As the saying goes, all politics is local. So how is President Bush’s push for Social Security going on the state level? In a word: badly. Even in the red states. Here’s a look at some recent state polling:

Montana: “Montanans oppose switching to personal Social Security investment accounts by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, according to a statewide opinion poll conducted for the Great Falls Tribune. Nearly 59 percent of the 405 adults surveyed oppose the idea, while nearly 30 percent support it.” [Great Falls Tribune, 2/3/05]

Kentucky: “49 percent think the president’s plan for private investment accounts for workers under 55 is a bad idea, while 40 percent support it.” [Courier-Journal, 2/14/05]

New Hampshire: “54 percent of New Hampshire adults believe that allowing private investment of some Social Security taxes is a bad idea, while 32 percent like the concept.” [UNH Survey Center Granite State Poll, 2/15/05]

Maine: “68 percent of those surveyed would continue the program’s guaranteed monthly benefits, while 24.5 percent would allow younger workers to decide how some of their own contributions are invested.” [Strategic Marketing Services, 2/4/05] Read more

Officials at the Pentagon seem to be in a state of confusion over how to deal with the recent Washington Post story on U.S. intelligence-gathering drones flying over Iran. To be of some help, here is a list of several options to choose from, all of which the Pentagon has used as of late:

The Nonadmission Admission: Like in the case of the story that broke on Secretary Rumsfeld’s secret espionage unit, the Pentagon can admit fully to the story without admitting to it at all.

The Nitpicking Nondenial: As in its response to a New Yorker article that declared the “United States is conducting secret reconnaissance missions in Iran,” the Pentagon can dispute the details of the story without addressing the central claim.

The Denial, the Truth, and the Cover-Up: Similar to answering the question of whether the Bush administration ever described Iraq as an “imminent threat” (it did several times), the Pentagon can first deny the statement, then be confronted with the facts, and ultimately try to sweep everything under the rug.

If it looks like all else will fail, the Pentagon could try being upfront and candid from the beginning — but it has very little experience with that approach, so it might not be the best recommendation.

Last week, Congress passed restrictive class action legislation which will attempt to silence the American public while protecting corporations from being held accountable for injury, wrongdoings and error.

While it may not have come with a big pretty bow, the legislation definitely was a gift for the Chamber of Commerce and its Institute for Legal Reform. The group definitely got what it paid for. According to the Political Money Line tracking service, the Chamber of Commerce spared no expense last year, spending over $53 million in lobbying expenses in 2004. That’s more than any other group in that 12-month period. (Do the math: That comes out to nearly a hundred thousand dollars for every member of the House and Senate plus the president.)

This should come as no surprise: The group has aggressively pushed this industry-friendly legislation. The Chamber of Commerce last year, remember, entered the administration’s upside-down world of spin-as-journalism, launching the Madison County Record, a weekly newspaper in Illinois which billed itself as the county’s legal journal. In reality, it was a propaganda powerhouse, a slick piece of advertising disguised as a newspaper that the Chamber used as “a weapon in its multimillion-dollar campaign against lawyers” who file “frivolous lawsuits.”

Look for the Chamber of Commerce to only get stronger and more powerful on the Hill. The group is already planning to spend about $40 million of its budget to lobby Congress in 2005. And that’s just a drop in the bucket of the funds it has available to spend on influence: last year, this “staunchly” conservative group collected $90 million from America’s largest corporations.

David Kuo, former deputy director of the President’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, has decided to speak candidly about his experience. His message: this administration doesn’t care about the poor. In a piece published on Beliefnet yesterday, Kuo writes, “From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the ‘poor people stuff.’” As a result, while President Bush spoke a lot about providing funds to “groups caring for drug addicts, at-risk youth, and teen moms” most of that assistance never arrived. In a bizarre attempt to rebut Kuo’s charge that the administration was all talk on the issue, White House spokesman Trent Duffy noted, “The president has mentioned the initiative in every State of the Union.”

The White House ignored opportunities for the President to make good on his commitments. For example, Kuo writes that in 2001 former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) approached the White House “with an offer to pass a charity relief bill that contained many of the president’s campaign tax incentive policies plus new money for the widely-popular and faith-based-friendly Social Services Block Grant.” The reaction: “The White House legislative affairs office rolled their eyes while others on senior staff yawned.”