Category: Thomas Rains
High Salaries for Congressional Staff
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 – Until the late 1800s, members of Congress had to do all of their own work, from writing legislation to responding to constituents, without help from any staff members.
The Senate first authorized its members to hire clerks with public funds in 1884, and the House followed suit in 1893. This allowed each member to have one staffer. Until then, the committee chairmen were allowed staff members, but only the more wealthy congressmen hired personal staff, with their own money. With the new rules, the publicly-funded staffers were paid $6 per day for the length of the session.
Oh, how times have changed.
In fiscal year 2004, each of New Hampshire and Maine’s senators spent approximately $2 million in public funds to pay their staffs in Washington and in state offices. In the House, the New Hampshire and Maine representatives each spent about three-quarters of a million dollars on staff expenses, according to an analysis conducted for Foster’s Daily Democrat using records filed with the House and Senate. All of the figures in this story are based on fiscal year 2004, which ran from Oct. 1, 2003, to Sept. 30, 2004.
With an annual salary of $152,388.06, in fiscal year 2004, Steven Abbott, Sen. Susan Collins’ chief of staff, was the highest paid of any staff member working for New Hampshire and Maine’s members of Congress.
Each member of Congress is given a budget from which to pay for staff and office expenses but it is up to each member to decide how that money will be spent.
“Salaries in congressional offices are set in basically the same way as normal offices only at a lower amount,” said Brad Fitch, deputy director of the Congressional Management Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan organization.
When hiring and setting salaries, the applicants’ education and experience are considered as well as what they will bring to the office and their performance is evaluated when they are considered for raises, Fitch said.
The Senate
With a payroll of $2,018,825.19, Sen. Judd Gregg spent more on staff salaries than any member of Congress from New Hampshire and Maine, according to public records filed with the secretary of the Senate.
Gregg was followed closely by his Granite State colleague, Sen. John Sununu, who spent a total of $1,927,450.02 on his payroll.
The Maine senators’ payrolls were slightly less. Sen. Olympia Snowe spent $1,915,701.14 on her payroll, while her colleague Collins spent $1,879,850.49.
Collins’ payroll listed 99 staff members over the entire fiscal year, while Sununu’s only listed 43. Both Gregg and Snowe had staffs numbering somewhere in between.
Senators are permitted to hire as many employees as they want, as long as they do not go over their office budget, which is determined by state demographics and distance from Washington. Any money left over that the senators do not spend goes back to the federal treasury.
In the past six years Gregg has given back a total of $1.6 million, according to his communications director Erin Rath. Collins has returned more than $1 million since she was elected in 1996, and gives money back every year, press secretary Jen Burita said. Sununu has given back $400,000 since he arrived in the Senate in 2002, his communications director, Barbara Riley, said.
Senators salaries and pay raises are set by vote of the Senate. During 2004 all senators earned $157,250.02.
Some top aides were not far behind the senators themselves on the pay-scale- even some who lived in New Hampshire and Maine, where the cost of living is much lower than it is in Washington, D.C. All four of the New Hampshire and Maine senators’ chiefs of staff earned six-figure salaries,
The chief of staff is typically the highest ranking staff member in a congressional office and oversees all office matters involving employment, the budget, procedure and policy in addition to advising the senator on policy matters.
Steven Abbott, Sen. Collins’ chief of staff, was the highest paid of the four Senators’ chiefs of staff. Based in Washington, Abbottt made $152,388.06, in fiscal year 2004, including any bonuses he received.
Sen. Olympia Snowe’s current chief of staff John Richter, brought in $120,999.84 in fiscal year 2004. Antonia Ferrier, Snowe’s press secretary, would not comment on or confirm any of the staff salaries, which she said she did not know. “I would have to go look up people’s salaries,” she said, adding that that, “would be kind of weird.”
Freshman Sen. John Sununu’s Chief of Staff, Paul Collins, made $149,480.67 in fiscal year 2004. Collins, who is based in Portsmouth but often travels to Washington, has worked for Sununu since 1996 when he was first elected to Congress, according to Riley.
However, Collins’ counterpart in Sen. Judd Gregg’s office, chief of staff Joel Maiola, made almost $17,000 less in the same period, pulling in $132,864.86. Gregg communications director Rath noted in an email that Maiola’s annual salary is $145,000 but that he took time off in 2004 to do campaign work.
Maiola works out of both the Concord and Washington offices and has worked for Gregg since 1980 when Gregg was elected to the House, Rath said. Maiola was the only chief of staff out of the four New Hampshire and Maine offices who was not the highest paid staff member. In fact, he was the third highest paid.
Gregg’s administrative assistant, Vasiliki Christopoulos, made $145,925.70, though his annual salary, Rath said, was $142,000. This difference could have come from any bonuses she received. Christopoulos, who is based in Washington, joined Gregg’s staff after the 1992 campaign.
Gregg’s policy director and general counsel, John Mashburn, was the second highest-paid staff member in the senator’s office at $138,913.21. This was slightly more than his salary of $135,000, which – like Christopoulos – could be due to bonuses he received.
In the other three offices, the legislative directors were the second highest paid employees.
