Sunday Snapshot -- A Healthy Dose Of Questions

Plenty of games were played across the dial this Super Sunday. A majority of guests were asked about HHS Sec.-designate Tom Daschle's failure to pay his taxes on time, with many of them responding that they needed more information from the well-respected ex-Senate Maj. Leader.

Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell: "Let me first say that Tom Daschle is very popular in the Senate. He's been a great public servant for a long time. And all of us know him very well, obviously. ... The Senate Finance Committee is meeting tomorrow to go over this and to come up with recommendations for the rest of us. And I think I'm going to just wait until they give me their opinion. But it was a surprise."

McConnell, asked if it puts sens. like him in a hard place: "Well it does raise some questions about the vetting process. This is now the second time that we've had a similar incident; first with the nominee for secretary of the Treasury and now with Senator Daschle. I think the administration ought to take a look at its vetting process" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 2/1).

After the jump, Gregg as commerce sec., the stimulus bill's chances in the Senate, Wall Street bonuses and new RNC Chair Steele's goals.

(KATHERINE LEHR)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), asked if Daschle's tax problem disqualifies him: "It may be. I want to find out more about it. But it's disheartening, obviously. ... I can see now why liberals don't mind if the tax rate goes up, because they're not going to pay it anyway. And so, yes, it frustrates me. It did with our Treasury nominee. But we need to look at it. ... I wish they would just say, 'Hey, our tax code is just incomprehensible. We need to change it'" ("This Week," ABC, 2/1).

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), asked how much trouble Daschle's nod is in: "I'm on the Finance Committee, and I just got the report late Friday afternoon. So we'll have to question former Senator Daschle and understand his explanation, and then have a conversation about it and see where it goes. I think it's too early to tell."

Kyl, asked if he's troubled by it: "You have to be troubled by it. I just have to note, you know, with the problems that now Secretary Geithner had with his taxes, with these problems, with former senator Daschle, with the problems of Bill Richardson, the number two person brought into the defense department, I know that President Obama wanted to have a very ethical administration starting out and so on, but I think he's seeing how hard it is to avoid these kind of problems. And I just wonder if President Bush had nominated these people what folks would be saying about that" ("Fox News Sunday," 2/1).

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): "We don't know yet enough about the details. It certainly concerns me. I know Tom Daschle. I respect him. I worked well with him when he was the majority leader. But this is a legitimate issue. The Finance Committee is going to meet tomorrow. We need some answers. We need more of an explanation than we have now. It's an awful lot of money" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), asked if this is going to be t-ball for GOPers in the political sphere: "Well, I don't know about t-ball for Republicans. But, certainly, the media should be looking into this very closely. We have to look at the details of exactly what Tom Daschle knew, what he didn't know. And I think all of this will come out during the hearings. But a bigger problem is that our new president has talked about not only cleaning up his administration but also getting rid of the whole revolving door. Well, Tom Daschle was part of that revolving door. ... If we want the American people to trust us in Washington, D.C., we have to do things in a different way" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): "I like Tom Daschle personally, and I think that on the merits of the job he is very qualified. However, I certainly want to see more of the background about what wasn't in the tax that he is now paying, what wasn't paid before, when it came forward. I do need to know more information" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 2/1).

MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), on Daschle and Geithner: "I'm not sure that President Obama knew about those problems before he nominated those individuals. You'd hope he did through the vetting process, and if he didn't, perhaps there was a flaw in that process. ... I guess the question would be, did he know that? Did he know they had those problems before he nominated them? If he did, I would have suggested perhaps they would have picked somebody else would have been a better course" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

CAN'T FIND A BETTER MAN

While Dems agreed there needs to be more information, they continued to stress Daschle's record as a public servant.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "If all you knew about Tom Daschle was that he used to be a senator, and he made a mistake and had to pay over $100,000 in back taxes, you have a right to be skeptical, even cynical. But if you know Tom Daschle, you know better. ... He took the steps necessary to start paying the taxes, make sure they're paid. Now, that's the right thing to do. I believe Tom Daschle's one of the most honest people I've ever known or worked with in public life. ... The bottom line -- this administration has made more progress in appointments, in filling these positions to the cabinet, than most other previous presidents" ("Fox News Sunday," 2/1).

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), asked if Daschle's nod is in trouble: "I don't believe it is. Daschle is one of the most respected people, and particularly in health care. He knows the health care issue. He knows the senators. He knows the politics. At a time when we have to really dramatically overhaul health care because people are hurting, I think we need Daschle as secretary of HHS. ... This was clearly an oversight. He's made recompense. He's admitted it. And I think having him there is really important. And I believe that he will be approved by both the Finance Committee and the whole Senate" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 2/1).

