The New York Times front-pages that Team Obama plans to include "about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses in his economic recovery program. The legislation Mr. Obama is developing with Congressional Democrats will devote about 40 percent of the cost to tax cuts, including his centerpiece campaign promise to provide credits up to $500 for most workers, costing roughly $150 billion. The package will also include more than $100 billion in tax incentives for businesses to create jobs and invest in equipment or factories."

More: "Although some tax cuts were always expected to be included in Mr. Obama's economic package, his team disclosed the scope and some details of the plans on Sunday at a time when Republicans have begun voicing criticism of what they describe as an open-checkbook approach to spending. By focusing more attention on the tax cuts in the plan, Obama aides hope to frame it as a balanced, pragmatic approach."

The Wall Street Journal: "The Obama tax-cut proposals, if enacted, could pack more punch in two years than either of President George W. Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years. Mr. Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001, considered the largest in history, contained $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. The second-largest tax cut -- the 10-year, $350 billion package engineered by Mr. Bush in 2003 -- contained $231 billion in 2004 and 2005."
 
"Republicans and business leaders hadn't seen specifics of the proposals Sunday night, but welcomed the idea of basing a bigger proportion of the stimulus plan on tax cuts. Their response suggests the legislation could attract relatively broad support, and it highlighted the Obama team's determination to win backing from varied interests."

Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell says that, if the GOP gets the opportunity to collaborate in building the stimulus package, it could garner hefty Republican support. 

As for timing, the new deadline-du-jour today is President's Day... Per the pool report, incoming White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told the traveling press corps last night that he agreed with House Majority Steny Hoyer "that it was 'very, very unlikely' that an economic stimulus package would be ready by Jan. 20. 'We don't anticipate that Congress will have passed both Houses an Economic Recovery and Reinvestment plan by the time the inauguration takes places.'"

Gibbs also said that today's meetings on Capitol Hill "are designed to get legitimate bipartisan input and to convey a sense of urgency. 'Tomorrow begins anew that work but I think the added urgency that we've seen, statistics, we've seen Christmas sales, consumer confidence and obviously upcoming job numbers which underscore that a very serious situation has only gotten worse and isn't likely to get better any time soon.'"

Democratic lobbyist Billy Moore says these four questions will determine whether Obama's post-partisan promise becomes reality: "Will Republicans be allowed to make substantive contributions to the rescue package? Will they have a voice in the most partisan responsibility of Congress, the budget? Can Obama convince Democratic leaders in Congress that it is in their interest to let the Republicans play a meaningful role? Will Republicans, especially in the Senate, find cooperation a more productive path and turn aside automatic filibusters against Administration proposals?"

The man embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich chose to succeed Obama in the Senate -- Roland Burris -- today heads to Washington. Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune writes, Burris "sought spiritual and political sustenance tonight at a church on Chicago's South Side. Warm words of support and prayers for Roland Burris at New Covenant Church contrasted with the frigid reactions from Senate leaders, many of whom say his appointment by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is so badly stained that Burris shouldn't be seated when the new Congress convenes this week."

"Burris took the church stage to a crescendo of drums, organ music and applause from hundreds of supporters, including black leaders and ministers. 'The appointment is legal,' he said, thanking those gathered at the prayer service. 'That is all there is. I don't know what all the confusion is about.' Before the service, Burris supporter U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and about 60 ministers condemned Senate Democratic leaders for rejecting Burris. Rush, a Chicago Democrat, called the U.S. Senate 'the last bastion of plantation politics.' 'We are just faced with a hard-headed room of people in the Senate who want to keep an African-American out of the Senate,' Rush said."

"Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid defended his right to block the Senate appointment of former Illinois attorney general Roland W. Burris, but he didn't close the door entirely to Burris eventually getting the job," the Washington Post notes.

