Bolten: The Dishonest Broker
In an attempt to close the rift that has been growing between the Bush White House and the Republican-led Congress over a host of issues, President Bush has tapped former OMB head Josh Bolten as his new chief of staff. However, Bolten's relations with the GOP-led Congress are not as warm as White House operatives have been spinning. In fact, a closer review of Bolten's record reveals a disturbing pattern of misleading members of Congress and secretive tactics that have become the hallmark of the Bush Administration.
KATRINA: Bolten Remained Evasive Towards Republican House Members' Questions on Katrina Spending. "As Congress and the Bush administration worked aggressively to tackle the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, House Republicans gave the White House mixed reviews on its communication effort with the Hill, on both the political and the policy fronts. Frustrations among Members came to a head at a Republican Conference meeting, as lawmakers peppered Office of Management and Budget Director Josh Bolten with questions. While most lawmakers gave Bolten credit just for showing up, some grew impatient with his inability to answer their specific queries about how all the money would be spent." [Roll Call, 9/14/05]
Bolten Deflected Question On New Orleans Levees Funding With a "Quip". "At a Stanford alumni weekend forum on rebuilding the Gulf Coast, a civil engineer asked Josh Bolten if it would've been smarter to spend a fraction of the billions of dollars in relief to fix the levees before Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans. Bolten directed his response and a quip toward fellow panelist Leon Panetta, President Clinton's former chief of staff: 'That question would be better directed at Leon, because, as a civil engineer, you would know any project like that would have had to start a decade ago, and I refuse to make recriminations against Leon.'" [San Jose Mercury News, 10/23/05]
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: Drug Benefit Policy Driven Out of OMB Director's Office. "Republicans said Mr. Bolten's appointment probably meant that domestic policy would be largely driven out of the budget director's office, particularly the administration's plans to overhaul Medicare, provide prescription drug coverage and push for a new round of tax cuts this fall." [New York Times, 5/23/03]
Administration Officials Used Low Price Tag To Win Conservative Support; Threatened to Fire Top Medicare Actuary If He Revealed True Cost of the Drug Plan. "The Bush Administration relied upon the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservatives. But in June of 2003, the chief Medicare actuary at HHS had concluded that the cost of the bill would be $551.5 billion over 10 years. Although Democrats had been asking for Mr. Foster's estimates for months, he refused to provide them, saying he could be fired. That is supported by an email to Mr. Foster from Mr. Scully's Chief of Staff Jeffrey Flick. In it, Mr. Flick stated that Mr. Foster should not share the new cost estimates until Mr. Scully authorized it, saying that 'the consequences for insubordination are extremely severe.' In a conversation with Democratic health staff, Thomas A. Scully, then the Medicare administrator, stated, 'If Rick Foster gives that to you, I'll fire him so fast his head will spin.'" [New York Times, 3/18/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/18/04]
White House Likely Knew Of Higher Estimates Before January 2004. Within weeks of the bill's passage, the White House admitted they had underestimated the cost by $135 billion (35 percent). At the time, Bush claimed he had first learned of the estimate in early January 2004 based on calculations from the Medicare actuaries. But in an interview, Mr. Foster stated that it is likely that White House Senior Health Policy advisor Doug Badger was aware of the higher estimates. [Boston Globe, 1/30/04; LA Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; Knight Ridder, 3/17/04]
Bolten Defended Revised Medicare Prescription Drug Costs, Almost Double the Original Estimate. "A higher cost estimate for the Medicare prescription-drug program released in 2005 reignited an intense congressional debate over why Republicans pushed such an expensive program into law. In a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, White House budget director Josh Bolten defended the new numbers as 'completely consistent' with earlier estimates." [USA Today, 2/10/05]
Conservatives Are Outraged At New Spending Forced Through By Bush Administration. The Bush Administration relied upon the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservatives. But now there is "outrage among conservatives over the new spending and the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965." Congressional Republicans say the onus is on the Bush Administration to make the program work. [New York Times, 3/18/04; 2/19/06; Newsweek, 11/28/05]