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE): "It's a tough issue. There's no question about it. That's why I think it is important that the Finance Committee have this private meeting with Senator Daschle to talk it over, to get a better understanding, and I'll be paying attention to what they conclude once this meeting is over. I think it's important to point out that sometimes the first reports that come out are not always 100 percent accurate. That's why I think it's important that they do exactly what they are doing to get to the bottom of it. And I know it's a bipartisan committee, they work together. Senators Baucus and Grassley have a good working relationship. I'm sure that they'll do the right thing."

Nelson, asked if he's prepared to say he'll vote for Daschle to be confirmed: "I think it's premature to say how you're going to vote on anything. I supported virtually all of President Bush's nominees. ... But I think what we need to do is just see what the Finance Committee comes out with. I'm not prepared at this point in time to vote no" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), asked if Daschle's chances are hurt: "Not for me, and I hope not for fair-minded and thoughtful people. ... I voted for Tim Geithner. I thought he made an innocent mistake, he corrected it. ... I've known Tom for 25 years. ... He's a person of enormous integrity. ... I think Tom is the man to fix the system and he can do the job. ... He voluntarily informed his accountant. ... I think it's an innocent mistake. I don't think it affects one iota his ability to do the job" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 2/1).

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "I don't think it disqualifies him. And I'll tell you why. I've been there 16 years. I have watched Tom Daschle. I have worked with him. I have seen his leadership potential. I know personally how much he cares about health care reform. What's important to me, in this nominee, is that he knows how to do it. ... I believe that this is a mistake. ... I'm not perfect. Mistakes are made. The taxes are going to be paid. It should not destroy the worth of this man for the American people" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D): "They are going to fix the problem. So the bottom line is, are you picking people who are going to carry out your policy in a way that helps people on the ground in states? Senator Daschle has a long commitment to universal access to affordable health care. That's part of the Obama administration's plan. He is going to be a phenomenal head of Health and Human Services. And I'm excited that he's there for us. ... Let's get on with it, let's do what is important to people, which is health care" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

YOU BE THE JUDDGE

In other Cabinet news, GOPers reacted to reports that Pres. Obama has been floating the idea of naming Sen./ex-NH Gov. Judd Gregg (R) to the vacant commerce sec. post.

Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell: "It would be a big loss for the Senate. He's one of our brightest, most capable members. The president certainly has an eye for talent. Senator Gregg has assured me that if this were to happen, if it were to happen, it would not change the make-up of the Senate. In other words, whoever is appointed to replace him would caucus with Senate Republicans, so I think it would have no impact on the balance of power in the Senate."

CBS' Schieffer: "Well, now, there is a Democratic governor in New Hampshire, but you're telling me that Senator Gregg assures you that the Democratic governor of New Hampshire would appoint someone who is either a Republican or an independent who would vote with the Republicans?"

McConnell: "Senator Gregg has told me that if he were to take this appointment, it would not alter the make-up of the Senate in terms of the majority and the minority" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 2/1).

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), asked if Gregg is leaving: "I don't know. But I expect there may be an announcement on Monday. I will say this, that it shows a great deal of perspicacity on the part of President Obama to select a guy like Judd Gregg, who is just a phenomenal senator, very bright. ... If he did go to Commerce, I would miss him greatly. On the other hand, he could make a significant contribution to the Obama administration."

Kyl, asked if he's putting pressure on Gregg to stay in the Senate because the GOP would lose their 41st vote: "I suspect that Senator Gregg has thought that through very carefully and would not leave his Republican colleagues in a lurch."

Fox's Wallace: "You're suggesting that there might be a deal in which the Democratic governor ... of New Hampshire would appoint a Republican?"

Kyl: "No, I'm not suggesting a deal at all. I'm just suggesting that Senator Gregg clearly has thought this through. And if it does turn out that he's the commerce secretary, that events may unfold in a way that don't cause us the problem that you suggested" ("Fox News Sunday," 2/1).

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): "I'm sure Senator Gregg would not leave his seat if he thought a Democrat would take his seat. I just know he would not do that. ... I think he's a very good person for it. He's very, very strong. But he would never walk away and leave the balance in the Senate for the Democrats" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 2/1).

SAFETY IN NUMBERS?

Meanwhile, pols made the rounds together to discuss the stimulus bill.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) appeared together on "Fox News Sunday" to discuss the bill's chances in the Senate.

Kyl, asked how many GOP votes he counts for the package as it stands now: "We haven't begun our counting yet, but I can tell you that I see support for this legislation eroding. I think the more people around the country see of it, the angrier they get, because it's very wasteful. It spends way too much money."

