Quote of the Week:

"George Bush discovering fiscal conservatism on this issue would be like you telling me Pat Buchanan discovered multiculturalism."


-Rachel Maddow of Air America to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" during a debate on expansion of the SCHIP Program, 10/3/07

Caving In

Recently, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2008. Dubbed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, it aimed to "express the sense of the Senate regarding Iran." In its final version, the most significant, and controversial, passage read:

that the Unites States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist orguanization under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224.

Potentially a huge mistake. It is true, as Joshua Micah Marshall noted on 9/26/07 in TalkingPointsMemo, that the State Department already has designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization. But it is not true that such a designation renders its placement in legislation irrelevant. Ever since the Iraq war, sometime after the declaration of Mission Accomplished, started to turn sour, Republican hawks have derided Democrats who voted for the Iraqi war resolution and since turned against the war. It is not unlike the "but you started it" cry of children on the playground (back when children were on playgrounds). This strategy has worked politically as the mainstream media generally have spread the Repub disinformation that Democrats who voted for the resolution actually voted for the war itself. Bush's efforts to gin up public support for a strike against Iran because of a nuclear program have been for naught; it may be time for him to play the terrorist/9-11 card.

As you can see here (and if you're reading this, you probably already know), Senators Dodd and Biden voted against, and Senator Clinton voted for, Kyl-Lieberman. (Although I'm tempted to suggest that Clinton was motivated by a desire to have the authority waiting for her as she is inaugurated, there is a report that she will be co-sponsoring an anti-Iran war bill to be introduced by Virginia Senator Webb.) Obama was not present, a repetition of his disappearing act from the Republican resolution condemning MoveOn for its anti-Petraeus ad. Still, the resolution passed 76-22 and 20 of 22 Senators voting "nay" were Democrats (including Vermont's Bernie Sanders, from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party). The only two Republicans voting "nay" were, not surprisingly, Nebraska's Chuck Hagel and, surprisingly but significantly, Richard Lugar, a leader on foreign policy hailing from the Republican state of Indiana.

As the Iraq war has demonstrated, Congress needs to reassert its interest in foreign policy and not cede to the Executive Branch powers the Founding Fathers did not give it nor intend it to have.

"The Cackle"

Perhaps you caught Senator Hillary Clinton's bemused response to two of Chris Wallace's questions on the September 23, 2007 telecast of Fox News Sunday. Clinton responded with laughter at least twice: "Senator, talk about conservative hit jobs, right-wing conspiracies- why do you and the President have such a hyper-partisan view of politics?" and "Senator Clinton, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for joining us today. Don't be a stranger, and please send my best to the President."

Theories abound as to the reason for the Senator's unprofessional, almost bizarre, response. Perhaps Clinton was laughing at Wallace, given that GOP TV gives a decent imitation of a faux news operation. It also has been suggested that it may have been a nervous laugh or perhaps an attempt to show her lighter, more agreeable, side, so that people hesitate to describe her with a word that rhymes with "switch."

All plausible, and the valid explanation may even be a combination. But the first laugh may have been partially motivated by something else. Clinton is nothing if not thoughtful, given to considering all sides of an issue (and sometimes coming out on each). And consider this: in the last Presidential debate, host Tim Russert (who did an excellent job of probing the candidates' views) asked the Democrats a hypothetical question about torturing a terrorist with vital intelligence information. After the Senator said in part "I think it's dangerous to go down this path," Russert shot back "The guest who laid this scenario out for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year." Now (although, the transcript does not so indicate) Russert stopped a moment, while Clinton understandably was stumped. Then, unfortunately, the host inadvertently bailed her out, continuning "and he disagrees with you." Clinton then, decisively and authoritatively, replied "well, he's not standing here right now."

No one is going to accuse the New York Senator of excessive spontaneity. She responds effectively when she deliberates, as she typically does, and laughter can fill a few seconds of air time as she ponders a statement she is confident will not show up in a 30-second sound bite next autumn.

O'Reilly And Sharpton: Perfect Together

Bill O'Reilly has been considerably criticized for the race- related remarks he made on the Radio Factor on September 19, 2007.. As ABC News.com explained the genesis of the controversy, the television and radio host said of his visit at a famous restaurant in Harlem:


"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City," said O'Reilly on the Sept. 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show.

