York Post notes how McCain and Hagel traded volleys on Sunday shows yesterday over the troop increase.  "McCain (Ariz.) slammed a resolution Hagel (Neb.) co-sponsored with Democrats which critiques President Bush's proposed troop surge.  'This is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops,' McCain charged on ABC's 'This Week'…  Hagel shot back, blasting McCain's resolution to set benchmarks for Iraq's government while not threatening to cut off funding. Hagel called it 'intellectually dishonest' - a phrase McCain uses against his critics." 

Columnist Robert Novak says that McCain, who sounded like Ted Kennedy on taxes in 2000, now sounds like Jack Kemp.  "He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent...  He supports radically scaling back the estate tax and does not now favor upper-income increases in the Social Security tax...  It is difficult to measure how much the transformation of McCain from taxer to tax-cutter has contributed to his fading popularity among Washington's media elite, but the romance is gone.  The change, however, has not boosted McCain's stock in Congress, particularly the House." 

Speaking in South Carolina over the weekend, Rudy Giuliani said he would appoint "strict constructionists" -- like Scalia, Roberts, and Alito -- to the bench if he becomes president, CBNNews.com reports. 

Rep. Tom Tancredo was in Iowa over the weekend, where he said "that illegal immigration has diluted the country's patriotism" and "advocated that border security be the nation's top priority." 

One month into the new Democratic majority, Roll Call examines Lieberman's seemingly perpetual front-and-center role in the 51-49 Senate and his relations with the Democratic caucus.

The Pentagon has agreed to supply Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a jet big enough to fly her coast-to-coast non-stop, even though some Republicans in the Administration and on the Hill call it a "strain on a system that is charged with providing military transport for Cabinet officials and top generals and commanders.  A permanent large plane for Pelosi... would mean less availability for other high-ranking officials." 

Tape recordings of some of GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's private conversations in early 2006, made by his staff and obtained by the Los Angeles Times, threaten to undo a lot of the bipartisan image and spirit he has cultivated in his second term.  The recordings quote Schwarzenegger complaining about lawmakers of both parties, discussing "American resentment of illegal immigrants,... his taste for gas-hungry Hummers and... his wife's habit of tinkering with his speeches." 

From NBC's Huma Zaidi
Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, former senator Mike Gravel of Alaska and former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack all had their turn to address the DNC winter meeting yesterday.  While it might have been Biden's speech most were waiting to hear, it was Richardon's address that was perhaps the most worth hearing.

Richardson covered all the bases by touting his foreign relations and policy experience (typically not a strong suit for a governor) and reeled off a list of domestic issues that he has successfully addressed in his home state. Turning to Iraq, Richardson said "It's time for our troops to leave with honor." Unforgiving of Bush, Richardson accused the president of being blind to the anger gripping the country over the war -- which he called a symptom of arrogance -- and said emboldening terrorists was one mission the president had accomplished. He also called on the DNC to encourage all candidate to run "clean" campaigns. Richardson was a crowd favorite as we lost count of the number of standing ovations he received and managed to inject just enough humor into his speech so that we didn't notice it ran almost twenty minutes. (The DNC asked candidates to keep their speeches to about seven minutes.)

The usually loquacious Biden kept his address short and began by offering another apology for his remarks about Sen. Barack Obama. "I want to say that I truly regret that the words I spoke offended people that I admire very much," Biden said. Vilsack touted himself as an "outsider" who could bring real change to Washington while Gravel chided Democrats for not opposing the war when it mattered and said the Democrats' "mealy-mouthed" nonbiding resolution was not resolute enough. 

From NBC's Carrie Dann
Political junkies generally track the progress of presidential campaigns by counting fundraising dollars, power-player endorsements, and big-name hires. But for a big picture of how the candidates rank in terms of campaign organizations, you can just watch the signs.

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington today, eager supporters brandished the red, white, and blue signage of their preferred candidates. Watching the throngs of mostly student-aged campaigners waving signs painted a telling picture of how some presidential candidates run tighter ships than others. Sen. Chris Dodd's supporters, for example, cut an enthusiastic but narrow swathe across three rows of seats, while those sporting posters of Sen. Barack Obama and his megawatt smile fanned out throughout the crowded ballroom. But the ocean of blue "Hillary" signs that surged as the New York senator took the stage demonstrated how her army had orchestrated an effort to turn the meeting into a Clinton campaign event.