Durbin, asked if he sees any Dem defections: "We're working to make sure the Democrats are supporting it, and some of them have concerns, will offer amendments. And I believe some of those amendments will be adopted. I've talked to some Republicans on the other side of the aisle. We've said to them, 'We're open about this. Come to us with your ideas, if you want to make changes and offer amendments. Let's move forward.' ... We cannot delay this."

Fox's Wallace: "Senator Kyl, recognizing, as you must, that your side lost the election and the Democrats won, what is the minimum that you would need to see in changes in this package to get significant Republican support? And is there a possibility that if you don't get that that Republicans will try to filibuster to block this bill?"

Kyl: "We're not talking about little things at the margins. We're talking about over a trillion dollars here, and it would be a shame to waste that money. In the first place, we don't have it. So there would be major structural changes that would have to occur. ... I think you have to start from scratch and reconstruct this to -- start with the problem that created the entire cascade of events that have occurred here, the housing collapse. And Republicans, I think, will come forward with ideas to start with housing first."

More Kyl: "I think that we would all agree there will be a 60-vote requirement for the bill. That's the end result of a filibuster. Our effort is not to delay the bill at all. We understand the urgency of the situation. And when I say 'start from scratch,' what I mean is that the basic approach of this bill, we believe, is wrong" (2/1).

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) expressed their concerns with the bill during a joint appearance on "State of the Union."

Nelson, on the bill: "I like parts of it, that that is based on infrastructure, which I think truly will create jobs. That's a robust job creation and protection piece of legislation. But there's an awful lot of spending in it that I think is questionable, marginally supportive and stimulative for jobs: $1.1 billion dollars for comparative research on physician practices, which are better for treatment purposes -- $1.1 billion; $75 million for cigarette and smoking cessation programs. Now, those are important programs. There's no doubt about it, but they ought to be part of something else, not part of a jobs stimulus bill."

CNN's J. King: "Would it not be that, if I'm listening to you correctly, more intellectually honest for the president to say, here's one bill; this is economic stimulus; it is going to create jobs ASAP; here's another bill; we Democrats won the election and we think George W. Bush neglected a whole bunch of things, for eight years, and we think they desperately need money, like the programs you just mentioned?"

Nelson: "Well, I'm not going to use the word 'honest.' I think it might be a better way to bifurcate the issues. But, at times, you put things together because of the efficiency of getting something done. And there's no pork in this. Let me say that right away. But there may be some sacred cows. And I think that's what you've identified ... programs that have been pent up for a long period of time."

Collins: "Unfortunately, this bill has become a Christmas tree where members are hanging their favorite program on it. A lot of these programs are worthwhile. But we have to focus on what the impact is on the economy and whether or not the spending creates or saves jobs. That's the question. That's the test that need to be passed."

King: "So you spent the weekend trying to come up with proposed amendments when it comes to the Senate. Give me one or two specifics, where you say, Mr. President, and fellow Democrats and Republicans, this is better than the way it is now."

Collins: "Well, both Ben and I believe that an increase in infrastructure spending makes a great deal of sense. We know that there is a backlog of projects, ready to go, across this country, that will help put people back to work in an industry that's really suffering and it will leave communities with lasting assets that they really need. That contrast with some programs that should go through the regular appropriations process. For example, I'm the ranking member in the homeland security committee. I support an increase in funding for cyber security, but what does that have to do with getting people back to work and our economy turned around?"

King: "To that point, this isn't just a spending debate. It's the first big debate of a new president who promised Washington was going to do things differently. ... Is this the change he promised, the way this bill is being handled, right now?"

Nelson: "Well, I think Senator Collins and I are trying to help change things and to do things differently."

King: "I take that as a 'not quite.'"

Nelson: "Well, no, I think he didn't put this bill together. ... He has to deal with Congress. So Congress writes the legislation. I think what he needs to do, and has been doing, is reach out to everybody to get their ideas. Then he has to decide whether he can support those ideas."

Nelson, asked if he will go to the floor and use his power, under the rules of the Senate, to block it until he gets changes: "Well, you never reveal all of your cards ... but that certainly is one of the strategies that is available. It's the last thing I'd like to have to do. I'd love to have all this taken out first and then we wouldn't have to deal with it. ... I'm very committed to making sure that we get it scrubbed cleaned of many of these programs."

King: "If you can't get it scrubbed, would you, A, filibuster; or, B, vote no and urge your colleagues to vote no?"

Collins: "Well, I'm hoping that we won't get to that choice, and that is why Ben and I are working so hard. Our goal is to have a bill that is both bipartisan and effective."

Collins, asked if she would vote yes or no to something similar to the House bill: "It would be hard for me to vote for it."

Nelson: "Same thing. It would be very difficult to vote for it. I hope that isn't the case" (CNN, 2/1).

