First glance

Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:08 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From Elizabeth Wilner, Mark Murray, and Huma Zaidi
Much anticipated Senate votes on the various non-binding resolutions opposing a US troop increase in Iraq won't take place until next week, NBC's Ken Strickland reports. While leadership aides on both sides expect the minimum wage bill to pass sometime on Thursday, no votes are scheduled for Friday because of a GOP retreat.

There's also no agreement between Senate leaders as of yet on the terms of the debate. One Senate Republican who opposes a troop increase claims that the White House strategy is to flood the zone with various resolutions that would provide fence-sitting Republicans with alternatives to the two measures that reject Bush's plan, Strickland reports. Siphoning GOP support away from those resolutions, this Republican believes, would ensure that no resolution musters the filibuster-proof 60 votes. The White House-backed resolutions could include one being drafted by GOP Sen. John McCain (on Iraq having to meet political, economic, and military benchmarks), and/or another by White House ally John Cornyn (on giving Iraq a reasonable chance to execute the new plan).

Senate Democrats Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold and their White House-eyeing colleagues Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chris Dodd all have talked about offering binding resolutions that range from capping funding for additional troops to a six-month withdrawal.

Even without a debate or votes, Iraq will come up often this week, Strickland notes. Sen. Joe Biden's Foreign Relations Committee holds three hearings on possible alternative strategies, including one with the chairmen of the Iraq Study Group today. And the Judiciary Committee joins the fray with two sessions. Several confirmation hearings this week also are expected to touch on Iraq, including the hearing for Gen. George Casey, Bush's nominee for Army chief of staff. McCain already has suggested he opposes Casey's nomination based on Casey's approach to Iraq, giving the GOP presidential candidate a chance to adjust his support for the war at the margins.

President Bush, meanwhile, devotes two days to delivering a sort of economic State of the Union, minus the national attention, by visiting a Caterpillar plant in Peoria today and stopping on Wall Street tomorrow. Asked why Bush is commenting at length on the economy separate and distinct from his actual State of the Union speech one week ago, spokesman Tony Snow said it's "worth reminding people of how good this economy is." The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests this remains an uphill battle for Bush by showing continuing pessimism about the economy and that people prefer Democrats to Republicans when it comes to handling it (by 13 points).

Perhaps not coincidentally, Bush is expected to present his budget on Monday and simultaneously call for a balanced budget in five years and for Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, despite a recent Congressional Budget Office verdict that he can't have both. As we've noted before, one motive for him to convince Americans that the economy is strong is his need to lay that groundwork in order to gin up public support for extending the tax cuts.

Snow also echoed a familiar Administration refrain in previewing Bush's remarks today: "Over the last six years the American economy has had to endure a great deal: recession, September 11th terrorist attacks, the bursting of the technology bubble, devastating hurricanes that have crippled entire regions. We have had corporate scandals, we have had wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a larger war on terror; we have had an oil shock. And, despite all that, the economy continues to thrive."

Even as the economy has thrived over the past six years, however, it has not played a big role in the outcome of any federal election during that time period -- or indeed, not since before Bush became president. As we've noted before, in 2000, Democrats lost the White House even though the country had just experienced the biggest economic expansion in US history. (That expansion is a big reason why people now look back fondly on the Clinton presidency.) In 2002, Republicans actually picked up seats in Congress despite a recession. In 2004, Republicans held onto the White House even though there was no net job growth during Bush's first four years. And in 2006, despite all-time highs in the Dow, millions of jobs created, and a relatively low unemployment rate, Republicans lost control of Congress.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

As the powers that be tinker in Washington, our best and brightest (troops) continue dying for a mistake in Iraq. What a sad, sad state of affairs.

Katie, Atlanta GA (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:33 AM)

Robert Stein was a Defense Department contractor. He was the comptroller and funding officer for the Coalition Provisional authority, South Central Region in 2003 and 2004 in Iraq. He pleaded guilty, a year ago, to criminal chrages that included bribery, money laundering and conspiracy. He admitted to conspiring with others, including several U.S. officers to rig bids to steer contracts to a certian contractor. On Monday, January 29,2007, he was sentenced to 9 years in prison and ordered to forfeit $3.6 million.He was also sentenced to 3 years of probation after his release from prison.

Desmond (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:50 AM)

A vote for McCAin in 2008 is a vote for the Bush/Cheney machine.........

