A Shill in the Press Game: GANNON and LUNTZ

5 Questions the White House Must Answer About Jeff Gannon

“Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) is circulating a letter among his colleagues that asks President Bush to launch an investigation” into how Gannon gained access to White House press briefings without any journalistic qualifications. Here are some basic, substantive questions that must be answered by the White House:

HOW LONG CAN JOURNALISTS GAIN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT AN FBI BACKGROUND CHECK? Most White House journalists have what is called a “hard pass,” a permanent pass obtained after undergoing a rigorous FBI background check. Gannon skipped over that step. Instead, as Salon’s Eric Boehlert explains, “the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what’s called a day pass.” Now, day passes are special exceptions that are “designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need access to the White House, not for indefinite use by reporters.” If the background check is necessary for reporters with extended access to the White House, why were the rules circumvented for Gannon? Is there a limit to how long a reporter can slide on “day” passes, as Gannon did for years?

HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS TWO MONTHS BEFORE HIS SUPPOSED PUBLICATION EVEN EXISTED? Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted the White House gave Gannon his first day press pass in February 2003. The problem: His “publication,” Talon News, didn’t exist until April 2003.

BY WHAT CRITERIA DID THE WHITE HOUSE EVALUATE TALON NEWS? Talon News is the brainchild of a Republican activist from Texas, Bobby Eberle. Eberle, who runs the aptly named “GOPUSA,” told the New York Times he created Talon News because he wanted to quietly construct a news service with a conservative slant: “if someone were to see ‘GOPUSA,’ there’s an instant built-in bias there.” In denying Gannon a pass, the congressional press office pointed out Gannon was unable to show that “Talon News has any paid subscribers.” They also found that while actual working reporters can show their principal income comes from reporting stories for publication in actual news services, Talon’s “paying a single reporter a ’stipend’ does not meet the intent of the rule.” As the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank put it, Gannon was “representing a phony media company that doesn’t really have any such thing as circulation or readership.”

HOW DID GANNON GET A WHITE HOUSE PRESS PASS UNDER A FAKE NAME?: Jeff Gannon’s real name is James Guckert. (He told Wolf Blitzer that he changed his name because “Jeff Gannon” was easier to pronounce.) Although all applications for White House press passes are supposed to be thoroughly vetted, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said he was unaware that Gannon was using an alias. His predecessor, Ari Fleischer, also pleads ignorance. Gannon signed in to the White House each day as “Jeff Guckert,” a name which did not match his pass - yet no one seemed to think that was strange. In fact, no one at the White House seems overly concerned with what amounts to a stunning national security breach.

WHAT IS GANNON’S CONNECTION TO THE VALERIE PLAME CASE?: Jeff Gannon has been interviewed by FBI agents who are investigating another security breach in the White House, namely, the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name to the press. So far, Gannon has been coy, giving “conflicting signals, over many months, concerning whether he saw a secret document or merely knew about it from other sources.” Today he says he never really saw the memo, he’d only read about it in the Wall Street Journal. Reps. Conyers and Slaughter are asking Patrick Fitzgerald, the lead prosecutor in the Plame investigation, to subpoena the journal Gannon kept over the past two years to find out what Gannon actually knew, and when.

Luntz Watch: How to Be Frank Luntz’s Worst Nightmare

[Influential conservative strategist Frank Luntz has produced a 160-page playbook to advance the right-wing agenda. Think Progress cuts through the spin and gives you the tools you need to fight back. Check here for updates throughout the week.]

Luntz’s playbook is full of things people should never say if they don’t want to undermine the right-wing agenda. Here’s how you can be Frank Luntz’s worst nightmare:

Economy

• Talk about the economy using “facts and figures.”

• Talk about the overall size of Bush’s proposed tax cut.

• Describe how repealing the estate tax protects America’s wealthiest families.

• Talk about the economy without bringing up 9/11.

• Recall how Bill Clinton produced balanced budgets in the late 1990s.

Budget

• Remind people that conservatives want to make painful cuts in vital government services.

• Talk about the deficit without bringing up 9/11.

Social Security

• Remind people that the financial services industry has been embroiled in scandal and corruption.

• Note that money contributed to private accounts will “go into the hands of greedy Wall Street fat cats.”

• Point out that proponents of Social Security privatization “lack factual discipline.”

• Tell people that the push to privatize Social Security is about partisan politics.

Energy

• Tell people what ANWR stands for.

• Say, “We should rely on American ingenuity and not the Saudi Royal Family.”

• Talk about how drilling for oil harms the environment.

• Always say “Drilling for oil"; Never say “Exploring for energy.”

• Give specific examples of safety and security problems at nuclear power plants.