Sununu’s legislative director, Gregg Willhauck, made $99,690.34. Snowe’s legislative director, Carolyn Holmes, made $95,499.84, while Collins’ legislative director, James Dohoney, made $88,749.96.
Legislative assistants or communications directors were the third highest paid employees in Sununu, Snowe and Collins’ offices.
Michael O’Reilly, senior legislative assistant for Sununu, for example, made $95,470.66. O’Reilly joined the office in 2003 and is based in Washington.
Snowe’s legislative assistant, Samuel Horton, based in Washington, made $90,499.92.
Collins’ communications director, Jennifer Burita, made $83,749.86, making her the third highest paid staffer in Collins’ office.
These salaries are all above average for the Senate staffers, but generally Senate staff salaries are lower than the rest of the federal government.
There was a 32 percent pay disparity between Senate staff and federal staff, according to a Congressional Management Foundation report looking at 1991-2001, the most recent data available. The average Washington-based Senate salary was $49,236, and the average Washington-based federal employee salary was $64,969, according to the foundation.
Worse off were female Senate staffers, who only made 87 cents for every dollar earned by male staffers, according to the report. The average female salary was $45,845, while the average male salary was $52,876.
Senate staffers made out well compared with the U.S. labor force in general, however. According to the foundation study, Senate staffers made slightly more than the national average in 2001. The average Senate staff salary was $45,847, and the average U.S. labor force salary was $45,430.
The House
Rep. Thomas Allen of Maine’s First District had the highest payroll of the New Hampshire and Maine House delegations in fiscal year 2004 at $941,241.27.
Allen’s Maine colleague, Michael H. Michaud, had a slightly lower payroll at $835,400.46, while each of the New Hampshire representative’s payrolls was less.
Rep. Charlie Bass’ payroll was $734,909.67 for fiscal year 2004, while Rep. Jeb Bradley’s was $714,806.48.
House offices, unlike in the Senate, are limited to 18 full-time employees and four part-time employees at any given point in the year. The amount members can spend on their offices is determined by a formula that considers the district’s population and its distance from Washington.
Over the course of fiscal year 2004 Allen employed 30 different staffers, which was the most of the four legislators, and Bradley had the least at 22.
If the representatives do not use their entire budget, the money is returned to the House reserves.
Bass “usually doesn’t use his entire budget and gives back to the reserves,” press secretary Margo Shideler said.
Bradley press secretary Stephanie DuBois said he gave back $100,953 in 2003 and is projected to give back $250,000 in 2004.
Michaud’s press secretary confirmed the congressman has given back money from the total expense allowance granted for his office expenditures.
The representatives themselves each received a base salary of $158,100 in 2004, according to Fitch; but as in the Senate this money does not come out of the representatives’ office payrolls.
Also like the Senate, the House members’ top aides were not far behind their bosses in pay, though the average salary for House staffers is still lower than the rest of the federal government.
Just like their Senate counterparts, the chiefs of staff in the New Hampshire and Maine House offices were the highest paid staffers in those states’ delegations in fiscal year 2004.
Bass’ chief of staff, Darwin Cusack, who is based in Concord, brought in the most overall with $128,305.59. However, Shideler said Cusack’s salary was $125,000. This difference could be due to any bonuses Cusack received.
Allen’s chief of staff, Jacqueline Potter, made $120,900.01 in the fiscal year. Potter is based in Portland, but travels frequently to Washington.
Bradley’s chief of staff, Debra Vanderbeek, is based in Washington but still made less than her counterpart in Bass’ office, at $118,035.50 in fiscal year 2004.
Of the four New Hampshire and Maine congressmen, Michaud, a freshman at the time, paid his chief of staff, Peter Chandler, the least. Chandler, who is based in Washington, made $86,608.27. However, press secretary Monica Castellanos said this was due to time he took off from the office, and his salary is actually $92,000.
Allen’s and Bradley’s legislative directors brought in the second highest salaries in their respective offices, while Bass’ projects director and Michaud’s scheduler and executive assistant had the second highest salary in those offices.
Todd Stein, the legislative director in Allen’s office, is based in Washington and made $89,277.76. His counterpart in Bradley’s office, Michael Liles is based in Washington and made $69,844.43.
Bass’ projects director, Neil Levesque, who is based in New Hampshire, made $78,083.34. According to Shideler his salary was $75,000, and this difference could be due to bonuses.
Diane Smith, Michaud’s scheduler and executive assistant, is based in Lewiston and made $65,821.77, though Castellanos said his base salary was $60,000.
The third highest-paid positions varied by office.
Allen’s communications director, Mark Sullivan, made $73,872.24 and is based in Portland, though he frequently travels to Washington.
Michaud’s legislative director and deputy chief of staff, Matthew Robinson, is based in Washington and made $60,397.45 though his base salary was $57,800.
Bradley’s Washington-based projects director, Frank Guinta, made $56,694.40.
Bass’ Washington-based legislative director, Tad Furtado, made $73,611.08, but his salary was $75,000 .These differences could be due to any time the employees took off or any bonuses they received.