There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who [was] screaming,'M-Fer was, I want more iced tea," he told National Public Radio's Juan Williams. "[It] was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all.

Some critics remarked that O'Reilly seemed surprised that "blacks eat with knives and forks," or that "we do use table napkins," as a black law professor at the University of Pennsylvania put it.

But there was something that gnawed at me, and apparently few others, about O'Reilly's remarks. CNN.com reports O'Reilly commented "this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg." The appeal of rap music is probably more age- (and possibly class-)than race-dependent, Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg, and rap entertainers generally having more appeal to young white people than to middle-aged blacks. And it's condescending- O'Reilly's appointed mission to educate "white America" about "black America" because white people- including his listeners- "don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans." Perhaps we're sheltered, ignorant, or even racist- clearly inadequate in a way that he is not. We know only that he is a conservative, a Republican, and an elitist.


And let us not forget Reverend Sharpton, who at the time of the incident was dining with Mr. O'Reilly for the second time and later said "I'm not defending him. But I'm not going to OD on O'Reilly." Not, say, like he did on Don Imus. Sharpton brings to mind an old line, something like: "We know what you are. Now we're just discussing the price."

Social Security At The Debate In New Hampshire

Here follows the text of the question(s), with all responses, regarding Social Security posed by Tim Russert at the Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College. This is long, but it provides much insight into the thinking of the favorite to be the next President of the United States.


RUSSERT: And we’re back at Dartmouth College talking to the Democrats. I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare.
The chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Government Accountability Office have both said that the number of people in America on Social Security and Medicare is going to double in the next 20 years—there are now 40 million; it’s going to go to 80 million -- and that if nothing is done, we’ll have to cut benefits in half or double the taxes. That is their testimony.
Senator Biden, in order to prevent that, would you be willing to consider certain steps? For example, back in 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Patrick Moynihan and Bob Dole got together and changed the retirement age. It’s going to be going up to 67 in a gradual increase.
Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500 worth of income.
RUSSERT: Why not tax the entire income of every American? And if you do that, you’ll guarantee the solvency of social security farther than I can see.

BIDEN: The answer is yes. I’m probably the only one up here who’s going to say that, but the truth of the matter is, you stated it. You’re either going to cut benefits, or you’re going to go ahead and raise taxes above the first $97,000.

And, by the way, I was in that room with Pat Moynihan. It was Joe Biden, Pat Moynihan, Bob Dole—it was also George Mitchell— when we made that deal. And I’ll never forget Bob Dole turning to Pat Moynihan and saying, “We all got to jump in this boat at the same time.”

So the bottom line here is, you can’t do it by growing the economy alone. So I would raise the cap.

RUSSERT: Would you also, considering now life expectancy is 78, considering—consider gradually raising the retirement age?

BIDEN: We did that one—I supported that; that’s what got it solvent to 2041. By simply going and taking—raising the cap, you can solve the problem.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people, “I’m going to tax your income; I’m not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you are a millionaire is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.”

CLINTON: Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this, because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.

First, I do think that it is important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055.

Now, because of the return to deficits, we have lost 14 years of solvency. It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path to fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.

Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process.

CLINTON: You described what happened in ‘83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationships between the White House and Capitol Hill, to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed. And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress, he was dissing Social Security.

So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.

And, finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise—what else might be done. But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the ‘90s, it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.

RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at $97,500 off the table?

CLINTON: Well, I’d take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.

RUSSERT: But Senator Biden said you can’t grow your way out of this. And, for the record, when the Clinton administration left office, Social Security was only guaranteed to 2038, not 2055.

CLINTON: There was a plan on the basis of the balanced budget and the surplus to take it all the way to 2055. And we know what happened: George Bush came in, went back to deficits, and has basically used the Social Security trust fund and borrowing from China and other countries to pay for the war.

RUSSERT: So, Senator, a simple question, a simple question:

What do you put on the table? What are you willing to look at to say, “We’re not going to double the taxes, we’re not going to cut benefits in half; I’m willing to put everything on the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table”?

CLINTON: I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it’s a mistake to do that.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option.