Here's what Reid said on Meet:
MR. GREGORY: But are you willing to go to the mat on this to deny Roland Burris, if it requires going to the Supreme Court? Is it worth that effort?
SEN. REID: The state of Illinois deserves a vote in the United States Senate, and the people of the state of Illinois, the fifth most populous state in the union, deserve that vote. It's too bad Blagojevich has diverted attention from the real issue. And we'll--we're--as I've indicated, we're going to come--I'm going to meet with Senator McConnell, my Republican counterpart. I hope to do that Monday evening. I think it's around 6:00 or something like that. We'll talk about this. I hope we can solve this issue on a bipartisan basis.
MR. GREGORY: But there sounds to me like there may be some room here to negotiate and actually seat Burris?
SEN. REID: Hey, listen, David, I'm an old trial lawyer. There's always room to negotiate.
MR. GREGORY: All right, so you're not saying no completely that he won't serve?
SEN. REID: That's right

How would the logistics work if Democrats tried to block Burris from the Senate seat? "Senate officials involved in the tangle of legal and logistical planning said yesterday that a Democrat will object to Burris being duly sworn with the rest of his class, and propose that his credentials be reviewed by the Rules Committee," the AP reports. "The only way Burris will be allowed on the floor is if he possesses a certification of appointment signed personally by his embattled patron, Blagojevich, and Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who has refused to sign. Burris would then be treated as a senator-elect, which by tradition means he'll be allowed on the Senate floor without voting or speaking privileges -- and he wouldn't be granted a desk, according to the officials."

The New York Times: "Aides to Mr. Burris, a former Illinois attorney general who seemed to end his political career years ago after several defeats in his efforts to become governor of Illinois, have indicated that they were trying to talk to Senate leaders privately and wanted to avoid any public showdown."

Here are some of the dates for the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings:
-- Thursday, Jan. 8, 10:00 am ET: HHS: Tom Daschle (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee)
-- Friday, Jan. 9, 9:30 am ET: Rep. Hilda Solis (HELP Committee)
-- Tuesday, Jan. 13, 10:00 am ET: Education: Arne Duncan (HELP Committee)
-- Jan. 13: Energy Secretary: Steven Chu (Energy and Natural Resources Committee)
-- Jan. 14: Veteran Affairs: Gen. Eric Shinseki (Veterans' Affairs Committee)
-- Jan. 15: Interior: Senator Ken Salazar (Energy and Natural Resources Committee)
-- Jan. 15: Attorney General: Eric Holder (Judiciary Committee)

The New York Times has a fascinating profile of Nancy Pelosi as she prepares to play second fiddle Dem to Obama. "Aides and advisers say Ms. Pelosi is more than willing to follow Mr. Obama's lead and has already demonstrated a willingness to defer to him even on an issue of high import to her. While Ms. Pelosi has said she would prefer a quick legislative repeal of the Bush administration's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, she indicated that she would go along if Mr. Obama chooses to act more quickly through executive order."
 
"Yet tensions with the White House — even a White House run by one's own party — are inevitable as situations arise where the administration and members of Congress have conflicting priorities. Congressional Democrats and President Bill Clinton struggled at times during the two years that Democrats controlled Congress in the Clinton years. Even President Bush and Congressional Republicans clashed despite the willingness of those on Capitol Hill to give way regularly to the administration."

Rangel Watch: Charlie Rangel is still defending himself from allegations of fundraising improprieties. Given the Blagojevich situation and now the Richardson chatter, is Rangel even in more trouble? Will he have to temporarily give up his Ways and Means gavel at this critical time?

USA Today previews the RNC chair race, as well as today's candidate forum in DC.

CQ reports that RNC chairman Mike Duncan "has told Republican insiders that neither he nor any other of the five candidates in the race will have the 85 votes needed to win outright when RNC members cast ballots during the winter meetings that run Jan. 28-31... Duncan is 'in the lead' but short of the necessary votes, according to a committeeman who is concerned about the optics of keeping Duncan at the helm after electoral losses." 

