When we talk about Social Security, we have become used to some numbers like 2041 and 2017 but let's be honest, that's a ways off. I'm not saying that we shouldn't worry but think about what changes over the course of 35 years. I'm only 20 years old and so I can't say with complete certainty but there are a whole lot of things that I don't think many people would have bet on happening in 1970. The big one that comes to mind in the area of health is not the medicine or the new technology but AIDS. What I'm trying to point out is that there is no way to accurately determine how much Social Security will cost in 1941.
No economist in his right mind would go beyond 75 years in predictions. But the Bush administration, which can't balance one year's budget without borrowing, talks about fixing Social Security unto eternity. Good soldier that he is, Snow is now out there talking about a "permanent solution" to Social Security's alleged crisis. And wouldn't you know? That solution calls for harsh medicine.
"It's between crazy and dishonest," Baker says. "One thing I'm certain about is that, come 2060, Americans are not going to give a damn what George W. Bush and Congress thought was a good idea in 2005."
large shifts like new diseases or expensive cures are not the only factors that have a large effect in the outcome in 2041. Small changes in other areas such as GDP (Gross Domestic Product), productivity, and population size and distribution are immensely important over that many years.
The important number here is productivity. The trustees assume that productivity will grow only 1.6 percent a year. But the average annual rise in productivity since World War II has been 2.1 percent. If we just take the last 10 years, it has been 2.3 percent. And in the past few years, annual productivity has grown at a handsome 2.8 percent.
"If you raise productivity just 0.1 percent (from the trustee's pessimistic assumption of 1.6 percent)," says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "you wouldn't have to worry in 2041. If you say 2.1 percent, that would push it out to 2053."
What I'm getting at here is that as your predictions get farther and farther out they become less and less accurate. I'm not really trying to say that the 2041 figure isn't important. It is, it just needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt. 2017, being closer, is a figure that is more likely to be accurate. How far is too far? I don't know, but I don't think that any estimation about 2041 should be grounds to define a crisis.
Source:
Enough with the theatrics: Social Security is sustainable The Seattle Times - March 29
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security
I know, I know, 3 stops in one day!?! But hey, I'm on a roll here.
The Bush Administration has been very careful not to actually have a plan, but instead to have points that it wants to stress. This way, it can adjust things without being wrong.
A former administration official told the paper that the White House has discussed an offset rate between 2 percent and 3 percent, with particular focus on a rate of 2.7 percent.
Lowering the offset rate would improve worker's chances of doing better with an individual account. But it may increase the costs of creating the accounts in the first place.
Ok fine, so what's an offset formula?
The offset formula determines the amount by which a worker's traditional defined benefits would be reduced if he chooses to divert a portion of his payroll taxes into an individual investment account. (Under Bush's proposal, contributing to individual accounts would be voluntary.)
A lower offset rate increases the chances that workers with accounts would fare better than if they stayed exclusively with the traditional system.
Wow, this is all from CNN, and it makes sense and seems to explain things well. Anyway, here's the hard truth: this doesn't change anything. Bush still doesn't have a plan to save social security, he has a plan to change it, and that plan has adjusted slightly.
Sources:
Bush to change account formula? CNN Money - March 24
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Social Security
Thomas R. Saving and John L. Palmer are two of the most important players in the Social Security Debate, or they should be. They are the two tenured trustees on the board that oversees both Social Security and Medicare, mentioned earlier. However, in order to show their thanks, the Bush administration didn't invite them to the releasing of their own annual report.
(1) Why? "They didn't particularly invite us," said Thomas Saving, a Republican who supports President Bush's plan to create individual investment accounts from Social Security payroll taxes. "They're doing it differently, I guess. It's not our call."
Why weren't they invited? Well you see, Saving and Palmer are saying that Medicare is the real looming problem, and according to the numbers, they're right. Big Surprise. These guys are also hold over from another time, the Clinton time. All the other members are from the Bush administration and were present.
What else might have kept them out?