OBAMA: Now, we’ve got to have a process that’s already been talked about. Joe participated back in 1983. We need another one. And I think—I’ve said before, everything should be on the table.

My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.

As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don’t believe it’s going to be there for them.

And I think it’s important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we’ve got to take on.

And we should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system to make sure that we are being true to the sake of trust of those who are already retired as well as young people in the future.

And we should reject things that will weaken the system, including privatization, which essentially is going to put people’s retirement at the whim of the stock market.

RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, tax all income?

DODD: I don’t think you have to go that far. I understand what Joe’s point is here, but you could raise that tax far less than all incomes here and achieve the same result by achieving solvency.

DODD: But beyond just the Social Security fix, Tim, there are a host of other issues related to this. Pension security is critically important for long-term security. Financial literacy is critically important to people as well. Prescription drug issues are critically important to that population. Preventive care.

We need to look at this in a wholistic way when it comes to our seniors.

Remember, it was only a few years ago, Tim, that the poorest sector of our population in this country were our elderly.

Because of Medicare, because of Social Security, because of leadership that stood up and fought for it here, we’ve been able to take the older Americans out of poverty and give them a sense of decency and a quality of life.

So, issues like privatization, as has been said here, have to be off the table. And I believe you can achieve that solvency here by doing simpler things, without the draconian measures that some have suggested.

But you need to also deal with these other issues on the table if you’re going to provide that kind of financial security and that quality of life for our older Americans.

RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, would you lift the cap and have taxes paid on income and not cap it at $97,500?

RICHARDSON: No, you don’t need to do that. That’s a 15 percent tax on small businesses, on the middle class, on family farms.

RICHARDSON: You don’t need to do that. This is what you do. One, you take privatization off the table. You don’t want Social Security in the stock market. Two, you stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, as the Congress and the president constantly do. Number three...

RUSSERT: You would then have a—excuse me. Excuse me. You would then have a deficit of over $300 billion...

RICHARDSON: No, no, Tim. No you don’t.

RUSSERT: Governor...

RICHARDSON: No, no, wait. Wait, because I know...

RUSSERT: It’s not funny money. It’s real money.

(LAUGHTER)

RICHARDSON: No, no, but what you do—I am the only candidate here who’s said I’m for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. You have to have fiscal discipline. You’ve also got to grow the economy. You’ve have to have universal pensions. Here’s—you know, this estimate that you just talked about is based on the growth of the economy 1.3 percent. If it grows to 1.8, we don’t have this.

And if we balance the budget, restore our fiscal house, there will be economic growth—if we invest in education and have a stronger workforce, if we incentivize and have a pro-growth economy where we say we’re going to make America green, renewable energy, we’re going to bring new jobs.

RUSSERT: Governor, what you are saying that there is no pain in this. You can double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare and the life expectancy can go to 78. The reason Franklin Roosevelt set the age of eligibility at 65 -- that was life expectancy. You made it on the program for a month or two and that was it.

You’re going to have double the number of people on these programs for 15 years, and you can do it by growing the economy.

RICHARDSON: Tim, I have said I am for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget within five years. That is pain. You don’t do it in a recession. You don’t do it in a war. But if you also generate economic growth, this projection that you mentioned, by the year 2041 is based on 1.3 percent economic growth. That is pathetic.

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards?

RICHARDSON: You grow the economy...

RUSSERT: Can you grow your way out of this?

EDWARDS: No, sir. You cannot. I would say it is the single most important thing for anybody running for president is to be willing to be honest with America.

EDWARDS: You cannot solve this problem just by setting up a bipartisan commission—all of us are for that. You cannot solve this problem just by growing the economy—all of us are for that. But the American people deserve to hear the truth.

They have heard so much politician double-talk on this issue. That’s the reason young people don’t believe Social Security is going to be there for them. Why would you possibly trust a bunch of politicians who say the same thing over and over and over?

“We’re going to grow our way out of this,” but nothing changes. Nothing changes. The honest truth is: There are hard choices to make be made here. The choice I would make as president of the United States is on the very issue that you’ve asked about, which is the cap.

And I have to say, I have some difference with my friend, Chris Dodd, who I agree with a lot. But I don’t understand why somebody who makes $50 million a year pays Social Security tax on the first $97,000 and somebody—and not on the rest—while somebody who makes $85,000 a year pays Social Security tax on every dime of their income.