The New Hampshire and Maine staff salaries are on par with the rest of the House, according to the results of a not-yet-released Congressional Management Foundation study. According to the report, the average salary for a House chief of staff is $118,098.
House legislative directors generally made $70,602, while press secretaries or communications directors made $53,791, and top legislative assistants made, on average, $49,495.
Like the Senate, there is a disparity between what women and men earn: On average in 2004, according to the study, women on the House side earned 84 cents for every dollar men earned.
These statistics only account for what a staff member is paid from the congressman’s “clerk-hire” budget, and do not include salary from any committee staffs they may be on. Frequently staff members will work on committee staff as well as on the member’s staff, which means they may draw earnings from both.
“The NFL of Government”
The profile of the average congressional staff member is young, well-educated and single, according to the Congressional Management Foundation. The summary of the foundation’s House Study said, “This profile is in sharp contrast to the profile of the average worker nationwide.”
However, Fitch summed it up in layman’s terms. “There are no weak performers in congressional offices,” he said.
The staff members are “very bright, very intelligent,” Fitch said, and Capitol Hill is essentially “like the NFL of government.”
Republicans and Democrats Look at Future of New Hampshire Primary
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 9 - As the dust settles on the 2004 presidential race, some party insiders are turning back to where the campaigns began-New Hampshire-to look for ways to improve the primary process.
The Granite State's first-in-the-nation primary status has been threatened in recent years by other states attempting to preempt it or overshadow it. Michigan tried after the 2000 election, and Delaware, New York and California have tried too. However, no state has succeeded.
The Democratic National Committee is planning a commission to study the effectiveness of holding the first primary in New Hampshire. And, with the loss of Sen. John Kerry, who had promised to help the state keep its place at the front of the line, the status is even more up in the air.
"On the Democratic side [committee] Chairman Terry McAuliffe had to dispense with a challenge from Michigan" after the 2000 elections, said Michael Chaney, president and chief executive officer of the New Hampshire Political Library.
The bipartisan, non-profit Political Library was established in 1997 by the late Gov. Hugh Gregg, father of Sen. Judd Gregg, as a way of helping to protect New Hampshire's unique political status.
For Republicans, things will be the same in 2008.
The "Rules Committee for the [Republican National Committee] soundly reinstated rules for the Republican primary in 2008," said Chaney, a delegate to the Republican National Convention last summer in New York. "They recognize tradition and history."
In addition, President George W. Bush made it clear that he would protect the primary's first-in-the-nation status.
"There are a number of people," Chaney said, "who are already thinking about running." At the Republican National Convention last summer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain, New York Gov. George Pataki and others with rumored presidential aspirations spoke to the New Hampshire delegates over breakfast.
Since then, McCain has made stops in New Hampshire unrelated to his campaign visits for Bush.
In response to Michigan's challenge, McAuliffe agreed to appoint a commission to examine the primary process after the 2004 general election but before the end of the year. According to Chaney, this commission would include Democratic committee members, academics and past candidates.
One argument against New Hampshire and Iowa-with its early caucuses- is that they do not represent a good cross section of the nation as a whole.
New Hampshire and Iowa's populations are 95.1 percent and 92.6 percent Caucasian, respectively, while the population of the United States as a whole is only 69.1 percent Caucasian, according to The Almanac of American Politics . Some wonder if this would hinder African-American candidates with viable resumes in the future, such as Democratic freshman Illinois Sen. Barack Obama or J.C. Watts, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma.
Michigan's population, on the other hand, is 78.6 percent Caucasian and New York is 62 percent, according to The Almanac .
Terry Shumaker, executive director of the New Hampshire branch of the National Education Association and a Political Library board member, argues that the Granite State is as representative as a state is going to be, even if the demographics do not match.
"We are urban and rural. We are agricultural and industrialized," he said in a telephone interview. "No state is going to be completely representative."
Rich Ashooh, however, claims this argument is just a frequently-used red herring. Ashooh, a vice president at BAE Systems, was a delegate to the Republican National Convention last summer in New York and is a board member at the Political Library.
"New Hampshire has never pretended to be representative of the nation," Ashooh said in a telephone interview. He added: "If you take the early phase of the primary-caucus process in total, you start to get a pretty good representation of the nation."
This early phase includes the Iowa caucuses before the New Hampshire primary and the South Carolina primary afterwards.
This early phase has become crowded in recent years due to "frontloading," or other states moving their primary ahead on the calendar to receive more attention from candidates.
Kerry's narrow, comeback victory in the Iowa caucuses gave him the momentum to win in New Hampshire's primary a week later after being down in the polls by more than 30 points earlier in the campaign. He then virtually wrapped up the nomination before "Super Tuesday" just two months later when several large states around the country held their primaries on the same day. If the primaries had been spread out with more time in between each of the early ones, some say it would have given candidates such as John Edwards and Howard Dean a better chance to recover from their losses in New Hampshire and Iowa.
To solve the frontloading problem and give the candidates more time to campaign with less traveling, some have suggested a regional primary system that would group states together according to their region of the country for primaries at the same time. By doing this, candidates could focus on several states at one time.