Lynette, NYC (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:58 AM)

I wonder how Bush thinks we are going to balance the budget at the rate we are spending, not to mention making the tax cuts permanent. I guess that is just going to be handed off to the next president along with the mess in Iraq. After all, if it is supposed to be balanced in 5 years, he will be long gone.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:05 AM)

Snow says that despite everything the economy is doing fine...That may be, but not because anything this admin has done.

Marty in Kansas City (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:23 AM)

Amazing that Snow mentioned the hurricanes. We all thought that was a forgotton topic!

Lynette, NYC (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:53 AM)

Carrie, he's going to balance the budget by making the middleclass pay for it. We are all going to be living on the streets in the next 5 years. The only way he could balance the budget in 5 years is if he taxes the rich. Which as we all know, it's not going to happen. So I'll see the rest of you "middle class" individuals on the street!

Michelle, NJ (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:01 AM)

Some in politics have referred to there being 2 Americas - essentially the rich and everyone else (I think they used different terms, but the same concept). I think that the biggest reason people look back at the Clinton years fondly is because the economic expansion touched the vast majority of Americans, whereas Bush's economy has touched primarily the rich while "everyone else" hasn't really improved, or if anything, has gotten worse. Jim Webb made an excellent point in his rebuttal to Bush after the state of the union address. When Webb was a young man, CEOs made on average 20 times what the average worker at the same company made. Today, CEOs make 400 times what the average worker at the same company makes. In other words, the average worker has to work more than a year to make what the CEO makes in ONE DAY. Numerous scholarly studies show that the gap between rich and poor is growing rapidly wider while the middle class is shrinking. Numbers are funny things because you can pick some that stand out while completely missing the real story.

M - In Texas (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:38 AM)

The great savings and loan scandal of the Reagan years was said to have left us with a debt equal to $8,000 in mid-eighties dollars for each man, woman and child in the country. My guess is that so far, Vietnam II has come to at least $200,000 for each of us. However, I doubt if any of the men, women and children of the top 1% will be of much help with that debt. Not even the top 10%. On average, I would say the top 10% have so far come out $250,000 to the good, as a conservative estimate. Man, woman and child wise, that is. We hope that's all. I think that may be where we came up with the old adage "There's nothing like a good war to improve the economy." I hope you guys had a few thousand invested in Halliburton stock. If the war ended tomorrow, your children will be paying for it at a sum to the tune of not being able to send their children to college, plus a nice, entry level BMW and a trip to Hawaii. I trust that various books on the George W years will be coming out before too long that will address that subject with more precise figures, but I think what I have just told you will be close enough for government work.

JIrby, Colorado Springs, Co (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:48 AM)

It's easy to balance the budget when the costs of the war in Iraq are listed as supplemental and don't even figure into the actual budget. A balanced budget is not absolutely necessary, however, I would like to see ALL costs added to budget figures so everyone knows the real story and the actual numbers.

Robert Catalan, Salem, OR (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:58 AM)

I am 57 years old and from my experience whenever dems were in power there were more jobs and better pay and working conditions. When repubs were in power jobs dried up, pay and working conditions got worse. This my experience , every american knows what their experiences were, the same? different?

retired union man,ibew,america (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:22 PM)

To Retired Union Man: Sir, I am 53 years old and have had the exact same experience. It really is that simple.

Peter Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:38 PM)

M-in Texas: The person who talked about 'two Americas' was John Edwards during his campaign for President in 2000. There really are two Americas. I think that a big part of this is de-regulation !! De-regulation is a scam that Dems and Repubs foisted on the American people. When businesses merge, it concentrates wealth. California used to have it's own airline, PSA which competed with the big boys. It was eaten up by Delta. Remember 'energy deregulation' ? It was going to lower energy costs and bring on a golden age for California. Enron, Dynergy and the rest of Bush's friends looted California while Bush + Cheney looked the other way. Blame Bush and ex-governor. Pete 'White Power' Wilson (and the Democrats who passsed de-regulation). Blame de-regulation and NAFTA (thank you Clinton-Gore).