(2) According to Mr. Palmer, the Democratic trustee, the main reason the projected financial condition had deteriorated was that wages grew more slowly than expected in 2004, and therefore generated less payroll tax revenue.
This is a sign of a weaker-than-expected economy and that is just one more thing that Bush doesn't want to deal with right now. Regardless, these two men are critical to the debate and far too often they only get listed as trustees at the bottom of articles.
Sources:
(1) Time to face the facts on Medicare system The Republican - March 27
(2) The Accurate Numbers as to Social Security and Medicare Solvency The Rubins - March 26
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Thomas Saving | John Palmer | Social Security | Medicare
(1) In their annual report to Congress, the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare programs said Social Security reserves would be depleted in 2041, one year earlier than was projected last year. But the trustees emphasized, as they did last year, that Medicare's financial outlook was "much worse than http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.spell.gifSocial Security's" and predicted that the monthly Medicare premiums paid by almost all Americans 65 and older would rise by 12 percent next year after a 17 percent increase this year.
Gee, it's really great to know that Bush is tackling the big issues. By tackling, of course, I mean that these issues are delicate, like an old woman, and Bush is tackling them, like a football player. He's brought Medicare significantly closer to a real crisis with his prescription drug plan and he's now trying to create a Social Security crisis in order to create private accounts which would do the same for that great system.
There is a divide between the board trustees that oversee Social Security and Medicare. This rift places Thomas R. Saving and John L. Palmer, a Democrat and a Republican respectively, against the three trustees from the Bush administration. Surprise Surprise.
(2) "The financial outlook for Social Security has improved marginally since 2000," wrote Saving and Palmer. "In sharp contrast, Medicare's financial outlook has deteriorated dramatically over the past five years and is now much worse that Social Security's."
The three trustees from the Bush Cabinet -- Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao -- chose to emphasize Social Security's problems almost exclusively at the report's release.
Medicare is not a silent partner in the Social Security Debate. Social Security may need to change but that famous word "crisis" is much better applied to Medicare.
Sources:
(1) Report Says Medicare Is in Poor Fiscal Shape New York Times - March 24
(2) Report Emphasizes Shortfall in Medicare Washington Post - March 24
More on:
The Social Security Tour | Thomas Saving | John Palmer | Social Security | Medicare | John Snow
Back on the tour we make a stop for the good Senator McCain of Arizona. Today he's trying to reframe the issue and make the AARP look bad.
"Some of our friends, who are opposing this idea, say, `Oh, you don't have to worry until 2042.' We wait until 2042 when we stop paying people Social Security?" the Arizona Republican asked rhetorically at the Social Security event here.
...
"I want to say to our friends in AARP, and they are my friends in AARP, `Come to the table with us,'" McCain said. "We not only have an obligation to seniors, but we have an obligation to future generations of Americans as well.
John McCain, towing the Republican line ever since Bush destroyed his image in the 2000 primaries. At least the Democrats are holding strong for the good of the people. McCain tried to get Senator Bingaman from nearby New Mexico to support private accounts. Bingaman passed the test.
"It's true that in about 50 years, Social Security will be required to pay out more than it is collecting," said Bingaman, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security. "There are steps we can and should take to strengthen Social Security for the future. And there's no question that we should encourage Americans to save for their retirement so that they are not depending solely on Social Security during their golden years. But privatizing Social Security is not the answer."
Source:
McCain Takes Shots at AARP During Rally San Francisco Gate - March 22
More on the Tour:
Other Stops
AARP
Sorry that there haven't been many social security updates recently, they're comming - don't worry. Something much more important has happened this past weekend in Washington.
(1) 109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 686
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 20, 2005
Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed
AN ACT
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
This law that the congress has passed flies in the face of everything that the Constitution stands for. There are a lot of things that this Congress has gotten away with but this may be the worst. There is no higher law that they could have broken. They have overstepped their boundries. This is not worth it. This case had a completely fair trial all the way up the line until the highest court in the state. This Congress then went too far by passing a law that said specifically that this case could be appealed to a federal court.