Already things could be changing. California decided recently to return its primary back to June from March. Initially they moved up their primary in an attempt to attract the candidates there.
Currently Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a "true believer" in the New Hampshire primary according to Chaney, is pushing for western states to adopt a regional process, and the National Association of Secretaries of States also has advocated a regional system.
All of the regional primaries would come after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, and the regions would rotate every four years, according to Chaney. This, he said, would fix the problem of frontloading in the primary calendar and would retain the "small rural character and political tradition" that allows for weeks of one-on-one campaigning to all the residents of the Granite State.
Ashooh and others argue that New Hampshire is important because it is different.
New Hampshire does not have one "single driving issue" that could "tip the scales" by good pandering by a candidate with plenty of money to spend on big-time advertising. For example, Ashooh added, candidates can do well in Iowa if they are strong on farming issues, while union worker issues play well in Michigan. But, in New Hampshire most of the major issues are of concern, but there is not a focus on one of them.
In fact, the New Hampshire Political Library prides itself on the fact that a small-time candidate can make a big name for himself in the Granite State without "big money and big media," as Ashooh put it.
Howard Dean became a national figure because of media coverage of the New Hampshire primary, Ashooh said. "John McCain is a national icon, and it's all because of New Hampshire. He was not a big money candidate. He was not personally wealthy." he added.
"It is possible to run in New Hampshire for president with a minimal amount of resources and do well," he said, while adding that this is not possible in larger states where television advertising can help candidates more than in New Hampshire.
"Participatory democracy is alive and well" in the Granite State, Shumaker said. "The New Hampshire primary is not to pick the winner," he added, saying that it was about giving the candidates a chance to "work out the kinks" and "assemble a campaign team."
"It's like spring training," Shumaker said of the campaigns preparing on the small stage of New Hampshire, "because if you do well, you'll have to go national."
"If the United States cherishes its tradition of giving anybody a shot at the presidency," Ashooh said, it has to keep New Hampshire's primary first in line because it allows for candidates who are not well-known nationally to reach out and meet the voters one-on-one.
This also means the candidates are scrutinized more thoroughly by the voters.
Literature for the Political Library describes the scene of a fresh presidential candidate preparing for a discussion of his "newly unveiled economic plan," which "is apparently familiar to some in the audience, as he sees copies dog-eared from close readings."
This may be a fictionalized setting, but according to Shumaker it rings true.
"A lot of successful candidates and unsuccessful candidates have said that they were better presidents and better candidates" because of the "retail" politicking required in the New Hampshire primary, he said.
Shumaker was the co-chair of then-Gov. Bill Clinton's New Hampshire campaign in 1992 and said the would-be president was forced to develop his economic policy proposals more fully while campaigning there, and this helped him later in the national campaign.
Bush and Kerry Vie for Pocketbook Issues
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 28 - Pocketbook issues have always been of the utmost importance to voters, and while the war in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism may have become pivotal issues in this campaign, the economy remains an important factor voters will consider.
Bush and Kerry have distinct stances on how to deal with the U.S. economy over the next four years, and during the third presidential debate in St. Louis each laid out the their overarching goals on healthcare, jobs, Social Security and taxes. Each used the debate - like candidates have in years past - to distinguish himself from his rival.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 45 million Americans, or 15.2 percent of the population, do not have health insurance, an increase of 5 million since 2001. Employers around the country have scaled back or cut out their employee coverage, and insurance premiums have increased since 2001 by more than 50 percent on average.
Each side has addressed this issue with its own plan.
Bush's plan calls for giving individuals a $1,000 annual tax credit to purchase health insurance and making health savings accounts tax-deductable. These accounts allow individuals to put away money tax-free for health coverage.
"These are accounts that allow somebody to buy a low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic plan and couple it with tax-free savings," Bush said in St. Louis. "Businesses can contribute; employees can contribute on a contractual basis."
Bush also advocates medical malpractice reform that would cap medical malpractice awards at $250,000.
However, Kerry's plan focuses on creating a better prescription drug benefit that would allow for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada, and reimbursing employers who pay for three quarters of the cost of "catastrophic cases" for their employees if they insure all of their workers.
"In the Senate we passed the right of Americans to import drugs from Canada," Kerry said in the debate. "But the president and his friends took it out in the House, and now you don't have that right." Kerry added that Bush "made it illegal - illegal - for Medicare to actually go out and bargain for lower prices."
The senator went on to explain that his plan would allow for individuals "to buy into the same health care plan that senators and congressmen give themselves," a proposal which Bush does not support.
Bush and Kerry also disagree over how best to deal with Social Security in the coming years. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan announced last summer that Social Security would have to be adjusted for it to provide the same benefits to future retirees that it does currently.
Bush advocates letting citizens put some of the money collected by Social Security into private savings accounts.
"I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust," Bush said.
Kerry's plan is more traditional, fixing the problem through 2075, he says, by repealing some of Bush's tax cuts. Bush's plan, Kerry says, is an "invitation to disaster" that would take $2 trillion from Social Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"Just that tax cut that went to the top one percent of America would have saved Social Security until the year 2075," Kerry said, noting that the Democrats balanced the budget in the 1990s.