"State of the Union" also hosted Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and John Ensign (R-NV).

Ensign, asked if he will tell his colleagues to vote no: "Actually, what I think we should tell the Republicans, same thing the Democrats should say is, let's make sure we have a stimulus package that works, that creates jobs. Right now we all know that the housing industry is what drug down the economy. And this stimulus bill is not fixing the housing industry. ... [The Dems are] using this stimulus bill as an excuse to fulfill their wish list that they've had for a long time."

Feinstein: "I think the package will be changed. It will be changed in conference. ... If you can get money into the updating and modernization of infrastructure, if you can start those high-speed rail systems which make us competitive, redo our ports so that they're competitive, the new electric grid and the new energy economy that you put people to work which is important and you're really beginning to do what this package should do."

CNN's J. King: "So the urgency you have for those projects is quite obvious. But would you then support stripping out computers for the Agriculture Department, consolidating the Department of Homeland Security headquarters, anti-smoking money, money to fight sexually transmitted diseases, all probably worthy goals? But should they come out of a bill that you say is an emergency economic rescue package?"

Feinstein: "I think it's a possibility, I would. I think the place for this is in the conference committee between the House and the Senate when we can hear from the House members. ... If we can take it out as we pass it, there will be some of that. My interest in the passage is get a more robust infrastructure package" (CNN, 2/1).

YOU GOTTA FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO PARTY

Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and John Kerry (D-MA) debated the bill on "Meet the Press."

Kerry: "We're going to have an open process in the Senate. Starting tomorrow there will be amendments. We will bring amendments ourselves, I know we're planning one with respect to transit, water, various infrastructure investments. And I think we're going to add, frankly, to that ability to get money into the economy and put people to work immediately. ... We need to fix the banking structure, fix the rules of the road, fix the question of the capitalization of banks and finally, housing. Housing has to be a component of this."

NBC's Gregory: "But are you suggesting that the way you strengthen it is you make that target on creating jobs bigger, you have more of a focus on that than the House version?"

Kerry: "Yes. I think we can do better with respect to some of the immediate expenditures."

Hutchison, asked if the bill has to be reworked as it gets into the Senate: "That's the key point. I think we need to take a look at the big picture and really look at what this bill does, and the amount of it. ... When we're talking about redoing this bill, if we're talking about just adding more, I think we will be wasting a lot of money and adding to the debt. My focus would be on more infrastructure. ... I think tax cuts should be strong, I think they should be a lot and I think they should be something that will have an impact."

Gregory: "Why not separate some of this longer-term spending and address that separately down the road, particularly if the size of the package is of political and economic concern?"

Hutchison: "I think that is exactly what we ought to do. ... Because if you took out the increases in spending that are not going to have the lasting impact on jobs -- our focus should be keeping people in their homes, trying to get the financial markets back on track and creating jobs. That should be our focus. And about 200 billion of this is just added spending."

Gregory: "There is a big ideological and philosophical divide about whether you need an infusion of government spending or tax cuts, which moves the fastest. Nobody's got a monopoly on the truth here in terms of what will actually work. Would you concede that?"

Hutchison: "Yes, absolutely, because it is uncharted waters."

Kerry: "Actually, I would not concede that. We've had eight years of this experiment of massive tax cuts without investing in America's future, and the result is we have gone from fourth in broadband to 17th in the world. The fact is our transportation system is neglected, you can't move products from here to there as effectively as other places. We waste countless hours of American productivity on roads that are clogged with traffic because we don't invest in mass transit. I think the experiment in the last eight years, that's what this election was about. We just had an election. The American people overwhelmingly voted for change."

Hutchison: "It is the tax cuts that caused the economy to start going in the right direction. ... And I disagree with Senator Kerry. In the last eight years we have increased spending. We've increased spending on military, certainly the war on terror has had a lot of infrastructure and buying of equipment for the war on terror. We have neglected our highways. The Highway Trust Fund has increased exponentially. I think that what we're talking about now is not the result of low taxes, it is the result of the mortgage crisis and the subprime lending and these derivative packages that the fancy people on Wall Street started putting together and not enough regulation in that area."

Kerry, asked if he would raise the total price tag to accomplish both long-term infrastructure and bank fix/housing: "I would, absolutely."

Hutchison: "See, that's the key. I don't think you have to raise the total price tag. I think you should take out the social spending that is not going to create jobs and add to the infrastructure spending which will create jobs. And add that to the tax cuts, and that would be a balanced package."

Hutchison: "I would fight this bill as it is, absolutely, because I think it is the wrong emphasis."

Gregory: "If this measure passes the Senate without Republican votes, would you consider it a failure, or would you say, 'So be it'?"

