Tag: 2012

Results [matter]. If I were the one in charge of this pop stand, I’d direct my economics team to come up with the “If I were a prime minister instead of a president, this is what we would do” plan. And if all they came up with was minor tax breaks for hiring, “patent reform,” and “trade deals,” I’d, you know, fire them.

Duncan Black, being exactly right. The key thing that needs to happen in the immediate future (e.g. the imminent “jobs speech”) is for Obama to set the stage such that the eventual legislative outcome makes very clear exactly who is obstructing economic growth and recovery efforts.
The only way to do this is to swing for the fences and wait for the GOP to obstruct it. Not only does this paint the GOP as the party of economic obstruction, it also allows the eventual compromise to be closer to your “dream plan” than it is to whatever constitutes a GOP “go die in the streets” policy outcome. By taking the traditional “sensible Obama” defensive crouch approach and starting with the bar set at the lowest possible level (e.g. what they think might pass the House) all in the vain hopes that this time the GOP will suddenly start playing along for America, you’re actually only working to guarantee an outcome that favors the GOP in every way, politically, economically, and (most importantly for Obama) in 2012.
Once again: This is why they fail.

Fallows on the GOP and Taxes

James Fallows weighs in on the GOP finally finding a tax hike they love, the elimination of the Obama-initiated payroll tax “holiday” that would affect every employed individual in the country:

I had thought that Republican absolutism about taxes, while harmful to the country and out of sync with even the party’s own Reaganesque past, at least had the zealot’s virtue of consistency. Now we see that it can be set aside when it applies to poorer people, and when setting it aside would put maximum drag on the economy as a whole. So this means that its real guiding principle is… ??? You tell me.

You answered your own question, James. The increase would not impact the core constituency of the GOP, the top 2% of all earners. Most of their income isn’t touched by payroll tax rates anyway. Likewise, dumping this temporary and stimulatory tax break on January 1, 2012 puts “maximum drag on the economy as a whole.” The GOP sees that as a feature of this stance, not some arbitrary outcome. That such a position comes from the unitary “we pledge allegiance to no tax hikes of any kind, ever” club is also unsurprising. They only expressed interest in extending the Bush tax cuts if and when said extensions protected the cuts for the wealthiest 2%, who had already benefited asymmetrically from said imminently expiring tax policies.

The GOP has been working with single-minded focus towards the worst possible policy outcome(s) for more years than Obama has been in office. They dislike government. They want it to fail, and barring that outcome at best appear grossly ineffectual. Holding a lesser fraction of the total DC power structure only makes it easier to sand the gears and mutter “wha happened?” to an all too pliant media, the most popular outlet of which is firmly in their corner. The GOP machine is most certainly not going to stop now, especially not when they can needlessly prolong the economic suffering of millions of Americans for years in exchange for some short-term political gains and do that in a way that minimally impacts their core constituency: the top 2%. This is who they are.

Fallows on the GOP and Taxes

This is true: It is not clear how George Pataki would win over Republican voters with his pro-choice views or record of tax and spending increases. Or his lack of a national political network. Or his lack of charisma. (He once pointed out to Maureen Dowd that he prefers his soda flat.)

Apart from that I don’t see how this can fail.

David Weigel ponders Patakimentum.
America is not ready for a President who prefers flat soda. Ten years, maybe; 2012, no way.
Source: Slate

Rick Perry’s an idiot, and I don’t think anyone would disagree with that

Bruce Bartlett, former H.W. Bush Treasury official and Reagan adviser, minces words when asked his thoughts on Rick Perry. More evidence of Turd Blossom’s tentacles? Or just the party apparatus trying to help Perry out by appearing to denigrate his intellect while hedging bets against his inevitable defeat in a national election?
I’d say: A little from column A, a little from column B.

What Perlstein Said

So good:

There are few or no historical instances in which saying clearly what you are for and what you are against makes Americans less divided. But there is plenty of evidence that attacking the wealthy has not made them more divided. After all, the man who said of his own day’s plutocrats, “I welcome their hatred,” also assembled the most enduring political coalition in U.S. history.

The Republicans will call it class warfare. Let them. Done right, economic populism cools the political climate. Just knowing that the people in power are willing to lie down on the tracks for them can make the middle much less frantic. Which makes America a better place. And which, incidentally, makes Democrats win.