Sierra, San Francisco, CA (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:42 PM)

While at Caterpillar, Dubya will attempt to spin a cocoon and become a Monarch Butterfly, as opposed to his last spin, when he became a Cockroach.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:43 PM)

It's really sad that our great nation is run by the one who can raise the most money.. I'm pretty sure that was not the intention of our founding fathers.. Does being able to raise more money then anyone else actually make you able to run the country better.. With all the rich controlling the government, no wonder they can't get anything done.. Rich makes you lazy.. We need a new direction alright.. Reform the congress/presidency so if you made over "X" amount the year before you can't run.. Lets get some "real" people in office, a person who really cares about the american people.. Not someone who tells us what we want to hear then does "whatever".. Health care: If the system the government has is so good.. lets give it to everyone.. Simple solution.. Them darn canadians have a good system.. lets base one on what they have, obviously it's working.. Oh and by the way.. While they are at it.. How about you congress-people start paying some SSI (you dont seem to have any problem bancrupting our system cause you dont pay into it, it's always easy to spend someone else's money) and cut back the amount of money givin to retired/ousted members of congress get, you kow by about 2/3.. You make too much as it is.. Being in government shouldn't be a windfall.. You should want to do it for other reasons then making yourself rich/er.. That should come if you did a "good" job..

Drew, Atlanta, Ga (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:44 PM)

Retired Union Man: Being in my early 30's my work experience is somewhat more limited. But during Clinton's tenure, I never had to look for a job more than 2 weeks, usually less. Pay was going up faster than inflation every time I looked for a job (not just because I was gaining more experience but for even the equivalent position). Working conditions were awesome. Under Bush, it took me 9 months to find a job, I had to take a small pay cut (even with more experience) and my working conditions since then have not been nearly as good. So, yes, my personal experience agrees with your statements.

M - In Texas (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:07 PM)

Congress should not even accept the President's budget proposal until the total cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts (never declared wars)are included. This is the only way this Administration can be held accountable for what they have done. As for "their resolutions" either Sh-- or get off the pot! You are either against this tragedy and want the troops out "now" not in six months to a year or you consider the lives lost and the money spent the cost of doing business.

Paw Paw, NC (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:17 PM)

Retired guy - I'm 50, and you're exactly right. '92 to 2000 were golden years.

never going to retire guy (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:50 PM)

It can't be argued that the economy during Clinton's term was not the best economy in the last half of the century. It can be argued how much he had to do with it. I think NAFTA helped and that was the best thing Clinton did while in office. He also had great timing. He came into office as the economy had already turned out of a slight recession and he was leaving the office as the economy was headed to a moderate recession.

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:16 PM)

Oh boy here we go... One of the main reasons for the growth of the economy of the 90’s was because of the incredible growth of the computer market. Never before in the history of the US has a market been born and grown so much because of one product, all the while providing so many well-paying jobs. That money created more demand for services, homes, and the luxuries of life. What was new what was expanded on?: Computer design, computer manufacturing, chip design and manufacturing, software, classes, internet service, Internet site design, sales, service, Internet providers, plastic molding, shipping, training, extra phone lines for Internet service, ISP providers; There's much more but you get the idea. Clinton did nothing to deserve the economy. He did increase the government’s parasitic activities (taxes and regulation) but did nothing to design the computer or the cell phone markets, which boomed despite his being president. Aaaaannnnd are you ready for this? The boom was fuled by Reagan's tax cuts. Reagan initiated and secured sharp across-the-board tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. (The top tax rate plummeted from 70 percent to 28 percent between 1981 and 1986.) Reagan also supported the restrictive monetary policies of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker as a necessary strategy to curb the double-digit inflation of the Carter era. So the best thing Clinton did was to do nothing by leaving the tax cuts in place and not placing a heavy tax on the new emerging cell phone/computer industry. Yet he (Clinton) takes credit. We should be thanking Ronald Reagan, Bill Gates and the cell phone industry.

Mad Mike (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:19 PM)

To Retired Union Guy: I am 64, and that is why I have been a card carrying democrat all my life. Life was much better each time we elected a democrat as president. I remember Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and now Bush II, and everytime we get a republican, your wages, working conditions, and jobs go down hill fast. With Bush II however, it has been the worst that I can think of. When will the cheerleaders for the republicans get out of the way so america quits electing these bozo's. Sure the democrats have had their problems, but for the average working person, life as a whole was much better under their leadership. I sure hope we can survive the next two years, then try to make the course corrections for our country, just like everytime we get rid of a republican president. What made this the worst administration in history was the fact that the congress was also republican. I can only hope that the rest of the voters can now see the difference. Can't wait for one of the republican cheerleaders to get on this blog and start twisting and distorting the facts, and tell us how wonderful it has been under Bush II.

beaverdambob (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:22 PM)

Drew Atlanta Ga. I agree problem is we have career politicians who only care about re-elected they'll say whatever they think we want to hear to stay in office. Both the Dems and Reps are filled with them. This last election showed that Republican voters were fed up with our leaders and we didn't vote for them. The Democrats in office think it was because we support them...how naive. What we need is term and budget limits for all candidates and officials. Until then we'll be stuck with the same system.