Kerry: "If we do what we say we're going to do in the next days, and we will, have an open debate with these amendments, rising and falling on the merits of the argument, and the Senate votes its will and we then pass something, I think, I think that's a success" (NBC, 2/1).

And Senate Min. Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke about the bill during separate interviews on "Face the Nation."

McConnell, asked if the bill can pass the Senate, as it is now written: "I would doubt it. First of all, the Senate is a very different institution. The majority is not able to just, kind of, run roughshod over the minority in the Senate. The president indicated he wanted this to be about a bipartisan proposal. I must say that, surely, privately, he's embarrassed about the product that came out of the House. The only bipartisanship was the opposition to it, all of the Republicans and a number of Democrats."

More McConnell: "There's a lot of unease among Senate Democrats about this package, as well. Now, what that obviously sets up is a situation where changes could be made. We're going to recommend, for example, that he go right at the housing problem. ... Let's fix housing first. That's what started all of this. ... And, second, we think we ought to lower tax rates for medium and low-income people. Those two things alone, we think, would go right at the problem."

McConnell, asked if GOPers would filibuster this bill if it was not to their liking: "Well, that term is thrown around a lot. In the Senate, it routinely takes 60 votes to do almost everything. It doesn't necessarily mean you're trying to slow a bill down. But a super majority is required for virtually everything in the Senate, and certainly for something that is close to a $1 trillion spending bill, it will."

More McConnell: "I think we need to exercise some discipline here. And I think it may be time for the president to kind of get a hold of these Democrats in the Senate and the House, who have rather significant majorities, and shake them a little bit and say, look, let's do this the right way. ... I can't believe that the president isn't embarrassed about the products that have been produced so far."

Schumer, on McConnell saying the bill has to address housing: "Yes. I think we can do more for housing. One of the Republican proposals is to raise the $7,500 tax credit we give to new home buyers, raise it to up $15,000 and do it for all home buyers. That's something that we look favorably upon. Getting mortgages down to 4.5 percent, as Senator McConnell mentioned, that's a good idea. The administration is exploring it. But I think the more likely place for that to be is the TARP bill, because President Obama has wisely said put $50 to $100 billion of that $350 into mortgages. And it could go there. So I think we'll get real agreement on the housing part."

More Schumer: "I hope Senator McConnell will not do what leader Boehner did and just say no. And frankly, he doesn't have the luxury, because I don't think they want to stop the package. ... It's, sort of, a little bit of a smoke screen to say that this package, Obama's package, is different than the House and Senate's. It's largely the same. There are a few things added. Those should not get in the way. And I dare say that there are some Republicans, if you took out the honeybees and took out the National Mall, they'd still vote against it. It may be a diversion."

Schumer, asked how many GOP votes they can count on: "Four voted for the appropriations bill. One voted for the finance part of the proposal. I think we will get enough Republicans to pass this -- the more the better, but I will say this. I'd rather have a really good bill that helps our economy get out of this mess, with 65 votes, than dilute the bill and get 80 votes. ... President Obama has put together a very strong package. Can we make it better? Of course we can make better the bill that came over from the House, and we will. But we must do something. And it's no time for partisan games" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 2/1).

THE BONUS ROUND

Guests also commented on TARP and the $18B in Wall Street bonuses.

Fox's Wallace: "The administration is working on how to spend the $350 billion that's left in the program. And this last week, the president blasted Wall Street for giving out huge bonuses at the same time that the banks are asking for government bailouts. ... But, Senator Kyl, there are reports now that the administration may not impose tough new restrictions because of concerns that if they do, some of the banks that most need the money won't end up accepting them. Is that a mistake?"

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): "Well, you do have to be careful about the kind of restrictions you put on there. They need to make sense. Nobody supports the kind of bonuses that were given and so on. But I do think we have to be careful that we don't try to create some kind of a devil out of the business community here. ... The president seemed to suggest that it's wrong for them to make a profit in these days. Well, businesses won't stay in business. They won't create jobs. They won't hire people unless they think they can make a profit."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), on the idea of putting as part of the TARP financial bailout tough restrictions on executive compensation: "I agree with that. And I think that should be the bottom line. It is sickening when families across America are making sacrifices and facing economic uncertainty that it's business as usual on Wall Street, even at firms that are losing money, that without a taxpayer subsidy wouldn't be in business. ... Where is the spirit of sacrifice and unity? We're in this together. And you have to ask those captains of industry at the highest level to really pull with the rest of America to get us out of this crisis" (2/1).