One of Kerry's main campaign points is job creation. He likes to point out that Bush is the first president since the Great Depression to preside over a net loss of jobs. While Kerry often over-simplifies this issue, and while the numbers could change by January, he is correct. Herbert Hoover's presidential term, from 1929 to 1933, was the last in which the overall number of American jobs decreased.
Bush believes in providing more education and new training for workers who have lost their jobs, while Kerry advocates closing loopholes in the tax code that make it beneficial for companies to move their factories overseas.
"Here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century," Bush said, when asked what he would say to someone whose job had been sent overseas. He also said that educating citizens well was the best way to make the economy grow.
Kerry, however, said he would try to make the "playing field" level in the corporate tax system.
"Today, if you're an American business, you actually get a benefit for going overseas," he said in St. Louis.
"That's not smart," the senator added. "And when I'm president, we're going to shut that loophole in a nanosecond and we're going to use that money to lower corporate tax rates in America for all corporations, five percent. And we're going to have a manufacturing jobs credit and a job hiring credit so we actually help people be able to hire here."
Taxes are also a major sticking point between Bush and Kerry.
Kerry frequently chides Bush for giving the richest citizens of the country a tax break and causing the deficit to increase dramatically. The senator's plan calls for rolling back the tax cuts enacted in 2001 on those Americans making more than $200,000 a year, and raising the minimum wage over several years to seven dollars an hour. In addition, the senator has called for reinstating "pay-as-you-go" rules from the 1990s, which require funding plans for how to pay for new spending proposals.
Bush argues that everyone benefited from the tax cuts of the past four years. Specifically, tax credits were given to married people and persons with children. Bush also considers the overhaul of the federal role in education he signed into law to be a job creation act, because theoretically it helps children receive a better education, which in turn helps them get better employment.
The two have elaborated on their own plans and attacked their opponents' plans. Both Bush and Kerry have set out different economic paths for the country regarding the future of Social Security, health care and job creation, among many other things. And, if things go smoothly, the country will know on Wednesday which path it will follow.
Bush and Kerry Contrast on Iraq, Homeland Security
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 21 -The Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq have brought foreign policy to the forefront of the 2004 presidential campaign.
For years Americans would "vote their pocketbooks," but now the threat of terrorism competes with economic issues as the voters' main concern. Because of this, George W. Bush and John F. Kerry have repeatedly expressed their positions on foreign policy, on the future of the war in Iraq and on homeland security.
On Iraq, the President and senator agreed before the Iraq war on the possibility that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to U.S. national security.
Kerry voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq in 2002, yet they disagree on the timing of the war, the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and the state of the "Coalition of the Willing" that Bush assembled to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.
In a second term, Bush has implied he would continue his administration's policy of fighting terrorists in countries that harbor them.
"This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," Bush said in the first presidential debate in Miami on Sept. 30.
Kerry, on the other hand, has said that as president he would work hard through summits and diplomacy to rebuild alliances that he says Bush has let disintegrate.
"I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances," Kerry said at the same debate.
In the first debate the candidates addressed issues relating to foreign policy. The debate provided a strong comparison of the two candidates' positions in a campaign that many have argued was starved of discussion about important issues..
While he voted in favor of allowing Bush to invade Iraq, Kerry disagrees with Bush's timing for the invasion. During the debate, the senator said that America needed to be smarter in its execution of force in the world, and then explained his reasoning.
"Smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden," Kerry said, "and taking it off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein."
Bush defends his decision to invade Iraq, and has stuck throughout the campaign to his belief that he made the right decision.
"In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize," Bush said in Miami. "We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction."
In the months after the actual combat mission to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, American troops have battled insurgents while they have tried to ready Iraq for elections and complete sovereignty. Kerry has accused Bush of not preparing for this phase of the operation and has said the United States must hold a summit to bring allies into the reconstruction process, while Bush has said the coalition must push forward and work towards letting the Iraqis be free.
"He rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace," Kerry said during the debate. "You don't take America to war unless you have the plan to win the peace."
Bush has focused on the ultimate goal.
"A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential," Bush said. "A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."
Kerry agrees that a free Iraq is the goal; however, his method is different from Bush's current course.
"I've laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit, by doing better training, faster," Kerry said. "By doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N and the elections."
"Our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace," the senator said.
Bush has stuck to his plan, and reiterated this in the debate.
"There are 100,000 troops trained--police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year," Bush said. "Yes, we're getting the job done."
Training of the Iraqis is being done by forces from the Coalition of the Willing, which is currently made up of 28 countries. There are approximately 133,000 foreign troops in Iraq, of which about 112,000 are from the United States, according to the British Broadcasting Corp. Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for this preponderance of American soldiers and claims that there should be a greater international presence.
"What we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in [the Iraq war]," Kerry said. "But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states." Kerry also accused Bush of turning away the help of the United Nations.
Bush, who touts the countries of the coalition on a regular basis during campaign speeches, disagrees with the senator and says that a president cannot build a coalition when "you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq."
Bush added that "Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I'm the President."