Mad Mike Proud Aarmy Vet (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:42 PM)

Hey, Never going to retire guy, they were the golden years. That is why the corporations and their Republican lackeys went after Clinton so hard. The average guy was actually getting a few dollars to save instead of spend. Now, everyone is in debt and beholden to those same people who want us to have nothing which is already bought and paid for.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:46 PM)

I keep hearing how Bush is going to get rid of the deficit in 5 years. My question to him is how can he do that when he has NEVER told us how much this current 2 wars are costing us. They have never put the cost into the budget so how can he say it will be balanced when $500 billion has never been added in. This is just another lie that he is trying to feed us.

Brandon Makoroff, Los Angeles, Ca (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:04 PM)

Retired Guy--I'm 67,but I retired in late December of 1999, so I've never had the displeasure of working while Bush is President. But my retirement buying power has shrunk considerably. I just got notice yesterday that my medical insurance primium has gone up 29% per month. I'm not buying this low inflation the government is telling me that we have. Of course my confidence of government has dropped to rock bottom in the last six years.

Seattle Sue (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:23 PM)

I also agree with you retired guy. I had 4 different jobs in the 90's and each one was higher pay and better benefits. 2000 I started a new job with all my benefits paid for. Medical and dental was free and pretax options were available. By the time 2003 came by, my company was bought out, we had to pay for our benefits and lost our pretax benefits. In 2005 our company was bought a second time and I lost my job. Thankfully I was in a field where I had a replacement job ready. This job only pays wages. No benefits except 401k after first year. My wife and son had to sign up with the state of Minnesota to get health care. Both were denied healty benefits from multiple insurance carriers, and thus could only get insurance with the state. The insurance companies said they were both uninsurable. My wife has epilepsy and my son has sensory integration and depakote syndrome. Thankfully the state of MN has good insurance benefits. I just wonder what we would have done if we were in a state that does not even offer health insurance for it's citizens. That is why I am for implementing the canadien health system of single payer. As long as Health providers are profit makers they will always find profitable people to insure. They have no obligation to provide for or even help people that would be nonprofittable. Remember every dime of profit the health insurance provider makes go to pay stock holders. Not to provide help to the less fortunate ones.

bobf (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:28 PM)

I really love how Clinton gets no credit for any economic success in the 90's, but Reagan does. It's amazing...if something goes right under a Democratic president's watch it is mere coincidence but if a Republican is sitting in the White House it was clearly orchestrated by his brilliance. Get a grip.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:05 PM)

Ryan - I think NAFTA is the one definate thing ol' Bill should be taken to the woodshed for, and Mad Man Mike - Clinton didn't "take" credit - I offered it. The economy, I think, is usually about 3 or 4 years behind the policy changes and Clinton did inherit an economy on the uptick, and BushCo got one slightly on the down tick, but he also got a whopping surplus and BushCo policies are, have been and will continue to be disasters for the middle class. Under Clinton, I actually started to believe I might have a retirement, and I was doing pretty well - I made $98,000 in 2000 - now it takes me two or three years to make that, all unbenefitted contract work. Witness how I have time to sit around doing this - I'll probably have another 8 hr week. I called a cousin in Pennsyvania a while ago to see if she was in Murtha's district, and she said "When Pennsylvania gets hungry, it votes Democratic."

Never going to retire guy (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:08 PM)

Retired union man--45 years old here, my experience parallels most of the others who responded to your post. Wealthy people like Republicans, the Economy likes Democrats.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:24 PM)

Thanks for feedback I knew that americans knew the real economy.

retired union man,ibew,america (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:33 PM)

Mad Mike, Oregon played with term limits for five or six years and it was a disaster. The only people who knew what was what were the professional staff people and the lobbyists. The inexperienced legislators were like sheep going to slaughter. We finally repealed term limits and went back to the old fashioned way of getting rid of the rotten apples: informed voters!