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): "We're calling these Wall Street guys idiots for their bonuses. I think maybe the real question about intelligence
comes from the politicians who are giving these guys money. A lot has to sort out in the market here. We're rewarding failure by bailing out the worst of the banks instead of rewarding success. The first round of TARP did not support lending, which was its whole point. We've got to loosen up the credit markets. I'm not convinced the guys from Wall Street who are running Treasury know how to do it. They know how wealth is traded, but they don't know how it's created on Main Street."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), in response: "It is a mistake to assume that the Obama administration hasn't learned from the mistakes of the Bush administration. I believe they're going to do it very differently. I agree that Secretary Paulson, whom I generally admired, made a mistake in not pushing them to do more lending. I think you're going to see the Obama administration, having learned from that, push for much more lending. There are going to be some real rules in there" ("This Week," ABC, 2/1).

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV): "The TARP funds were not done right, and we're seeing a lot of side effects that are outraging the public. And when we rush things through Washington, we get a lot of things wrong" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "It would seem to me that Wall Street should be sensitive to this. I believe salaries should be limited. I believe bonuses should be done away with, for the time being. And I believe that there should be transparency. ... I think there has been a level of noncooperation in Wall Street. I think a lot of it strikes at the culture, which is, kind of, inbred and 'This is the way we do things,' and 'World, you just have to leave us alone. It's the American way.' Once you take federal money, the culture changes and the world changes" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

Business leaders also weighed in:

FedEx CEO Fred Smith: "The compensation structure on Wall Street is basically built on bonuses, much more so than in the industrial sector. As I understand it, the average bonus in that $18 billion is about $100,000 a year. The bonuses on Wall Street are down about 44 percent. So certainly up at the very top of the pyramid, people may be getting more than the president of the United States. But I think you have to go into the detail there."

More Smith: "Now, when you take government money, then obviously the Congress has the right to put any kind of restrictions that it wants on the government money. I don't think anybody would argue that. But it's a little bit, I think, an exaggeration to say that all the money is going to the top few people on Wall Street. There are a lot of middle-level folks that live on those bonuses. And the lack of those bonuses, probably the biggest people are getting hit are the state treasuries of the state of New York and the city of New York."

Google CEO Eric Schmidt: "When you're asking for the government, you need to moderate your behavior. I think people understand that. We're in this for the long term. And in the businesses that I'm familiar with, people are primarily compensated with stocks. Stocks are down. Stocks will eventually return. People will make money that way. That's a much better way to compensate people" ("This Week," ABC, 2/1).

Forbes CEO Steve Forbes: "Well, it's populist because they did not use taxpayers' money. But it does get to the golden rule about politics. He who has the gold makes the rules. And Wall Street has to get used to the fact that if you are going to take Washington money, taxpayer money, you are going to have to do things you may not like, have to do. And that, again, gets to why the sooner we get the banking sector back on its feet, we won't have Washington trying to decide who to make loans. And one of the dangers ... is protectionism. They're going to say you can't make loans to companies overseas. You can't do this, you can't do that" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

STEELE SAID KNOCK YOU OUT

And in his first appearance since being elected RNC Chair, ex-MD LG Michael Steele was on "Fox News Sunday."

Fox's Wallace, on Steele saying in his victory statement "We want you to work with us. And for those of you who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over": "Who were you talking about? Who are you thinking may want to obstruct?"

Steele: "I'm thinking both inside and outside the party. ... I'm not in the mood to have people stand in the way and say, 'We can't. We've always done it this way. It's impossible to do.' I mean, I was told that in making this run. ... I wanted to make it very clear from the very beginning, my goal is to move this party forward. ... And for those Democrats and others who want to put up roadblocks and do the crazy typical play that they normally do -- the name-calling and the obfuscation and the sleight of hand -- I don't have time for it, because there are important issues that we have to face."

Steele, asked if the GOP needs to change its position on immigration reform, guest workers and path to citizenship in order to reach out to Hispanics: "No. Well, I think the GOP's position on immigration is very much the position of many, many Hispanics who are in this country."

Wallace: "Wait. Is the GOP position the position of George Bush and John McCain, which is for immigration reform, or is it the position that was build the fence?"

Steele: "The GOP's position is secure our borders first. Let us know and let us make sure the American people know that we've taken care of the important business of dealing with illegal immigration into this country. You cannot begin to address the concerns of the people who are already here unless and until you have made certain that no more are coming in behind them. ... No change in the position on the party on that."

Wallace: "You are one of the co-founders of something called the Republican Leadership Council ... which supports candidates who favor abortion and gay rights. Does the GOP need to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?"

Steele: "I think that's an important opportunity for us, absolutely, because within our party we do have those who have that view as well as outside. And my partnership with Christie Todd Whitman was an effort to hopefully build a bridge between moderates and conservatives in the party. I'm a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been."