On the issue of homeland security, Kerry has repeatedly accused Bush of not providing enough resources to protect the United States from another terrorist attack, and has said that before Sept. 11 the President was against a Department of Homeland Security. However, Bush did support creation of the department, providing the largest overhaul of homeland security in the country's history.
Bush stands by his actions but Kerry says he has not done enough.
Kerry accuses Bush of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and funding Iraqi police officers instead of spending enough money to secure ports, tunnels, bridges and subways and bolster first responder resources in the United States.
Bush refutes this.
During the debate Bush noted that he had "tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security" and said the country has added more border patrol on the Mexican border and was working to do the same on the Canadian border.
Bush also defends the controversial Patriot Act, which Congress passed after the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush calls it "vital" that Congress renew it to allow "our law enforcement to disrupt terror cells."
Many critics of the Patriot Act argue that it violates the civil liberties of Americans while not doing enough to stop terrorists in the United States.
Kerry voted for it in the Senate but he argues that some parts of it must be changed. According to his campaign website, Kerry would keep 95 percent of the provisions of the act. Among other things, specifically he wants to strengthen the provision that cracks down on money laundering. He also wants to revise the provision that gives the government the power to search a person's library records, by requiring a judicial review of the evidence before a search is allowed.
Kerry and Bush both have clearly stated their positions on the role of the United States in the world, on the war on terrorism and on homeland security. In the post-Sept. 11 world these issues will play a bigger role when voters go to the polls on Nov. 2 than they have in past elections.
###
Bradley vs. Nadeau in Money Race
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 20 - With less than two weeks until Election Day, Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley and his Democratic challenger Justin Nadeau are heading into the final stretch of their campaigns with funding that has poured in from New Hampshire and beyond.
According to their campaign finance reports filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission, both candidates have benefited from special interest money and both have received at least a portion of their funding from outside the Granite State.
Bradley, running for a second term in the House of Representatives, had raised nearly a million dollars by Sept. 30.
Of this $925,197, 46 percent came from special interest groups that include defense-related political action committees and party committees nationwide among other organizations, while the rest came from individual contributions, according to Federal Election Commission filings and analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research group. Bradley had spent $616,900 by the end of September.
Nadeau, a Portsmouth attorney, also has benefited from out-of-state special interest group money. However, as the challenger in a race against an incumbent, Nadeau faces an uphill battle in raising campaign funds, and at the end of September Nadeau had raised just over a quarter of a million dollars.
PAC contributions accounted for 17 percent, around $48,000, of Nadeau's war chest at the end of September, while 22 percent, more than $62,000, came from the candidate himself and the rest from individual contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In all, Nadeau had raised $277,760 and spent $263,168 of it by Sept. 30.
Bradley, a member of the Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees in the House, has received $24,650 from the BAE Systems North America's PAC and employees, making BAE his largest contribution source in the 2004 election cycle.
The Rockville, Md., based BAE Systems North America touts itself as "one of the top 10 suppliers to the U.S. Department of Defense" on its website and is one of the largest employers in the Granite State. It has locations in Hudson, Merrimack and Nashua and is a subsidiary of the multinational BAE Systems plc.
Bradley cited this New Hampshire connection as the reason for their contributions, noting that they provide more than 3,000 jobs in New Hampshire.
"I think it's important to do everything I can to protect those jobs," Bradley said, adding that he has "advocated for them to preserve jobs in New Hampshire."
Nadeau's top contributor is his own law firm, Nadeau Law Offices, which has given $9,000 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
But he also has received $5,000 from the Arab American Leadership PAC, which has donated to Republican Sen. John Sununu and former Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio in the past, according to the FEC. Both Nadeau and Sununu are of Lebanese decent, said Nadeau's campaign director Steve Marchand.
Bradley has benefited from contributions from other congressional members around the country. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than $100,000 of Bradley's campaign money has come from Republican campaign committees and "leadership PACs" from around the country.
Among others, Friends of Katherine Harris gave $1,000 to Bradley's campaign. Rep. Harris, R-Fla., received national attention four years ago as Florida Secretary of State during the 2000 election recounts. The Hastert for Congress Committee of House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois gave a combined total of $3,000.
However, Bradley is not alone. Nadeau also has benefited from a campaign committee contribution. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., donated $500 through his reelection committee to the Democratic challenger's campaign.
Lantos, whose district includes the San Francisco Bay Area, is the father of Katrina Swett, who ran as a Democrat against Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., in 2002.
Geographically, both Bradley and Nadeau have received more money from greater Boston than any other area. Bradley received $98,450 from greater Boston, which includes southern New Hampshire, while Nadeau got $56,346, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
###
Gregg Preps Bush
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, OCT 7 - After last week's presidential debate provided a boost in the polls for Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Judd Gregg, the Bush campaign's Kerry stand-in, could expect more sparring practice in preparation for Friday's debate, experts said.
"The pressure is on [President] Bush now to overcome that perception that was left in the last debate," said Alan Schroeder, author of Televised Presidential Debates: 40 years of High-Risk TV and a journalism professor at Northeastern University.
This time around, the president " will understand the stakes," Schroeder said, adding, "I think we'll see a different style from him."