(2) The Framers expressly sought to keep Congress from intervening in legal cases or imposing forms of punishment. The Constitution imposes a separation of powers, requires due process and prohibits forms of legislative intervention. Yet such principles become mere abstractions when the discussion turns to feeding tubes. For members, the Schiavo bill offered a sudden surge of popularity and clarity after weeks of punishing debate over Social Security plans.
....
In intervening in Florida, the only thing that legislators had to give up was any claim to principle. The sponsors admitted that their intervention was a flagrant violation of federalism, but insisted that they simply could not let principle stand in the way of "doing the right thing." Of course, the test of principle is the ability to remain faithful regardless of personal preference. If you comply with principle only when it is convenient or popular, it is a pretense of principle.
The bottom line is that this Congress went around the Constitution. Every time the Constitution is undermined, it weakens the laws that govern this nation. It weakens our entire nation. This battle is not worth the Constitution!
Sources:
(1) S. 686 Thomas - March 22
(2) Temptation tops the Constitution USA Today - March 22
Today's stop on the tour brings us to an organization that is very close to my political life, Democracy for America. When Howard Dean left to become the head of the DNC his brother took over, but that does not mean that the organization has stopped being innovative. This past week a new section was added to their site looking at Social Security from a personal angle. DFA has always been about bringing people together and looking at our democracy on a personal level, so it is actually not that surprising that they've come out with this new way of looking at social security.
In the area here, around RIT Rachel and Jack both have posted stories. Rachel says, "Social Security is my safety net." These are real stories from across the country and they are touching and heartbreaking and worth reading. I suggest reading ones in your area. For that, you'll need to go to the Social Security page on DFA's website.
Other links:
Democracy for America
More on the Tour:
Other Stops
 While I was raoming around the web, I found this graph which I think is incredibly telling. That red line is what happens if Bush's privitization plan goes through. In order to simply be back where we started if we privatized we would have to put Trillions of dollars into Social Security. This would have the effect of raising that red line back up to where that blue line is, making the system stable until whenever it would have been in the first place.
But wait! That blue line touches 0 too! Here's the deal: Something does need to be done about social security but whatever we do ought to increase Social Security's solvency, not decrease it.
Source:
Private Accounts and the Trust zFacts.com - January 5
More on the Tour:
Other Stops
Today, I'm kicking off my very own Social Security Tour. Our first stop is going to be a look at the stock market for those who don't really know that much about it. To be fair, I've done a lot of research for this post because I didn't really know that much about the market until just recently.
Ok, first let's look at a stock. A stock (1) is a piece of ownership in a company. A stock is also sometimes referred to as a share. There are two basic ways to make money in the stock market. The first is that most stocks have a dividends (2) which are essentially, the portion of the company's profit that the stock holders get. This is where something called the earnings per share come in. Earnings per share is approximated by dividing the amount of money that the company made by the number of shares owned. This tells you the amount of money that you stand to gain from owning one share.
The other way to make money on a stock is in its Vera buying and selling. Have you ever heard, "buy low, sell high?" That's what this refers to. Essentially, if more people own stock in a certain company then the demand for that stock is high, and accordingly so is its price. If you were to buy a stock at $20 per share and sell it later after the company had become more popular at a stock price of $30 per share, then you would make money.
Ok, so what really drives your ability to make money in the stock market? First, the economy, which effects stock dividends. Next, the belief that, because of any number of factors - mostly dividends - stocks are a profitable investment.
So now what would a large influx of money from Social Security into the Stock Market? First, the stock price of whatever stocks are bought by these new investors will go up due to more shares being bought. This means that the price of the stocks that current shareholders own will increase. Assuming that economic growth does not change because of privitization, the earnings per share will decrease. This will make the stocks that new investors buy, or perhaps the entire market less attractive to investors who were already in the market. If these people leave after the social security investment, they will be selling their shares at a profit and they will be deflating the shares of those who stay invested. While this is not a good scenario, it would improve the earnings per share figures. If they did not leave then the return of these stocks would stay low due to the number of people invested in them.