Who will emerge to lead the Republicans out of the darkness? Another Bush? So says George H.W. Bush, who said he'd like to see younger Jeb in the White House. "I mean, right now is probably a bad time because we've had enough Bushes in there," he said. "But no, I would. And I think he's as qualified and able as anyone I know on the political scene."

COLORADO: Roll Call offers a shortlist for GOP challengers to both Gov. Bill Ritter and his new appointee to fill Ken Salazar's seat, Michael Bennet: "Popular state Attorney General John Suthers (R) is mentioned as a possible candidate for both offices, but if he declines to run for Senate, the GOP may be forced to turn to old political hands: former Rep. Bob Beauprez -- who was wiped out by Ritter in the 2006 gubernatorial election -- or former Reps. Scott McInnis (R) and Tom Tancredo (R). Former University of Denver President Marc Holtzman has also been mentioned as a possible GOP candidate, though he is more likely to try to run for governor."

MINNESOTA: The Minneapolis Star Tribune writes that the state canvassing board is expected to declare Al Franken the winner of the state's thisclose Senate contest. But that doesn't mean the race is officially over. "The board was to meet Monday and was expected to declare which candidate received the most overall votes from nearly 3 million ballots cast. The latest numbers showed Franken, a Democrat, with a 225-vote lead over Republican Sen. Norm Coleman. But after the announcement, there will be a seven-day waiting period before an election certificate is completed. If any lawsuits are filed during that waiting period, certification is conditional until the issue is settled in court."

"Coleman, who led Franken on election night, hasn't ruled out a lawsuit challenging the results, claiming there were irregularities that gave Franken an unfair advantage. The Coleman campaign also has a petition pending before the state Supreme Court to include 650 ballots that it says were improperly rejected but not forwarded by local officials to St. Paul for counting." 

Not surprisingly, Chuck Schumer wants Franken seated. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01052009/news/politics/seat_al___chuck_147247.htm

Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal editorial page thinks Franken is the illegitimate winner.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

NORTH CAROLINA: Will the Democrats' newfound confidence in places like North Carolina lead to better candidate recruiting in key Senate races? Dems are wooing the state's sitting attorney general, Roy Cooper, to challenge Republican Richard Burr. Keep this in mind: Burr sits in a Senate seat that hasn't seen an incumbent successfully win a second term in four decades.

TENNESEE: Is Harold Ford now more likely to run for Tennessee governor now that Bill Frist has taken himself out of the 2010 race?

VIRGINIA: Over the weekend, Terry McAuliffe said in a webcast that he has decided to run for governor.

"In the video, McAuliffe said he will make his intention to run official on Wednesday as part of a week-long campaign kickoff. The stops include town hall meetings in Hampton Roads, Bristol, Richmond and others, where McAuliffe will unveil plans for job creation, education and renewable energy."

From NBC's Mark Murray
NBC News has confirmed that President-elect Obama has tapped Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine to head up the Democratic National Committee.

Note that it was always expected that current chairman Howard Dean's term would end after the 2008 presidential election. Obama, as the incoming president, gets to select the DNC chairman.

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Bill Richardson has withdrawn his name from nomination for Commerce Secretary, citing an ongoing grand jury investigation in his home state. (See statement obtained first by NBC's Andrea Mitchell below.)

NBC's Lisa Myers reported last month: "The allegations now being investigated by a federal grand jury involve whether Richardson as governor steered state bond business to a firm whose founder made substantial contributions to Richardson's political action committee. Two former state officials involved in the bond deals told NBC News that they testified before a grand jury in Albuquerque last week. One official says prosecutors focused on whether Richardson or staff pushed to give business to CDR Financial Products. It specifically asked about what's called pay to play."

Lisa Myers on NBC's Nightly News: Donor to Richardson under investigation

President-elect Obama announced Richardson as his pick for Commerce Secretary on Dec. 3rd, but news of the investigation surfaced a couple of weeks later.