Gregg is a veteran of the debate preparation process. He played the role of Al Gore for Jack Kemp in 1996 and again for then-Gov. Bush in 2000. Now he is playing Kerry for the Bush campaign. However, after the president's performance last week, there have been some questions regarding Gregg's effectiveness.
Larry Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, said he thought Gregg may not have been tough enough with the president in the mock debates.
"That may be one reason Bush did so poorly last Thursday," Sabato said. "It's really important [that Gregg] be rough. It's like a sparring partner."
Joanne Ciulla, a professor of leadership studies at the University of Richmond, had a similar theory about the first debate but said she believes it will be different the second time around.
"Bush has gotten himself so insulated from anyone who dissents from him," Ciulla said, that he was unprepared for Kerry's forceful charges against him.
"Bush is obviously comfortable with" Gregg, Schroeder said. "There is a personal relationship there," and they "always want to pick people they know and trust because you don't want people blabbing about the debate preps."
Gregg's office refused to comment for this article.
Ciulla, Schroeder and Sabato each said that while Gregg was a good choice for a sparring partner in preparing for the first debate, he may have focused on the wrong aspects of the bout.
"I think in the first session he may have focused on getting Bush up on the policy, since Kerry is such a policy wonk," Ciulla said.
But Ciulla is sure this will change before the second debate. Gregg will likely "put the heat on Bush and let him figure out how to handle it," she said, adding that Gregg will "throw some serious charges and insults at [Bush] to really try and get his goat."
Gregg needs to "make him mad repeatedly," Sabato said. Bush "needs to learn anew to take [criticism] with a smile," because "he's not used to being challenged. He was obviously angry" during the last debate, Sabato added.
"Everybody's probably telling him, 'Have better control of your face,'" Ciulla said, who added that rest is also an important ingredient of preparation. "You have to go in and be as rested and as sharp as you can be," she said.
Schroeder agreed that the president's facial expressions did not help him.
"The grimaces, the weird facial expressions, the blinking" Schroeder said, "contributed to his loss in the first debate."
"You can compare it to Nixon perspiring on camera in 1960," he added.
But there is only so much a sparring partner can do.
"No amount of preparation can turn a bad debater into a good one," Schroeder said. When debate time comes, "it is up to the star."
###
Indian Museum Lacks Northern New England Artifacts
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON – There are 800,000 pieces in the collection of the Museum of the American Indian that opened here this week, but visitors from northern New England may have trouble finding many pieces from their neck of the woods any time soon.
The entire collection includes only seven artifacts from Maine, five from Massachusetts and two from New Hampshire, according to museum public affairs assistant Leonda Levchuk.
And, of the 800,000 pieces, only about 10 percent of them are on display at any given time, said Levchuk, who could not confirm if any of the northern New England pieces are currently displayed.
“Possibly the projectile points” are on display in the Window on Collections, she said, referring to a part of the museum that gives visitors a glance at other parts of the assortment of artifacts not featured in any of the core exhibits.
Nine of the 14 pieces from the three states – including both pieces from New Hampshire – are identified as projectile points. These could have been arrow tips, spear points or scrapers.
Maine’s other pieces include an Abenaki-Penobscot wampum necklace, which is made of seashells, two birch bark boxes and covers of Abenaki-Penobscot and Micmac origin. The other Massachusetts pieces include a Pennacook cornhusk basket and a Mahican wood and metal club.
Generally, the museum’s collection comes from areas of the United States outside of the Northeast. Pieces from the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes region, the North American plains and both southwestern and southeastern United States make up much of the collection, while a “substantial array of materials” comes from Central and South America and the Caribbean, according to the museum’s Website.
While there is no doubt that the American Indians in the Northeast played a major role in the history of the United States, the museum is based entirely on the personal collection of one man: a rich New Yorker by the name of George Gustav Heye, Levchuk said. Because of this the collection is based on Heye’s personal whim, not on geographic or tribal representation.
Heye, who died in 1957, often traveled out west and was “rabid in his collection,” Levchuk said. He “would buy anything,” she added, which is the reason the museum has so many pieces from South America.
However, the museum is “always looking to accept new things,” Levchuk said. That can be a struggle, especially when dealing with Northeastern tribes, because their artifacts are the oldest and most sought after.
“The artifacts are very precious and very scarce,” said Gayle Andrews-Chamberlain of the northeastern relics, adding that many of them are still being fought over by the tribes.
Andrews-Chamberlain, in Washington for the opening of the museum, is a member of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of Cape Cod, but now lives in Tallahassee, Fl.The number oftribes in Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire that are federally or state-recognized today is small, but some people, including Andrews-Chamberlain, think this is not important.
“If you practice customs and understand who you are, you don’t need to be recognized,” Andrews-Chamberlain, whose tribe is not recognized, said. “The benefit, though, is sovereignty,” which means they are not subject to American laws.
In addition to the small number of recognized tribes, “Native Americans,” according to The Almanac of American Politics, make up less than one half of one percent of the population in these New England states.
###
Michelle Hopey contributed to this story.
