Tag: ezra klein

So on the one hand, a measure that will make a small dent in the deficit. On the other hand, a measure that will lead to a huge increase in the deficit. There’s no theory of the economy in which this really makes sense: If the market is worried about the government’s finances, this makes them worse, not better. If we need lower tax rates, then simply holding the tax rates at the level that produced 2010’s disappointing economic performance isn’t enough.
It’s also worth noting that these policies are both stale: The Bush tax cuts are, well, the Bush tax cuts. They’re tax policy from 10 years ago, designed to deal with a very different set of circumstances. And the 2008 budget is, similarly, just an arbitrary number from some point in the past. Our economic situation has changed dramatically in the past few years. Don’t Republicans have any fresh thinking on what to do about it?

Ezra Klein, doing a better job than Lemkin did. As usual.

[Victory] obscures defeat. Republicans managed to take a jobs bill, weaken it to an unemployment benefits and state and local relief bill, weaken that to an unemployment benefits bill, and then weaken that bill.

Ezra Klein, witnessing the evolution of the now likely to break GOP filibuster unemployment benefits extension. This, more than anything, characterizes why left-leaning independents and Democrats are forever exasperated by what is broadly (mis)characterized as the “Obama administration.” Triangulation TODAY! Triangulation TOMORROW! Triangulation FOREVER!!!! does not an electoral strategy make. Find something important. Refuse to compromise on it. If necessary, let it fail. Crucify the GOP with it for a week or two. Lather, rinse, repeat. This, apparently, is very hard to understand if you’re a DC Democrat.

Unemployment extension: we cannot possibly afford such a deficit exploder; won’t you please think of the children?

Bush tax cuts: Why, we can’t afford not to extend those indefinitely. And no, we don’t need to pay for them in any way. In fact, it would be irresponsible to pay for them.

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2010 GOP. An opponent whose nut(s) The Democrat finds utterly impossible to crack.

(graph via Ezra Klein)

[You] should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes; surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to – if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.

John Kyl, apparently thinking he’s making sense on FoxNEWS Sunday.
So, translating this into the Earth language known as English: spending money on people who just need to suck it up and go die in the streets is always wrong, whether or not the cost of that spending has been offset by equivalent cuts or revenue from elsewhere.
Spending money to lower tax rates, on the other hand, is always right and, in fact, that money should never be offset; or at least an offset should never be an impediment to going right ahead and spending the money.
These people could very well be running the House next January and the whole country come 2012.
(via Ezra Klein)

In the first phase, the financial crisis, the government screamed, and did everything it could to rescue the economy. In the second phase, when the financial crisis became a demand crisis, the public screamed, and the government did quite a lot – though not enough – to help. But as the demand crisis reveals itself as a persistent jobs crisis – the third phase – we’re getting used to it, and Senate Republicans are turning their attention to the midterms, [and] we just settle into a new, awful, and unnecessary normal.

Ezra Klein, explaining the current state of affairs. All I have to add is: Yep.

The Plan

Ezra Klein notes the outcome of some polling on what the average American thinks should be done:

1. Raise the limit on taxable earnings so it covers 90% of total earnings.
2. Reduce spending on health care and non-defense discretionary spending by at least 5%.
3. Raise tax rates on corporate income and those earning more than $1 million.
4. Raise the age for receiving full Social Security benefits to 69.
5. Reduce defense spending by 10% – 15%.
6. Create a carbon and securities-transaction tax.

I don’t see any of these that are antithetical to the broad strokes of Democratic policy, at least as it has played out under Obama. Plus, these are the popular ideas. So steal them. This should be the Aims for a Renewed America (or whatever). You run on it across the board. Individual candidates may feel free to leaven in some Wall St. Fatcat mentions such that they can play down #4.

You’ve already allowed the Republicans to devestate whatever recovery there was…you’d damned well better have a platform that, in a stroke, both recognizes that we have a serious problem and outlines real, substantive, measurable ways to address it. Starting our First Day back in the Congress.

You got a better idea, Reid? Didn’t think so.

…military rules and traditions [allow] very little public criticism of civilian leadership in order to ensure that political and strategic disagreement doesn’t curdle into a culture of opposition among the people with all the weapons. McChrystal was clearly lax on policing criticism within his command, but when the system was made aware of that failure, the system worked. You did not see politically disgruntled generals rallying around McChrystal.
Instead, what you saw was David Petraeus taking a command that amounts to a demotion from his current post and could destroy his reputation as a miracle worker. Petraeus’s successes in Iraq gave him a tremendous reputation and credibility as a big, strategic thinker. He could rest on that, retire on that, run for office on that. Instead, Petraeus is going to put that reputation back on the line in service of a war effort that may well be doomed. Why? Well, the civilian who leads the military asked him to, and a soldier obeys.

Ezra Klein, nailing it.
Also interesting to me that the Petraeus move politically neutralizes any credible GOP opposition while also effectively neutralizing Petraeus relative to any vague 2012-based thinking that may have been going on while simultaneously giving the endlessly imbecilic chattering class a bone re: Presidential “toughness.” Masterful.

On the one hand, Republicans have had a major role in shaping [the healthcare reform, financial regulation, and climate change bills]. On the other hand, they haven’t had to vote for these bills, and so they could cleanly campaign against legislation that a member of their party helped write. And as an added bonus, Democrats are stuck trying to defend a bill that their base doesn’t like very much and that’s thick with compromises that annoy political elites.

Ezra Klein on the Lone Republican strategy, which has put Snowe, Corker, and now Lindsey “Huckleberry” Graham alone in the room full of Democrats, at least until it mattered. Bill successfully shaped to GOP specifications, compromise time is over, Democrats pass unpopular, weakened bill (seemingly forgetting to dump the compromise portions every single time) and the GOP gets to campaign against it all, with emphasis on “back room deals” and “sweetheart provisions,” many or even most of which were made at their behest.
And, worst of all, The Democrat is shocked every single time.

The Answer is “No”

Ezra Klein wants answers from Rand Paul:

Can the federal government set the private sector’s minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors?

These are precisely the sorts of questions that need to be asked of all these Glibertarian fucktards that lately infest the political scene. To save everyone some time: the answer to all of them is NO; now will you just go die in the streets?

A lot of people are noting that Orwell was a socialist and Gingrich doesn’t know what he’s talking about [in his CPAC address], but I’m much more appalled that Gingrich thinks a dystopic piece of fiction was “proof” that “that centralized planning inherently leads to dictatorship” and an argument against health-care reform. That’s like me saying “The Shawshank Redemption” is proof that prison walls are too weak and we should invest serious money into reinforcing them against extremely small rock picks.

Ezra Klein