This marks the first real bump in Obama's transition. Up to this point, appointments have gone almost flawlessly -- despite hand wringing from liberal interest groups that Obama's cabinet doesn't have enough of this or that.

Obama put out a statement expressing "deep regret" at Richardson's decision. He calls him "an outstanding public servant" and credits him with wanting to "put the nation first" by removing his name. He also expresses a measure of confidence in Richardson's innocence in saying that he looks "forward to future service to our country and in my administration."

Richardson put out a lengthier statement and avows his innocence: "Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process. Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done."

Full statement from Obama:
It is with deep regret that I accept Governor Bill Richardson's decision to withdraw his name for nomination as the next Secretary of Commerce. Governor Richardson is an outstanding public servant and would have brought to the job of Commerce Secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office. It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post at this critical time. Although we must move quickly to fill the void left by Governor Richardson's decision, I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration.

Full statement from Richardson:
"For nearly three decades, I have been honored to serve my state and our nation in Congress, at the U.N., as Secretary of Energy and as governor.  So when the President-elect asked me to serve as Secretary of Commerce, I felt a duty to answer the call. I felt that duty particularly because America is facing such extraordinary economic challenges. The Department of Commerce must play an important role in solving them by helping to grow the new jobs and businesses America so badly needs.

"It is also because of that sense of urgency about the work of the Commerce Department that I have asked the President-elect not to move forward with my nomination at this time. I do so with great sorrow. But a pending investigation of a company that has done business with New Mexico state government promises to extend for several weeks or, perhaps, even months.

"Let me say unequivocally that I and my Administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact. But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process.Given the gravity of the economic situation the nation is facing, I could not in good conscience ask the President-elect and his Administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.

"So, for now, I will remain in the job I love, Governor of New Mexico, and will continue to work every day, with Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish, to make a positive difference in the lives of New Mexicans. I believe she will be a terrific governor in the future. I appreciate the confidence President-elect Obama has shown in me, and value our friendship and working partnership. I told him that I am eager to serve in the future in any way he deems useful. And like all Americans, I pray for his success and the success of our beloved country."

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Senate Democrats are gaming out scenarios to address the Roland Burris controversy with the least amount of drama or "school house doors" variety of theatrics.  According to a senior Democratic aide and other sources knowledgeable about the complex Senate rules, the linchpin to their efforts centers on Burris not having the right credentials to be seated as a US Senator -- in other words, incomplete paperwork.

Under Senate rules, the "recommended forms of certificate" for a new senator should include the signature of a state's governor AND Secretary of State.  Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has said publicly he will not sign Burris' certificate.

The Secretary of the Senate, a Democratic appointee elected by the body, must make the determination if Burris' "certificate of appointment" meets those  requirements.  (The "Secretary" oversees the Senate's day-to-day legislative, financial, and administrative operations.  Republicans fill the position when they hold the majority.)

Here are the possible scenarios:
(#1)  If Burris personally comes to Capitol Hill on Tuesday with his certificate, he would not be allowed on the floor, but instead directed to the office of the Secretary of the Senate who would review his credentials.  Without both signatures, the certificates would be considered incomplete.  Burris would not be seated; in fact, his name would not even be considered on the Senate floor.

(#2) If the Illinois Supreme Court forced Secretary White to sign the certificate or White's name somehow appeared on it, Burris might be allowed on the floor.   But before Burris is called to take the oath from Vice President Dick Cheney, there would likely be an objection, followed by a motion to refer the matter to the Senate Rules Committee.

(#3) Before Cheney administers any oaths, Democrats could offer up a resolution that strikes a middle ground.  It would effectively say the Senate had received paperwork from the governor on Burris' appointment, but that it's unclear if it meets the requirements for certification.  Democrats would then ask the Rules Committee to sort it out.

This (#3) may be the most likely scenario because it serves two fundamental purposes for Democratic leaders.  First, it allows them to acknowledge Burris' appointment without actually seating him.  Democratic leaders could theoretically claim  "we're looking into it."