Sununu Visits United Nations
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON – New Hampshire Sen. John E. Sununu kicked off his year-long appointment as a congressional delegate to the United Nations Tuesday by attending the opening of debate at the 59th U.N. General Assembly in New York City, listening to President Bush’s speech and meeting with several international figures.
Calling the speech “very well received,” Sununu said in a phone interview Tuesday that the president was “able to connect with the international representation” in the United Nations to discuss the importance of establishing a representational Iraqi government that respects, among other things, “liberty and religious tolerance.”
Last week the Granite State Republican said through a press release that “the international community continues to face complex issues, and the United Nations remains an important organization to facilitate global cooperation.”
While Sununu said Tuesday that he has not “set out any formal time table,” he will have the opportunity to meet with the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York City and speak with them about priority issues over the course of the next year.
“New Hampshire being fairly close to New York City,” he said, “I think I will have the opportunity to visit several more times in the coming year.”
The senator said these priority missions range from humanitarian efforts in Sudan to management reform within the United Nations itself.
On Tuesday Sununu began discussing these issues with key figures at the United Nations. He had several meetings that included a “very good briefing” by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth on reform efforts underway in the United Nations and a meeting with undersecretary-general for management Catherine Bertini, who is in charge of the U.N.’s budget and capital master plan.
Sununu also met with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, whose country is “more involved than any of Sudan’s [other] neighbors in facilitating a peace process” and bringing an end to the civil war there.
Sununu and Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy were nominated by the president on Sep. 13 to serve as congressional members of the U.S. delegation. The junior senator from New Hampshire called this an “honor,” in the release last week.
According to Foreign Relations Committee press secretary Andy Fisher, Sununu was confirmed by the committee and then the Senate on Monday.
Leahy, who served as a U.N. congressional delegate in 1994, is frequently at odds with the Bush Administration, but Sununu said the Vermont Democrat’s experience has been an asset.
“He’s been very helpful to me in understanding what our role is and what the opportunities are,” Sununu said.
Sununu and Leahy were recommended to the president for nomination by Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and senior committee Democrat Joseph Biden, D-Del.
Fisher said Lugar’s first choice for the position was Sununu – mainly because of his chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism. Because of this, Fisher said, the position would be “particularly important” to Sununu.
Each year one Republican and one Democratic member of Congress are picked to serve as delegates to the UN General Assembly, according to Fisher. While not legally required, the delegates alternate annually between Senate and House members. Last year, Reps. Donald M. Payne, D-N.J., and Amo Houghton Jr., R-N.Y., served as delegates.
###
Chafee Not Voting for Bush; Gregg Comforts Him
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, SEP. 5 --At least two of his fellow New England Republicans aren't ready to write Sen. Lincoln Chafee out of the GOP despite the Rhode Island senator's announcement last week that he would not vote for President Bush on Nov. 2.
Chafee said he would instead write in the name of another Republican, possibly the first President Bush, as a symbolic protest.
In an interview, Tuesday Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire responded to Chafee's announcement by calling the Republican Party a "big tent" that has room for different views. He added that Chafee's fiscal conservatism aligns him with many Republicans. This "big tent" characteristic does not apply to the Democratic Party, Gregg said, quipping that Democrats do not allow anyone in who does not support abortion rights.
Chafee supported Bush's election bid in 2000 even though he disagreed with many of Bush's policies. Since then Chafee has voted against opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development, opposed authorizing force in Iraq, and voted against. Bush's 2003 tax cut.
While Chafee has sided with Democrats on many issues, Gregg called Chafee a "strong Republican" and does "not at all" think the he will defect like Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords, who moved from Republican to independent in 2001.
Jeffords, however, may have something to say about that.
"I understand the feelings he has," Jeffords told The New York Times on Monday. "I'm going to be talking to him, so I'm not going to say any more." Jeffords was unavailable for further comment Tuesday,
Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine said she respects Chafee's decision but does not agree with him.
"Sen. Chafee's decision is his own," said Antonia Ferrier, communications director for Snowe, whom Ferrier described as having a "good, strong friendship" with Chafee.
Like Chafee, Snowe frequently votes with Democrats on cultural issues and some economic ones, but she has typically voted with Republicans on foreign policy and defense issues.
"Sen. Snowe is firmly behind the president's re-election campaign," Ferrier added.
According to Gregg, Chafee is simply in line with the views of his constituents in Rhode Island. New England, Gregg said, has gotten "more liberal" over the years, while the Republican Party has become "more western and southern" in its geographic representation.
Chafee is the only Republican member of Congress from Rhode Island, which Al Gore carried in 2000 with 61 percent of the vote. The state's other senator, Jack Reed, has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate, according to The Almanac of American Politics , while the state's two representatives have similar voting records.
But, loyalty runs deep in the Grand Old Party, and Chafee has a history with the moderate wing of the Republican Party.
His father, John Chafee, was a Republican governor and senator from Rhode Island who named his son after President Abraham Lincoln. At age 11, Chafee went with his father to the 1964 Republican National Convention and has said he remembers the hostility supporters of Barry Goldwater directed at more moderate Nelson Rockefeller supporters.
###