What Perlstein Said

Pity the Poor Corporations

jeffmiller:

“Romney is absolutely right. And this means that taxes on corporations are taxes on people. I’m not getting at the subtle point—and I don’t think Romney was either—that if capital is highly mobile internationally, a national government can’t make capital bear much of the burden of taxes and so the incidence is on laborers and consumers. No, I’m making the simple point that a tax on corporations is a tax on people. I remember that in addressing the issue in the 1980s, the late Herb Stein said that it’s as if people think that if the government imposed a tax on cows, the tax would be paid by the cows. Romney’s passion and clarity on this are admirable. And until now, I’ve found little to admire in Romney. Now, the next step for him—which a patient in a wheel chair tried to help him see but he couldn’t see—is to see that just as taxes on corporations are taxes on people, the war on drugs is not really a war on drugs: it’s a war on people.”

— Are Taxes on Corporations Taxes on People?, David Henderson | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Wonderful and so very thoughtful. But, by all means, let’s make corporations full citizens. It’s high time they were subject to the full tax burden of an individual; they should therefore be subject and required to pay an individual’s tax rates, which, let’s face it, will almost always be the top marginal rates: 35%. Good news there! They should have no problem with this change, as they are now American citizens and because it’s just exactly what they claim they are paying right now. Win/win for Our New Corporate Citizens.

Likewise, any time a person dies or is injured at the hands of a corporation, it can be tried for murder or assault and, if found guilty, this personification of the corporation can be executed or incarcerated (barred from doing business in these United States) for a period of years. Or, if they prefer, the corporate board can stand for the sentence. It all makes perfect sense. After all, corporations are people too! I’m sure they’ll welcome these changes.

File Under: Cogent

Hendrik Hertzberg deftly summarizes why Obama is systematically losing the left (the only folks who supported his Presidency to begin with):

Obama’s seeming refusal to hold [invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution] in reserve (“like the fire axe on the wall,” in Garrett Epps’s words) is emblematic of his all too civilized, all too accommodating negotiating strategy—indeed, of his whole approach to the nation’s larger economic dilemma, the most disappointing aspect of his Presidency. His stimulus package asked for too little and got less. He has allowed deficits and debt to supersede mass unemployment as the emergency of the moment. He has too readily accepted Republican terms of debate, such as likening the country to a household that must “live within its means.” (For even the most prudent householders, living within one’s means can include going into debt, as in taking out a car loan so that one can get to one’s job.) He has done too little to educate the public to the wisdom of post-Herbert Hoover economics: fiscal balance is achieved over time, not in a single year; in flush times a government should run a surplus, but when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now—a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital—higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich.

The whole piece is fantastic, but this paragraph could easily form the basis of a savage, intellectually driven attack on Obama from the right. Well, it could if such a concept as “appealing to the intellect” or “thoughtful” even existed over there anymore. They’re too busy arguing over who loves the country the very most or who would starve the most children to death in their first 100 days to worry one little bit about convincing even a single Democrat or independent to join their particular crusade. For once: this is why the GOP will fail.

File Under: Cogent

You don’t want these candidates moving so right in the Republican primary that it becomes impossible for them to win the general election, because it will become a self-defeating message in the primary.

People want to win. They don’t want somebody who goes so far to the extremes of either party that they lack a chance to carry a victory off in November.

Karl Rove, old turd blossom hisself, opining on the GOP Presidential primary field.
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, Karl, but the “sensibility” ship has sailed, been round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames, and subsequently was no-bid auctioned into a second career as a part-time riverboat gambling operation for KBR executives.
John Huntsman even put his hand up on the “10:1 cuts/revenue is a non-starter deal” question and he’s only running for 2016 positioning. There is no one in the field even trying to be the slightly more sensible, slightly more center-far-right candidate of today’s GOP. Mittmentum, the man made to take up that role abandoned it in 2008. His strong showing then has sensibly pushed him even further to the right now. That ought to fix his issues. If the GOP can’t win the general election from a far right stance, they almost can’t win in 2012. And if the economic headwinds were a bit more predictable, we could drop the “almost” qualifier right now.
But the last thing The Democrat would want to do is start making the GOP take stands against job creation. People just don’t want to hear about that stuff right now. Shrill. Better take a “non-confrontational approach,” get into the defensive crouch, and hope for the best. And this is why they fail.