Patients’ Rights

• When talking about trial lawyers don’t use words like “creeps, bottom-feeds, overpaid and evil.”

• Say, “When innocent people who are injured seek compensation from those who cause their injuries it’s anything but frivolous. When a preventable careless medical error forces a child into a wheelchair for the rest of his life, it’s anything but frivolous. And when someone close to you suffers due to doctor negligence, their right to a day in court is anything but frivolous.”

Luntz Watch: Dueling with the “Death” Tax

“The death tax deserves to die.” That little wordplay is courtesy of right wing propagandist Luntz who then proceeds to describe “the language of death tax repeal [as] easy for working and retired Americans to understand and appreciate.” Besides continuing to casually deride the American citizens, Luntz presents some “common sense principles” behind repealing the death tax. Except his explanations don’t make sense themselves:

The death tax is the wrong tax. It accounts for just one percent of the nation’s revenues, and dollar for dollar, it costs more to collect than any other federal tax.

It hurts the wrong people. If you saved for the future, put away money for your children, built a small business, ran a family farm, or achieved the American Dream in other ways, the death tax punishes you and prevents you from sharing your dream and hard work with your loved ones.

In actuality, repealing the estate tax would reduce revenues for federal government and state governments - a permanent repeal “would cost $162 billion through 2013” - while providing a “massive windfall for some of the country’s wealthiest families,” as the estate tax affects only about 2 percent of America’s estates. Furthermore, even if the tax is repealed, the estates stand to “still be taxed at the state level.”

It helps the wrong people. The only people helped by the estate tax are the army of fancy lawyers, expensive tax accountants and IRS agents.

And by saying the tax “hurts the wrong people” Luntz must mean President Bush’s close allies; most of the individuals from his original cabinet would benefit from the repeal. The tax hurts millionaires, not the average American, but Luntz continues to villify lawyers, accountants, and the IRS. Luntz seems set on putting them in the crosshairs; earlier in his report he shows little sympathy for this part of our citizenry: “[N]o one will weep for the IRS agents, tax attorneys and CPAs who would rather keep a complicated, confusing and corrupt tax system in place than go out and get another job.”

Luntz is stunned by “just how easy it is to convince people of the absurdity of the death tax if you stick to these principles.” Yes, Luntz may find it “truly remarkable” that campaigns of half-truths and flat out lies can convince people of anything - even weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - but it certainly is not principled.

Electric Shock

Just a few years ago, President George W. Bush’s cronies at Enron stole billions of dollars from average Americans by gaming the energy markets. In Washington State, for instance, the company raked in almost $2 billion through illegal profiteering. Enron traders were caught on tape laughing about being “in the mood to screw with people” and “want[ing] to see what pain and heartache this is going to cause.”

But apparently for the Bush administration, consumers didn’t get fleeced enough. In his 2006 budget, the president is pushing to raise electricity rates in many of the same regions that were bilked by his friends at Enron. Specifically, Bush is pushing to make the Bonneville Power Administration (a network of publicly-owned dams and power plants) raise its electricity rates in order to help cover his tax-cut-induced deficits. It is a classic example of how Bush wants to rob average Americans (aka. electricity ratepayers) to finance his plans to pay off the rich.

Don’t believe me? Then believe some of Bush’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill, who are apalled at the brazen effort to bilk consumers. For instance, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) said, “if this plan is implemented, it would cost the Northwest hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars” and promised that “I am going to exhaust every right and privilege I have, as a Senator, to kill this proposal.”

I don’t expect Bush to back off on this proposal - remember, money talks in Washington.

The Gator Guarding the Hen House

The Department of Homeland Security has set up a committee to advise them on privacy issues. In theory this seems like a great idea. But the DHS has installed representatives from Cendant, SAIC and Claria on the privacy board.

This is the equivalent of putting Armstrong Williams on a federal advisory board for media ethics.

Cendant owns Galileo, a computer reservation system for airline travel. According to the Transportation Security Administration, Galileo “shared private information about their passengers” with the governement without their customer’s consent. The records included the travelers’ “name, address, phone number, e-mail address, credit card number and other personal details.”

SAIC is a major government contractor. Last month, a break-in at SAIC headquarters in San Deigo netted thieves “computers containing the Social Security numbers and other personal information about tens of thousands of past and present company employees.” Former weapons inspector David Kay - whose information was compromised because he used to work at SAIC - said, “I just find it unexplainable how anyone could be so casual with such vital information. It’s not like we’re just now learning that identity theft is a problem”

Claria is the internet advertising company formerly known as Gator. The company changed it’s name after being subject to criticism for having policies “not friendly to people who want reasonable levels of privacy.” The company was also sued “by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other media companies for installing unauthorized pop-up ads on their Web sites.”