Secondly, it buys the leadership time. The general thinking is that the matter would be slow-walked in the Democratically controlled Rules Committee long enough for Blagojevich to be impeached. Then, the state's Lieutenant Governor could make an appointment more favorable to Democrats.

From NBC's Abby Livingston
Colorado's next senator-apparent is a man who has never run for office and whose name might not ring a bell. 

But Michael Bennet has pedigree. Lots of it.

The Rocky Mountain News did an extensive profile on Bennet in 2003, when he served as the chief-of-staff of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (who was also an oft-mentioned candidate for the Senate appointment).

Bennet was born in New Delhi, India in 1964. The circumstance of the exotic locale was that his father, Douglas Bennet, was serving as an aide to Chester Bowles, then the U.S. ambassador to India and previously foreign policy aide to President Kennedy.

Bennet grew up in Washington, DC and attended the exclusive all-boys St. Alban's school. He went on to graduate from Wesleyan University, and in between undergraduate school and law school he served as a body man to Ohio governor Dick Celeste. After graduating from Yale Law in 1993, he served in the Clinton administration as counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, a position that included writing speeches for Attorney General Janet Reno.

After he left the Justice Department, he worked as an assistant special US attorney in Connecticut, but moved to Colorado in 1997. For six years, he worked for billionaire entertainment mogul Phil Anschutz. Over that time, though, he struck up a friendship with John Hickenlooper, who, when elected mayor, named Bennet his chief-of-staff. 

For the last 3 1/2 years, he has served as the superintendent of Denver public schools.

He married Susan Daggett in 1997. They have two daughters. His brother is Atlantic Monthly editor James Bennet, who had previously worked at the New York Times as a Jerusalem bureau chief. 

Colorado governor Bill Ritter has selected Denver Public School Superintendent Michael Bennet to fill the state's U.S. Senate seat, reports KUSA, NBC's Denver affiliate.

Ritter is expected to make a formal announcement tomorrow to appoint Bennet, who would fill the seat vacated by Ken Salazar, Barack Obama's nominee for Interior Secretary.

From NBC's Carrie Dann and Domenico Montanaro
We noted earlier this week that Norm Coleman's campaign hopes to convince state officials to reconsider about 650 additional rejected absentee ballots in the Minnesota recount, citing a lack of uniformity in county-by-county reviews of the ballots. The Coleman team asked the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday to halt the current counting of the ballots throughout the state and restart it in St. Paul under the watch of both campaigns as well as state officials. Both campaigns are still awaiting word on that decision today. 

But what are the 650 additional ballots that Team Coleman would like to see added to the pile? A snapshot from the state's most populous county shows that they apppear to swing heavily in the Republicans' favor.
 
A First Read analysis of the rejected absentee ballots from Hennepin County that the Norm Coleman campaign wants added to a state review found that 83% of them were from areas of the county that Coleman won in November.  Democrat Al Franken won the county by 14 percentage points, 50%-36%. 
 
The Coleman campaign proposed counting 173 additional ballots from Hennepin County, about a quarter of the 650 they want added statewide. But of those 173, 144 are from towns and cities in which Coleman won the majority of votes in the precincts that comprise them.

The Coleman team has repeatedly said that the ballots, which remain sealed, were selected for reconsideration because of inconsistencies in each county's procedure for evaluating rejected absentees. 

The Franken campaign also hopes to add a smaller number of rejected absentee ballots to the pile. A spokesperson says that their requested additional ballots -- which originally numbered between 100 and 200 but may have been reduced during the ongoing recount process  -- are backed up by evidence from voters that demonstrates why they were improperly rejected.

** UPDATE ** Coleman spokesman Mark Drake sends this response: "The Franken campaign isn't interested in counting all lawful votes.  Earlier this week, the Franken campaign admitted they only want to consider the original 1350 rejected absentees because according to Franken attorney Marc Elias, they were 'confident that if all those were counted we would gain even more votes.' This is the same campaign that once claimed to want every vote counted, but now that they have an artificial lead is fine with disenfranchising hundreds of Minnesota voters.  We have found hundreds of ballots that were likely rejected improperly, and we are seeking to ensure that the same standards for counting these ballots are applied statewide."