DODD: Well, John...

EDWARDS: I’m sorry, Chris, let me just finish. I’ll let you respond.

But I want to say one last thing about this. I do have some difference with some of my colleagues who I’ve heard talk about this. I think we have to be very careful to protect the middle class, so specifically—if I can be very specific—what I would do as president is I would create a protective zone between $97,000 up to around $200,000, because there are a lot of firefighter couples, for example, that make $100,000, $115,000 a year. We don’t want to raise taxes on them.

But I do believe that people who make $50, $75, $100 million a year ought to be paying Social Security taxes on that income.

KUCINICH: I think...

RUSSERT: Real fast.

KUCINICH: ... of course, we ought to be raising the cap in order to protect Social Security, which is solid to about 2040 without any changes whatsoever.

But what everyone should realize in this country is that Wall Street is very interested in privatization. And unless we have a president who states very clearly—no privatization, believes in economic growth—and I’m talking about a new WPA, a Works Green Administration, creating technologies for a green America.

KUCINICH: We have to believe in economic growth. We should raise the ceiling. And in addition to that, Tim, we should be thinking about lowering—lowering—the retirement age to 65. People’s bodies break down. There are people who are retiring early. They don’t have the kind of economic help they should get. We should be thinking: Raise the cap, lower the retirement age to 65, stop privatization, increase economic growth. That’s what a Kucinich presidency will mean.

RUSSERT: Senator Dodd, Senator Edwards invoked your name. You have 30 seconds.

DODD: And I thank you.

What I was suggesting here—Joe, I think, said tax everybody.

(CROSSTALK)

DODD: I think clearly that you don’t have to do that.

(LAUGHTER)

DODD: But you can do this by basically readjusting that tax so you don’t have to—doesn’t have to affect everyone in society.

So, John, I’m not suggesting...

RUSSERT: But you’d raise it to $500,000?

DODD: But you’ve got to raise it up, clearly, to do this.

Now, let me also say something. Look, because all of this comes down to one other issue, Tim, clearly.

Joe made the point earlier. We can all talk about this. No one political party is going to do this. It’s going to take people who can bring people together to get the job done.

And you need to demonstrate not just the experience but the proven ability to actually get results by bringing people together to do things that were difficult to accomplish. That’s what I’ve done for 26 years. I know how to do this.

And I think the American people are looking for leadership that not just makes promises about what they’re going to do but the ability to bring elements together, as you had happen with Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill and Bob Dole and Pat Moynihan. That kind of leadership is missing today. That’s what the American people want back.

CLINTON: Tim, I just have to insert something here. You know, the Democrats are against privatization. I fought against it. We all did. But in the interest of, I think, facts, we were on a pathway at the end of the Clinton administration, in the words of Alan Greenspan, of “eliminating the debt.”

CLINTON: That was one of the excuses he gave when he voted for those horrible tax cuts in 2001, that he was so worried that he would actually eliminate the debt. So I think it’s important that you cannot give away what you’re going to be negotiating over when it comes to Social Security until you make it clear that fiscal responsibility has got to be the premise of the negotiation.

And if you don’t lead with that, and if you don’t point to the fact that the Democrats are much better stewards of our country’s budget than the Republicans are—because, once again, we’re in a mess after this President Bush leaves office—then you’re going to be negotiating with yourself, and I think that’s a mistake.

RUSSERT: But Senator Clinton...

CLINTON: But fiscal responsibility first.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton—Senator Clinton, you would acknowledge that the programs, as they are now constructed, will not exist unless significant changes are made in them for the next generation.

CLINTON: Well, I think we have to make some significant changes. And I’ve told you where I would start from and what I would do. And I think it’s a mistake to be negotiating over what you will give away before you even get to the bipartisan process, because the fiscal responsibility is key here.


Several things jump out at you about Senator Clinton's response(s) to these questions.

1) She emphasizes "bipartisanship" and "fiscal responsibility," arguing "I'd take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process."
2) She is cool to the idea of eliminating, or even increasing, the cap on the FICA tax from the current $97,500.
3) She seems to be approaching this issue defensively, stating "you know, I want to see what other people come to the table with."