Sounds like just the kind of folks we need advising the government on privacy issues.

How to Talk to a Conservative About Social Security (If You Must)

<>
The White House and their deep-pocketed allies have launched a $35 million public relations effort to spread misinformation about President Bush’s Social Security Privatization scheme. This fact sheet will arm you with all the facts you’ll need to take them on.

FISCAL OUTLOOK

CLAIM: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: In 2042, enough new money will be coming in to pay between 73-80 percent of promised benefits. Even with this reduction, new retirees will still receive more money, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than today’s beneficiaries. [WP, 2/5/05]

CLAIM: “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes.” [President Bush, 12/11/04]

FACT: “In 14 of the past 47 years, including 1975 to 1983, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll.” [MSNBC, 1/14/05]

FACT: Under Bush’s plan, expenditures will begin to exceed revenues even earlier, in 2012. [New York Times, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “Under the current system, today’s 30-year old worker will face a 27% benefit cut when he or she reaches normal retirement age.” [GOP Guide to Social Security Reform, 1/27/05]

FACT: According to the Congressional Budget Office, younger workers would receive better benefits from Social Security as it exists now, even if nothing changes, than from President Bush’s private accounts plan. [EPI, 2/05]

THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN / PRIVATE ACCOUNTS

CLAIM: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the accounts would be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only “if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.” But CBO factors out stock market risks to assume a 3.3 percent rate of return. With 0.3 percent subtracted for expected administrative costs on the account, “the full amount in a worker’s account would be reduced dollar for dollar from his Social Security checks, for a net gain of zero.” [WP, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “You’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Most lower-income workers will be required to purchase government lifetime annuities, financial instruments that provide a guaranteed monthly payment for life but that expire at death. Money in these annuities cannot be passed on to heirs. [NYT, 2/3/05]

CLAIM: “We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: “A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity [said] that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system’s long-term financial problems.” The long-term gap in revenue would “have to be closed through benefit cuts that have yet to be detailed.” [LAT, 2/3/05; WP, 2/5/05]

CLAIM: “A personal account would be your account, you would own it, and the government could never take it away.” [President Bush, 2/8/05]

FACT: Bush’s Social Security plan is a far cry from the private ownership he’s touting, however. For example, instead of private plans that let Americans control their own investments, there are tight restrictions on which conservative stocks and bonds the public will be allowed to buy. And, as the New York Times reports, “the more restrictions there are, the harder it would be for people to achieve the outsized returns the administration has generally promoted to sell the public on private accounts.” [NYT, 2/6/05]

CLAIM: “Best of all, the [private] accounts would be replacing the empty promises of government with the real assets of ownership.” [President Bush, 2/8/05]

FACT: Social Security trust funds “hold nothing but U.S. Treasury securities,” recognized as “the safest, most reliable investment worldwide.” [Century Foundation, 1/26/05]

CLAIM: “The problem that we now face is not one that we can tax our way out of, for a very simple reason: The costs and the current program are growing faster than the underlying tax base. So if we were to raise taxes today to deal with it, and the costs of the program continued to grow faster than the tax base, then in the future, future generations would simply have to come back and raise taxes again.” [Senior White House Official, Press Conference, 2/3/05]

FACT: An alternative proposal by Peter Diamond and Peter Orszag would resolve Social Security’s funding problems directly and permanently through modest tax increases. The Congressional Budget Office states that, “under Diamond-Orszag, the trust fund balance would always be positive and scheduled benefits would be fully financed.” [CBO, 12/22/04]

HISTORY

CLAIM: “Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century.” [President Bush, 2/2/05]

FACT: Conservatives have been trying to gut Social Security since its inception. Both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan endorsed privatization in 1964. In 1983, the Cato Institute laid out a privatization plan similar to President Bush’s, stating, “We will meet the next financial crisis in Social Security with a private alternative ready in the wings.” [Miami Herald, 2/7/05]

RHETORIC

CLAIM: “I think it’s important for people to be open about the truth when it comes to Social Security.” [President Bush, 2/4/05]

FACT: The Bush administration has lobbied hard for privatization while being notably closemouthed about the details. [WP, 2/6/05]

FACT: The Wall Street Journal reports the White House is quietly assembling a coalition of deep-pocketed allies “that will privately raise $35 million for an advertising and lobbying effort to push the politically risky measure through Congress.” [WSJ, 2/4/05]

CLAIM: “The role of a President is to confront problems – not to pass them on to a future President, future Congress, or a future generation.” [President Bush, 2/4/05]

FACT: Dick Cheney admits trillions of dollars in future borrowing will be necessary to cover the cost of establishing private accounts. This deficit would have to be repaid by today’s younger workers. [NYT, 2/6/05]