Even more remarkable was the almost military precision with which the poster-bearers shifted their stances in order to surround a small crowd of anti-war protestors who momentarily disrupted Clinton's speech with cries of "bring them home!" Within moments, Team Hillary visually eclipsed the dissenters in the back corner of the room. (A few police officers quickly silenced the protestors' verbal objections, as well.)

The DNC meeting, of course, will look like a high-school pep rally in comparison to the Super Bowl-like conventions in August 2008. But if you're looking to put your money on which of the candidates will come out on top, keep your eye on the signs.

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Republican leaders are now saying they will block next week's Iraq debate with a procedural vote on Monday afternoon.  Unless an agreement is reached between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell before Monday at 5:30 pm, it's unlikely that there will be any votes on any resolutions.

Republican leaders say Democrats have yet to give them assurances that they'll be able to have votes on resolutions they prefer which support the President's Iraq strategy.  Democratic leaders say they've made various offers.  Obviously the two sides can't reach an agreement.

The Monday vote, called the "motion to proceed to the bill," will require 60 votes to pass.  And McConnell's declaration that all 49 Republicans will vote AGAINST it would kill any votes on the measures.  McConnell made a point of saying that even Sen. John Warner (R), who opposes the troop increase, will vote with his party.

Democrats quickly accused Republicans of filibustering.  "They have already rejected three compromises that would permit the Senate to vote on the President's plan," Reid said today in a written statement.  "This obstruction is an abdication of their responsibility to the American people on the most important issue facing our nation today."  But McConnell said today at a news conference that his caucus is "using procedure to ensure a fair process."

Stay tuned, as negotiations will continue into the weekend.

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, Huma Zaidi, and Andrew Merten
Right about this time four years ago, Gov. Howard Dean appeared before the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting and said, "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic party leadership is supporting the President's unilateral attack on Iraq."  And then, famously: "I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

That speech -- and Dean's candidacy -- arguably transformed the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, the general election campaign, and the party itself.  Not only is Dean now DNC chair, but all 10 declared and prospective presidential candidates who will speak today and tomorrow at its winter meeting have adopted his views or tone on Iraq.  There isn't a Joe Lieberman in the field: All of them are critical of the war's conduct; all oppose Bush's call for more troops; and all are stressing their anti-war credentials.  Even Sen. Hillary Clinton now says she has been "one of the most consistent and persistent critics [of the war]." 

Still, the candidates differ on the particulars, as the less noticed part of Sen. Joe Biden's interview the other day proved.  A handful can say they opposed the war from the beginning; others voted to authorize it.  A few support a timetable for withdrawal; others don't.  Some want to cap the number of US troops; others think that doesn't go far enough.  And some want to cut off funding for Bush's troop increase; others think that would be a mistake.

Below, to help you follow along with the speeches, are the Democratic contenders' positions on Iraq.  Addressing the DNC's winter meeting this morning, in order: Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Barack Obama, Gen. Wes Clark, former Sen. John Edwards, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and Clinton.  Addressing the meeting tomorrow: Sen. Joe Biden, Gov. Bill Richardson, former Sen. Mike Gravel, and former Gov. Tom Vilsack.

Also today comes the latest indication of how early the presidential season has gotten underway: the start of the mating dance of the candidates and the superdelegates.  The meeting gives the Democratic candidates for president a chance to court an audience whose support is almost as key as the support of the lunch crowd at any Iowa or New Hampshire diner, but not nearly as well understood: the 447 members of the DNC.  Or at least, the 350 or so who are expected to attend the meeting. 

Here's your refresher course about who these people are.  DNC members, along with Democratic governors and members of Congress, are unpledged delegates to the party's presidential convention who can throw their support to any candidate they choose.  Also known as superdelegates, they comprise 842 of the total 4,354 convention delegates -- and therefore, nearly 39% of the 2,178 delegates needed to capture the nomination.  Their support is no small matter.  And as the candidates parade before them over these next few days, an unusual number of them may already feel committed, at least emotionally if not officially, to Clinton.