There are a limited number of options for bolstering Social Security: increase the retirement age; cut benefits; increase the percentage at which income is taxed; increase the cap; privatize, at least partially, the system. Increasing the tax, given that it is a flat percentage of income, is inherently regressive; cutting benefits would reduce the income retired people, already reeling from a medicare prescription drug plan which is a boon to pharmaceutical companies, is unacceptable; increasing the retirement age is tantamount to a cut in benefits; and privatizing Social Security puts the nation on a slippery slope to destruction of the system. Clearly, progressives and main street liberals must support elimination of the cap. There is no reason that a man or woman earning just under $100,000 annually should pay as much of this tax as someone pulling down a million, five million, or twenty million, dollars.

Senator Clinton should understand this. Obviously, Senator Biden, Senator Obama, Representative Kucinich, and former Senator Edwards do. And there is one other thing the former First Lady should understand. "Fiscal responsibility" means something different to Republicans than to Democrats. To the Reagan Administration, the Bush 41 Administration, and now, presumably, the Bush 43 Administration, fiscal responsibility has meant the President spreads funding around to delighted constituencies- and cuts income taxes to delight taxpayers and run up the deficit. Then follows a "responsible" Democratic President to make the public take its medicine, the cod liver oil of increased taxes to move the budget closer to balance.

This Administration does not believe in "bipartisanship" and would erode Social Security if it could. If one of the Democratic aspirants is elected President (as assumed by the question), there will be a Democratic majority, larger than now, in both the House and the Senate. And an opportunity to do the right thing by America's elderly, present and future.

Clinton's Non-Answers

What do the following questions (herein quoted in relevant part) posed at the Democratic Presidential debate on 9/26/07 have in common (answer at end)?


1) If Israel concluded that Iran's nuclear capability threatened Israel's security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?

2) Would you make a promise as a potential commander in chief that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and will use any means to stop it?

3) Last year, some parents of second-graders in Lexington, Massachusetts were outraged to hear their children's teacher had read a story about same-sex marriage about a prince who marries another prince... Would you be comfortable having the story read to your children of part of their school curriculum?

4) Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people "I'm going to tax your income; I'm not going to cap it at $97,500. Everyone, even if you are a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make."

5) Is it healthy for a democracy to have a two-family political dynasty?

6) Senator Clinton, would you rule out expanding nuclear power?

7) Senator Clinton, this is the number three man in Al Qaida. We know there is a bomb about to go off and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?

8) Which foreign policy decison of the Clinton Administration were you involved in or did you advise?

9) Do you believe that the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton library shold publish all the donors who give contributions to these two entities?


That's right. All are questions which Senator Clinton did not directly answer.

Sanctuary Cities And The Rule Of Law

During last night's Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, New Mexico's Bill Richardson, in response to a question late in the debate, declared "I will also be a President who will bring back habeas corpus and the rule of law."

Richardson was right to remind us that not all Presidents must be contemptuous of the right to privacy, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, Governor, you- and most of your colleagues- want to uphold the rule of law only when it is a law you approve of.

Fairly early in the debate, Alison King of http://www.hearstcorp.com/entertainment/property/ent_cable_newengland.html asked the candidates a long, but revealing, question about sanctuary cities, which ended "would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?" Host Tim Russert followed up on the question to elicit a specific answer from each candidate (though for whatever reason John Edwards was not directly queried and did not volunteer his opinion). The verdict- Richardson- yes; Dodd- yes; Kucinich- yes; Gravel- yes; Obama- yes; Clinton- yes. In response to the question, there was criticism of the "federal government," though we do know our current President is fond of the concept of amnesty (see Libby, I. Lewis).

The only candidate to respond, after a little prodding, "no" was Delaware's Senator Biden, who deserves considerable credit. But Representative Kucinich honestly, and dangerously, put it: "The federal law- there is a moral law, and the moral law here says the immigrants are being abused and mistreated." So, as President Bush apparently believes, we enforce the laws we agree with and not those we disagree with. And when we hear our Democratic candidates criticize this failed President, including his discomfort with the United States Constitution, remember this: for six Democratic candidates, the concept of the rule of law remains a concept.