Bruce, St. Helens, OR (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:34 PM)

Actually, the boom to the computer market was largely caused by the development of the world wide web (around 1990), combined with the legislation called the "High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991" which opened the internet and was written and sponsored by Al Gore (the internet is the communication backbone - the world wide web is what you look at through your web browser, just one of many uses for the internet, which can be traced back to at least the 1960s), combined with the invention of the first web browser called Mosaic (from Wikipedia: "Funding for the development of Mosaic in 1993, [60] the World Wide Web browser which is often credited as leading to the Internet boom during the mid-1990s, came from the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, a program created by the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 [61]."), those things led to the spark in the computer industry. And actually, again according to Wikipedia: "In February 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore submitted a report, Technology for America's Economic Growth [55] which outlined the ways in which their administration planned further development of what Gore referred to as the Information Superhighway by the year 2000." (FYI - In Internet Explorer 6 [and probably 7 though I can't check it at the moment], if you go to the "Help" menu and then "About" it says: "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.") These events were largely pushed forward by Clinton and Gore and happened several years after Reagan left office. As a computer professional who was using the internet before Mosaic even existed, I felt it necessary to clear up the facts.

M - In Texas (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:02 PM)

Right now, I'm making 3 times what I made at the end of the Clinton administration (2000). My sister is making 2 times what she made and my brother-in-law has seen his salary go up 50%. So, don't tell me it's been bad for everyone. And no, we're not all "upper management".

The Dogg in Florida (Sent Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:00 PM)

The GOP Retreat on Friday. Now people so inclined can say that the Congress said they would meet 5 days a week and now they aren't meeting on Friday! Of course, they will conveniently forget to mention that the GOP won't be there Friday. And now for 5th grade politics. Bush will spend the entire day at the retreat with his party because he wants to. Then he will spend maybe 30 minutes at the Democrats meeting because he has to. He's hoping he can change some GOP minds, but I hope they are smarter than that. I hope they are beyond 5th grade politics.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:03 AM)

I'm 63 and retired due to physical infirmity. Thank heaven my husband's retirement benefits still exist and we can get health care insurance. The price has gone up every year. My children are experiencing the Bush economy in all it's contracted state. If they are diddling with the scientists' reports, I'm suspicious that the economic reports are being manipulated too. The debt service facing my grandchildren to be is wicked.

Ellen McLean, Jarrell, Texas (Sent Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:19 AM)

Thanks M the first part was theory so they helped but do not deserve all of the credit. We can add there names to Reagan's and Bill Gate's

Mad Mike (Sent Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:38 AM)

The Dogg In Fla.--Your post 01/30/07 9:00 pm The only suprise with your post is that your salary has only went up 3 times the amount from 2000. I think the true believers of Bush have seen their pay go up 5 to 10 times since he became President.

Seattle Sue (Sent Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:16 AM)

i loved bill & monica- and the earnest doo-gooder hill and her wonk friends. i loved how bill tried to appoint the great-looking zoe baird to the supreme court and get the military to accept gays. i loved bill being mobbed like a rock star in africa. i loved the way he slammed newt up against the lockers for trying to close the government. i loved how he got money wizard bob rubin's genius into economic planning. the other pols weren't even playing on the same field as bill. they still haven't caught up. what a pure natural. watching th present collection flounder around is comical in light of big bill's smooth, effortless style. basically the political elvis. a woman executive who saw it all coming led me by the nose into a no load fund with a 4% employer match right after they dragged sen bob kerry into the chamber to cast the deciding vot on the clinton tax increase. all CW said tax increase would tank us. and WOW! (and yes i was out in 5 yrs. a little early; but i'll take it- ALL of it LOL!)

ken (Sent Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:46 AM)

Do any of you libs make $50,000/year or more??? SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are "THE RICH" I hope you get taxed to death by your Democrat "saviors" in Congress, just like us "filthy rich" Republicans

jtb illinois (Sent Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:17 PM)

Sue...Thanks. It's pretty cool. My company actually tracks my voting and since they saw that I had voted Republican, senior management pulled me in and said that they were going to multiply my salary by 5. BUT...since I had voted for Bill Nelson over Katherine Harris, that was shaved to a multiple of 3. So, yes, you were right, my salary increases were only due to my voting pattern and had nothing to do with hard work and several thousand hours of self study to get a certification. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with a liberal viewpoint here is a "true believer" of Bush or must be "ultra-rich"? Personally, I am neither. And I have always disagreed with labeling "liberals" who disagree with the war as "unpatriotic". It would be nice if that courtesy was returned.

The Dogg in Florida (Sent Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:27 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=44664