As you can see, even with favorable economic conditions, which remember would have also have a positive effect on the current solvency of Social Security, letting people invest their Social Security money in the stock market is a long way from an instant success.
Sources:
(1)Stock Wikipedia.org - March 6
(2)Dividend Wikipedia.org - March 6
(3)Kinsley's Proof That Social Security Privatization Won't Work LA Times - December 19, 2004
Because the White House is launching a 60-day 60-stop campaign to promote Social Security Privitization, I have decided to launch a 60-day 20-post campaign to look at various Social Security issues.
Why 20-posts? First, I honestly don't believe that I could come up with 60 posts in 60 days and not become about as interesting as cable news. Second, I don't have the luxury of saying the same stump speech each time because I'm going to be making 20 different posts. Finally, the White House tour is being conducted by 3 people Bush, Cheney, and Secretary of the Treasury Snow, who decided to participate because he was beginning to become depressed watching the National Debt pile up (I kid). Because there are 3 of them and 1 of me, I'm going to do 1/3 as many posts as they have stops.
Source:
Pro and Con Line Up as Bush Presses Social Security Effort New York Times - March 5
I don't like Microsoft much and I often don't think much of Bill Gates in the business world, but following credit where credit is due Gates deserves some when it comes to philanthropy. His efforts to improve the medical situation all over the world have been some of the most successful ever, but today we look at education.
(1)As the unprecedented National Education Summit on High Schools came to a close today, the National Governors Association (NGA) and six partner foundations announced a $42 million initiative to ensure the summit's resounding call to overhaul the nation's high school system translates into action. In a spirit of broad bi-partisan support, 45 governors joined educators and business leaders for the two-day summit to address the nation's alarming dropout rates and the fact that most students leave high school without the skills necessary for success in college or the workplace.
The six foundations joining forces to support state efforts are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Wallace Foundation, The Prudential Foundation and the State Farm Foundation.
Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Texas have agreed to raise the standards of their core tests and graduation standards. They have also agreed to hold their collages more accountable for graduation rates. All of this is an attempt to enforce the "American Diploma Project." That's great, but what does it mean?
(2)It calls for big changes requiring every student to take rigorous math and English regardless of career plans, and tying college admissions to high school exit exams, as examples.
States will maintain the option to adopt what they want, but they have agreed to broad points, such as requiring students to take a test of their readiness for college or work.
Essentially what this means is that High School will now be geared towards college in the hopes that every student will go to college because every student will be ready for it. It's particularly interesting to me that more states didn't join this group given that they are not actually bound by the agreement.
Anyway, back to gates, who made a speech at this meeting which is really very interesting.
(3) Our high schools are obsolete.
By obsolete, I don't just mean that they are broken, flawed and underfunded - although I can't argue with any of those descriptions.
What I mean is that they were designed 50 years ago to meet the needs of another age. Today, even when they work exactly as designed, our high schools cannot teach our kids what they need to know.
Until we design high schools to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will keep limiting - even ruining - the lives of millions of Americans every year. Frankly, I am terrified for our workforce of tomorrow.
The idea behind the old high school system was that you could train an adequate workforce by sending only a small fraction of students to college, and that the other kids either couldn't do college work or didn't need to.
Sure enough, today only one-third of our students graduate from high school ready for college, work and citizenship.
....
This is an economic disaster. In the international competition to have the best supply of workers who can communicate clearly, analyze information and solve complex problems, the United States is falling behind. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates in the industrialized world.
....
We can put a stop to this. We designed these high schools; we can redesign them.
We have to do away with the outdated idea that only some students need to be ready for college and that the others can walk away from higher education and still thrive in our 21st century society. We need a new design that realizes that all students can do rigorous work.
....
This kind of change is never easy. But I believe there are three ways that political and business leaders at every level can help build momentum for change in our schools.
First, declare that all students must graduate from high school ready for college, work and citizenship. Every politician and chief executive in the country should speak up for the belief that children need to take courses that prepare them for college.