From NBC's Mike Viqueira
For weeks, President-elect Obama and his transition staff have repeatedly invoked the "one president at a time" mantra in avoiding public commentary on unfolding global issues like the situation in Gaza.

So naturally, now that Obama and his family are taking up residence at a Washington D.C. hotel and scheduling high profile meetings on the Hill, one of the first questions asked of White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe this morning was how President Bush feels about having "a parallel administration" operating across the street.

Johndroe laughed off the question, and pointed out that Obama will join Bush and every other living former president at the White House on Wednesday for a luncheon.  In other words, they needn't simply wave at each other from opposite sides of Lafayette Park.

Johndroe later went on to point out that just after the election, Bush authorized classified briefings to be given to Obama - the same briefings provided every morning to the sitting president.

From NBC's Pete Williams
In a tellingly candid statement, a senior aide to Senate Democrats this week said, "we're examining the precedents" and looking to see if "there may be grounds" for refusing to seat Roland Burris as the replacement for Barack Obama.

Despite their uncertainty about whether they have the authority, Senate Democrats have insisted they will refuse to let Burris take his seat on January 6th when new members are sworn in.  Legal scholars are engaged in a raging debate over whether the Senate has the constitutional authority to block Burris, if the refusal is based solely on allegations that Blagojevich conspired with others to use his appointment power for corrupt purposes. 

Here are the two key questions: First, the Constitution gives Congress the power to refuse to seat someone based on irregularities in an election.  But does that authority allow it to review an appointment by a state governor?  Though that question has never been explicitly answered before, many experts believe the answer is probably, yes.

But then a much harder question arises: what's the test for declaring an appointment invalid?  Is it enough for Senate Democrats to say, in essence, that there's something fishy about Blagojevich, making anything he does invalid?

Two constitutional law experts, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale and Josh Chafetz of Cornell, say the answer is yes.  In a posting on Slate.com, they suggest that it's enough if the Senate finds Blagojevich himself suspect, regardless of whether the Democrats have actual evidence that impropriety was involved in appointing Burris.

"In this context, the Senate itself is a judge, in the words of the Constitution, and can decide facts for itself," they say.

"It is enough for the Senate to reject Blagojevich's appointee if a majority of senators are firmly convinced that Blagojevich is corrupt and that any nomination he might make is inherently tainted by such corruption," they argue.

But other legal scholars say such a generalized standard doesn't cut it, especially when there's no allegation that Blagojevich appointed Burris for some corrupt purpose.

Says Brian Kalt of Michigan State, "The law is that the governor fills this vacancy. That law was followed here. No one is claiming that Blagojevich broke the law in selecting Burris. In the absence of any such evidence -- let alone in the absence of an attempt to even look for such evidence -- the Senate cannot legitimately question" this appointment, he says.

Here's the probable scenario.  The Democratic leadership will refer the issue of the Burris appointment to a Senate committee for further investigation.  If it concludes he should not be seated, he could sue, and the issue would likely end up in the US Supreme Court.  But the Democrats hope that while the committee is considering the issue, Blagojevich will leave office.

** UPDATE ** From your First Read editors:  In a new opinion piece at Forbes.com, Harvard University constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe also argues that that the Senate has the authority to refuse to seat Burris. Tribe, who taught Obama at Harvard and has served as one of his legal advisors, argues that the Senate's early determination that it would not seat anyone appointed by the Illinois governor reflected the correct focus on the process of the appointment and not the individuals involved. He writes: "That the Senate's early December decision to exclude any Blagojevich appointee reflected nothing about the particular person he appointed cuts for, not against, leaving the matter to the judicially unreviewable judgment of the Senate itself."