Wallace: "You also support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage."

Steele: "That's right. And the reality of it is this, because I don't think we should muck around with the Constitution. We can deal with that at the state level, OK?"

Wallace, on Steele speaking to House GOPers on 1/31: "You congratulated them on voting as a group against the House stimulus plan. In fact, as you put it, 'the goose egg you laid on the president's desk was just beautiful.' Mr. Obama has a 70 percent approval rating. Eighty percent of the country says they want Republicans to work -- not necessarily agree with, but to work with President Obama. Are you saying the GOP should just ignore that?"

Steele: "No. ... I'm saying the GOP did what the GOP had to do to protect the pocketbooks and the interests of the American people. That's a bad bill. It's not a stimulus bill. It's a spending bill. Let's call it what it is."

Wallace: "If you end up with a bill that is passed by the House and the Senate, and every House member, Republican House member, votes against it, and every Senate Republican member votes against it, you don't think there's any danger that they're going to be seen as obstructing?"

Steele: "Why? If I think you've proposed something that is not in my best interests, why am I an obstructionist if I don't agree with it? Why should I agree with something just because you proposed it? Why should I agree with it just because you have a 70 percent approval? You can still be wrong with a 70 percent approval rating."

Wallace, on the tough '06 and '08 elections for GOPers: "You've lost 14 seats in the Senate. ... 54 seats in the House, seven governorships. How much trouble is the GOP in?"

Steele: "That's ugly, isn't it? That's some ugly numbers. And now we have an opportunity to turn that around. We've got a special election in the 20th Congressional District coming up in New York. We've got Virginia gubernatorial race. We've got New Jersey gubernatorial race. We're going to be on the ground and engaged in all of those campaigns that are going to be important opportunities for us to re-establish the brand for the party, number one, but most especially, reacquaint ourselves with the voters and help them appreciate exactly what we stand for and what we believe, putting good candidates in a position to win. That's my job, is to put good candidates in a position to win."

Wallace: "Give me three names of Republican leaders under the age of 50, who you see as new faces."

Steele: "Well, since I'm at 50, I guess I don't know, but ... I'd say certainly Bobby Jindal, Governor Sanford, Pawlenty, Palin. We have a whole host of folks out there that are beginning to emerge on the scene and will over the next couple of years, I think, redefine this party in a way that will be very good for us long term" (2/1).

Among the reaction to Steele:

Ex-Bush WH counselor Ed Gillespie: "Michael Steele is a good friend of mine. I'm happy that he is going to be the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I think he gives us a burst of energy. This is someone who was able to get elected statewide in Maryland, no easy feat as a Republican, ran a very effective race for the United States Senate in a very tough year, in 2006, was an effective state party chairman. That's when I first got to know him, someone that when I was chairman was incredibly helpful to me as we reached out to African-American voters and Hispanic voters in a way that the party hadn't done for a while. I know he'll pick up that mantle and do more of that, as well."

More Gillespie: "By the way, I think much has been made now the Republican Party has an African-American at its head and the Democratic Party, an African-American in the White House. I think, in both instances, obviously, that is an important factor, but Michael Steele, had Hillary Clinton been elected president or John Edwards been elected president, Michael Steele, a pretty good chance he'd be the RNC chairman today because of his effectiveness in making the case for Republican Party policies."

Dem strategist Donna Brazile, in response: "He is dynamic. He is charismatic. ... Ed is absolutely right. He was able to win in a fairly moderate to liberal state. But, look, Michael Steele will face many challenges as the chair of the Republican Party to get the party out of the wilderness, to reinvigorate it with new ideas, and to begin to move the party from being a regional party to a national party again. So he has a big job ahead of him" ("State of the Union," CNN, 2/1).

ROUNDTABLE ROUNDUP

The "This Week" roundtable discussed bipartisanship, the stimulus bill and Iraq/Afghanistan.

George Will, on the stimulus bill: "There's, of course, a foreign policy component in this, because they have taken the one thing missing to turn this into a great depression. That is protectionism, and started it with the 'Buy American' provisions which are guaranteed to produce retaliation, which are guaranteed to cost Americans jobs."

New York Times' Sanger: "This is in many ways the 1933 debate all over again, which is, do you aim this at the fastest, most efficient, most targeted stimulus you can put together. Which there's certainly an argument for. Or do you use this ... to try
to do something much larger. And many people, in Congress, feel that this is the moment for change. That this is not just a six-month or one-year program" (ABC, 2/1).

The "Fox News Sunday" roundtable discussed bipartisanship, the stimulus bill, Daschle's tax problems, Gregg being mentioned as commerce sec. and Iraq/Afghanistan.