Second, publish the data that measure our progress toward that goal. We already have some data that show us the extent of the problem. But we need to know more: What percentage of students are dropping out? What percentage are graduating? And this data must be broken down by race and income.
Finally, every state should commit to turning around failing schools and opening new ones. When the students don't learn, the school must change. Every state needs a strong intervention strategy to improve struggling schools.
I've got to say that it's a really great speech (link to full speech below) and certainly Gates pushing in the right direction. So what stopped the other states from adopting his approach? The answer to this one rhymes with "bunny" and it's not funny.
In fact, it's not funny at all. Money is what drives everyone in the Capitalist (our) world and the changes that need to be made to schools, faculty, and curriculum will take a lot of it to implement. Here's the catch though, if you're a state and you wouldn't mind some extra income, the way to get it is through encouraging businesses that need highly educated employees to come to your state and the best way to do that is to get those employees home grown.
Encouraging in all of this is that if even one of the states listed is capable of achieving this goal then it can serve as a model for the rest of the country. This is the way that the methods we use to teach spelling evolved. Unfortunately, some programs like Vermont's portfolio system can go unnoticed. Luckily, if one does reach this goal, Gates will makes sure that it doesn't go unnoticed.
Sources:
(1) Leaders Call for Equity, Rigor in the American High School
(2) 13 States Agree to Raise H.S. Standards ABC News - February 27
(3) What's Wrong With American High Schools LA Times - March 1
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who started Social Security, is a name that understandably surfaces while the debate over privitization of Social Security rages on. And another thing, his words continue to get misused. The largest block of readers coming onto Reality High in the last month are people who have come looking for ammunition to use against people who are twisting FDR's words. My first post went a long way towards debunking right wing rhetoric, but there's still room for some more. That said, let's look at some more quotes from FDR.
First of all, it is my belief that FDR is not in favor of any cap on the FICA tax. Currently, if you make above, I believe, $90,000 in a year, then you do not pay FICA tax on what you made above that mark. One way to solve, at least mostly if not entirely, the issue with the current system is to raise or remove this bar. I have no doubt that Roosevelt would have supported removing the cap.
(1)Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
(2)...the principle of tax payments in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation.
Most important in all of this is the stability of Social Security. Paul Krugman and others have done a excellent job of showing that although Bush has framed this debate around saving Social Security, this is really about the privitization. I covered this in an earlier post. Recently, Krugman has noted that some Republicans would be in favor of raising the cap on the FICA tax provided that this is the money that goes into the private accounts (3). While this would not leave us with trillions of dollars of debt, this still does not help Social Security at all.
Here's the other interesting thing to notice, if this new policy was enacted where people making over $90,000 per year get to put the tax on what they made over that mark into privte accounts, who are these representatives really looking out for? The entire point of Social Security, at its inception, was to care for the elderly - especially the elderly who had the least amount of resources. Using Social Security to justify privitization for those of us who have the most is not respectful of the program's original intent. I don't know what Roosevelt would say about this, but I can make a guess based on the following quote.
(4)We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.
Sources:
(1) Brainy Quote Franklin D. Roosevelt Quotes
(2) Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Eighth State of the Union Address on Wikipedia - January 6, 1941
(3) Just Say No New York Times - March 1
(4) Brainy Quote Franklin D. Roosevelt Quotes
First of all, I apologize to NPR listeners.
Next, for those of you on whatever side of the isle who hoped that Howard Dean was going to fade into the background after he became chair of the DNC, I hope that you haven't been paying attention. My plan for this post is to go through what our new DNC chair has been up to without loosing your attention before the end.
(1)During a meeting last month with black Democrats in Washington, D.C., Dean joked during a speech, "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."
Republicans branded Dean's remarks as "racist" and "insulting" to blacks, and some even suggested that Dean should resign.