MSNBC marks the DNC meeting with another of its patented wall-to-wall politics days, which will feature interviews with Democratic presidential candidates and prospective candidates Chris Dodd, Wes Clark, and Tom Vilsack.

A new problematic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq surfaces.  The Washington Post reports that this NIE, "presented to [Bush] by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration…  The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict." 

NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports that per a senior Administration official, "The underlying intel that went into the development of the NIE was also used to make decisions for the President's new strategy.  It paints a picture of a very serious and complex situation on the ground and says that if action is not taken or there is rapid withdrawal, Iraq would deteriorate faster.  And that's why the President changed strategy."  Another senior Administration official tells O'Donnell, "We've been clear the situation in Iraq is very serious, and the President concluded after an exhaustive review that the best way to improve the situation is to help the Iraqis secure Baghdad so that the political situation can get resolved as well."

The Hill reports that the Congressional Budget Office is predicting that Bush's troop increase "may require more soldiers to go to Iraq than the White House is saying publicly.  In a letter sent to House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.) Thursday, CBO said the Pentagon so far has only announced which combat units would be part of the surge."  The CBO thinks it could wind up being anywhere from 35,000 to 48,000, total. 

We now have a single resolution and a date: The sponsors of the original non-binding resolution opposing a US troop increase in Iraq have thrown their support behind a slightly revised version pushed by GOP Sen. John Warner, increasing the odds that the remaining resolution will get the necessary 60 votes.  Still, NBC's Ken Strickland advises, it's not clear that supporters can get to 60.  Not all Democrats necessarily will support it, Strickland says -- especially those on the far left who've called for stronger, binding bills.  Sen. Russ Feingold (D), who wants troops redeployed within six months, calls the measure "weak."  Debate is expected to start on Monday, but the terms (duration, etc.) have not yet been set.

The Los Angeles Times says the debate, which will begin on Monday, could well boil down to the Warner measure versus GOP Sen. John McCain's measure that supports a troop increase but calls for 11 benchmarks to be set and met by Iraqis. 

McCain yesterday also offered an extremely rare reprimand of a four-star general in expressing his "serious concerns" about Gen. George Casey's nomination to be the Army chief of staff, NBC's Courtney Kube reports.  Still, she reports, both US military and congressional sources still believe that Casey will survive the process and be confirmed.

USA Today notes that Bush's visit with Senate Republicans today could be awkward given how a number of them support the Warner resolution.  "At least seven of the 20 Republican senators due to face the voters next year already are on record expressing misgivings about the president's planned troop increase."  

But Republicans aren't the only house divided.  The New York Times notes that at least two Senate Democrats, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, said yesterday they would oppose the compromise non-binding resolution because it says Congress should not reduce funding for the US soldiers in the field. 

Bloomberg says Bush's expected $716 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the greater war on terror "may set up a fight with the Democratic Congress, keen to examine the budget for questionable spending…  Previous emergency wartime requests have been readily approved because Congress was eager to support U.S. troops at war." 

A raft of positive economic data and comments from the Fed continues to buoy Bush's argument that the US economy is strong and his tax cuts should be extended.  The latest: today's jobs report for January, which shows that businesses added 111,000 new jobs.  Unemployment rose one-tenth of one percent to 4.6%.

The New York Times writes that Bush will ask Congress in his budget next week to cut more than $70 billion in savings from Medicaid and Medicare over the next five years.  "The proposals, part of a White House plan to balance the budget by 2012, set the stage for a battle with Congress over entitlement spending.  Even some administration officials say they cannot imagine approval of such large cutbacks in a Congress now controlled by Democrats."  

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson tells Bloomberg in an interview that Bush's "budget request to Congress will propose new ways to collect some of the $290 billion in taxes that aren't paid to the government each year…  Closing the so-called tax gap -- the amount of taxes owed that isn't collected -- may allow the administration to find sources of revenue to narrow the deficit.  It may also make it easier for Democrats who control Congress to enforce pay-as-you- go budgeting." 

With Bush's budget expected on Monday, Bloomberg notes that Bush and Democrats are talking a good game about erasing the deficit, but aren't really showing the will to do so.