Fox's Hume, asked if DC is starting to get warmer and fuzzier: "Not really. Not yet. President Obama has reached out in form and sought to leverage his popularity and his winning personality to Republicans and with Republicans, but he hasn't really reached out in substance. And part of that's a function of the fact that the administration made what I think was a very bad mistake in letting the House have its head, if you will, in writing this bill."

Weekly Standard's Kristol: "No one thinks, with all due respect to Tom Daschle, that if he's not health and human services secretary the world would end. He's a limousine liberal who doesn't even pay taxes on his limousine. It's a perfect embodiment of inside-the-Beltway arrogant, you know, behavior. ... I wonder whether this nomination can survive."

NPR's Williams: "I don't think he's going to have any trouble, just in the way that Tim Geithner ultimately didn't have any trouble. And both of these cases, it seems to me, are extremely troubling. ... I think on this one, there's more likelihood of some kickback from Republicans, and especially on the second point ... which is that if he's giving speeches and has dealings with groups that he would now have some regulatory function to supervise."

NPR's Liasson, on Gregg: "The White House knows exactly what they're doing. They know that they are, in effect, decapitating the Senate Republican leadership team, because Gregg is really smart on the budget, on all fiscal issues. He's a real leader. They know exactly what they're doing. ... They get a two-fer or three-fer. They get a Republican in the cabinet. He's a very able guy. They absolutely set that seat up to become Democratic, if not right away, maybe in 2010. ... This is one smart hardball political move" (2/1).

The "State of the Union" roundtable discussed Daschle's tax problems, Gregg being mentioned as commerce sec. and the stimulus bill.

CNN's Bash, on Daschle's tax problems: "The other subplot that's going on here, is because he knows these senators so well who are looking at his confirmation, he does not have a great relationship with the Democratic head of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus. So that is something that is also going on beneath the surface, that these two butted head when they worked together and people who are close to Daschle feel like he's not getting a fair shake from the committee for that reason."

CNN's Henry, on Gregg: "Beyond the politics, whether it changes the makeup of the Senate, the president we're told does trust advice from Judd Gregg. He's somebody who is very much a fiscal hawk, really wants to turn around the budget deficit and has been talking for months now about bringing more accountability to the TARP program. ... And this is all happening as we're learning that the president in about a week and a half is going to roll out a whole new financial rescue plan. Separate from the stimulus plan that will deal with foreclosures, it will deal with trying to crack down on these bonuses and executive compensation. So, while that's being put together at the Treasury Department, if Judd Gregg comes on, he's been someone as a bipartisan figure across the aisle has been saying something like this is needed and he could help sell it on Capitol Hill to Republicans" (2/1).

The "Face the Nation" roundtable discussed the stimulus bill and Daschle's tax problems.

New York Times' Brooks, asked what else has to come out of the bill to get GOP support for it: "It's the sprawlingness of it. ... We want to put paddles on the patient. What this bill does is it takes a wire, sticks it on the patient, and then another wire and then another wire. In 18 months, there's another wire on the patient. ... I think we heard bipartisan agreement on the general outlines of the focus: more infrastructure but especially more tax cuts for the lower and middle class."

Brooks, asked if Daschle is going to be confirmed: "I think so. Barack Obama apparently joked last night that he was slow to pick his Labradoodle for his daughters because the dog he picked owed some back taxes. ... This is how he's closing the deficit. ... At the end of the day, he's going to survive this, because he is so popular. He's in the club. People like him. People respect him, in general. And the problem is, he gave money to 14 senators. It's going to be hard for those senators -- I assume they're all Democrats -- to vote for him because it will look like, oh, he gave them money, so of course they voted for him" (CBS, 2/1).

The "Meet the Press" roundtable discussed the economy and the stimulus bill.

Moody's Economy.com's Mark Zandi, on the stimulus bill: "It's a nice mix of spending, which will help the economy in 2010 and '11, when we really need it. This economy isn't going to come roaring back. And the tax cuts are also very efficacious, particularly because they get into the economy more quickly. Now, if I were king for the day, I'd design a different package. But given that I'm not, I think this is a reasonably good package. But most importantly of all, it has to be passed quickly. If we don't pass it quickly, then the economic benefit will be significantly reduced, because it's really about confidence."

CNBC's Burnett, on the Wall Street bonuses: "I understand the outrage, and you understand the populism. ... The taxpayer money is not being used to pay the bonuses. ... It's the whole use of the word 'bonus.' If you explained to people this is how they are compensated, that might make a difference. But there is also a fundamental misunderstanding. The taxpayer money isn't being taken and paid out in the form of bonuses. It goes in a separate pool, shall we say, a separate account for banks. So maybe people don't care about that distinction, but it is there" (NBC, 2/1).