"The point he was trying to make was that the Bush administration is extremely hostile and threatening to the interest of black people," Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, a former Democratic presidential candidate, told BlackAmericaWeb.com Tuesday. "He was saying that although the Republican Party has leading blacks in high positions, they are not black leaders who can deliver voters."
Was this remark in bad taste? Yeah, it probably was. In fact, it sits nicely beside the comment that he made during the primaries about Southern voters with confederate flags on their pick up trucks. It's not that I don't think that he ought to be called on it, it's just that the people who are bringing it up aren't really in a position to do so. First, lets look at who's talking about this.
(1)On whether Dean should apologize, Jackson Lee she said Republicans are raising the issue, not blacks in communities around the country.
"The call for an apology is coming from people with an agenda," she said.
In fact, one of the most outspoken critics is Ken Melman, the RNC director. Can you guess what he's after? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "boats." To be fair, Charles Evers, a Mississippi Republican, has asked for Dean to step down over the incident, because apparently an apology won't do (2). I think that Dean ought to respond to this, not to Melman. Evers though, in order to actually take on Dean, needs to prove that African Americans are not underrepresented among Republican candidates and Rice and Powell aren't going to cut it.
In this way, Dean has planted the seeds for a debate within both parties about how racial minorities are represented. The Democrats that are in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are some of our most beloved and outspoken representatives, but there certainly could be room for a few more. As for Dean, he believes that every vote must be earned every election. The following quote, affirming this, comes from his talk at Cornell last week.
(3)"Do not work for candidates who don't care what you think," Dean repeated twice to resounding applause.
Another part of that article happens to have been misquoted by none other than Robert Novak.
(4)In fact, Dean did not say "80 percent of the Social Security benefits will be lost," as Novak claimed, but rather that "if Social Security were left alone for 30 years, benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now," as The Cornell Daily Sun reported in its coverage of Dean's February 23 speech at the university. The article further noted that Dean "would not endorse" privatizing of Social Security, adding that "[h]e acknowledged that while there were indeed problems with the program, turning to Wall Street was not the answer."
Not only was Dean a doctor before, and for a time while, he was a politician, but before that he worked on Wall Street. He has dealt with this Social Security issue on more sides than you're average politician and he knows that privitization is not the answer.
From Wall Street, we head back down south where Dean's 50-state strategy is coming along nicely. This quote comes from the Sun herald, a paper that is in the same market as the television station that ran the piece on Evers that you read above. The fact that it doesn't seem out to get Dean must be evidence of a liberal bias. Oh wait, it's an AP Wire Story.
(5)"We're not going to concede the South," the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee told an overflow crowd of more than 900 people in a dining room that was set up for 800 in the Clarion hotel near downtown Jackson.
"The South will rise again, and when it does, it will have a D under its name," Dean said to applause from the diverse crowd of blacks and whites.
Finally, Dean met today with the leaders of the AFL-CIO in Las Vegas (6).
Still With me? Good.
Sources:
(1) Was DNC Chair Howard Dean's "Hotel Staff" Barb Racist or Racial? Black America Web - March 1
(2) Black Republicans: Dean Should Resign WBLT 3 - February 28
(3) Dean Speaks to Cornell Community Cornell Daily Sun - February 24
(4) Novak misquoted Dean to buttress Social Security crisis rhetoric Media Matters - February 28
(5) Dean says Democrats 'not going to concede the South' Sun Herald - March 1
(6) AFL-CIO leaders, Howard Dean plan political strategy in Las Vegas Las Vegas Sun - March 1
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (NY-28), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Rules, and Rep. John Conyers (MI-14), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to look into the revelation that discredited reporter Jeff Gannon/James Guckert kept a diary detailing his days in the White
House.
"I hope the Special Prosecutor will take seriously the revelation that Mr. Gannon kept a detailed diary of his time inside the White House," said Slaughter. She added, "He may find many answers to the questions we have sought surrounding Mr. Gannon's White House access on those pages.
Source:
Press Release The Office of Louise Slaughter - February 23
(letter included)
Also, that famous press pass that Gannon had has shown up on ebay.
|
