Embracing Opponents, Isolating Supporters


In his statement last night announcing the deal he has struck with those whose friendship he so yearns for, the President remarked

This is where the debate has stood for the last couple of weeks. And what is abundantly clear to everyone in this town is that Republicans will block a permanent tax cut for the middle class unless they also get a permanent tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, regardless of the cost or impact on the deficit.

We saw that in two different votes in the Senate that were taken this weekend. And without a willingness to give on both sides, there's no reason to believe that this stalemate won't continue well into next year. This would be a chilling prospect for the American people whose taxes are currently scheduled to go up on January 1st because of arrangements that were made back in 2001 and 2003 under the Bush tax cuts.

I am not willing to let that happen. I know there's some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession.

I am not willing to let that happen. I know there's some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle.
On Saturday, the Senate rejected two proposals, each needing 60 votes to break a threatened filibuster. One, which had been approved by the House, would have ended the cuts for incomes above $200,000 (individuals) or $250,000 (families) and fell 53 to 36- seven votes shy of invoking cloture- with 53 of 58 Democrats in favor. The other, proposed by Chuck Schumer (D- NY), would have ended the break for income above $1,000,000. That too was rejected, 53 to 37, seven votes shy of gaining cloture, with only five Democrats (including pseudo-Democrat Lieberman, who voted against cloture also on the previous proposal.)

No republican- zero Republicans- voted for either proposal. And "I know there's some people in my own party," the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee says, "who would rather prolong this battle." Sure, Obama included in this criticism "and in the other party." But without drawing a distinction between congressional Democrats, who were in favor of a tax cut for the middle class, and congressional Republicans, who were opposed a tax cut for the middle class, people blow off the knock of the opposition party as mere politics as usual. They may give Barack Obama credit for bipartisanship- surely this is the calculation- but assess Democrats blame for obstructionism.

This appears to be the plan, opposed by Ari Berman on Alternet, reporting

Five major progressive groups--MoveOn, Democracy for America, TrueMajority, Credo Action and the Progressive Campaign Change Committee--are now urging the Senate not to ratify the imminent Obama deal. Says DFA chair Jim Dean: "Voters - and activists - are not buying the notion that tax cuts for high income earners are the only path to extending the middle class tax-cuts. As for any Democratic members of Congress who are going along with extending the tax cuts for high income earners. This is the stuff primaries are made of.

But, then, that is the plan- even from critics of Obama's scheme, the response is "as for any Democratic members of Congress who are going along with (the proposal).... this is the stuff primaries are made of." Not for the allegedly Democratic president- but from members of Congress who are following his lead. Obama, it seems, is invulnerable to such a challenge, despite a willingness to appease which renders him unable even to contemplate the possibility of a veto- of anything. This weakness, though, reflects a callous indifference to principle, a trait John Mellencamp once sang about.

Boldly, Senator Bernard Sanders, an Independent who knows what it means to be a Democrat, has threatened a filibuster of the plan (video below). But it would take more, even extraordinary, boldness for Senate Democrats to take on the president of their own party who has cut a deal with the other party. They are on the team and they, as in the Tom Tomorrow illustration (below), must "compromise." The other side? Not so much- or at all.

Share|

A Few More Facts, Please

Think Progress, to which I often link, apparently couldn't resist a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist dig, even when commenting on a national calamity in a post intended to draw attention to environmental concerns. Noting "the solidarity shown by the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, the United States, and others who have come to Israel’s aid in the face of climate disasters," the blog of the Center for American Progress maintained
In a demonstration of solidarity in the climate crisis, Palestinian firefighters were some of the first to help Israel fight the unprecedented wildfires in the divided nation. The fires are caused by record heat and drought, a predicted consequence of the long-term climate change in the region spurred by fossil fuel pollution. A team of 21 Palestinian firefighters from the Bethlehem civil defense team left the southern West Bank in four fire engines at 4 am Sunday, and “were received respectfully” by Israeli teams, Bethlehem Civil Defense Chief Ibrahim Ayish told the Jerusalem Post "After all, we’re dealing with a humanitarian issue which knows no borders."

Surely, the issue knows no borders and the international response was heartening, although hardly unprecedented. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained

In a massive wildfire in California a few years ago, the United States received assistance from eight countries; it neither hesitated nor was ashamed to request this assistance, including from countries from which we have made similar requests. In last summer's massive wildfire in Russia, Russia neither hesitated nor was ashamed to request assistance from Ukraine and from other countries.

Israel, which "is better known for sending its own rescue teams and medical personnel to other countries to help in their disaster-relief efforts," was left woefully unprepared for the deadly fire in the Carmel forest in the Galilee region. Partly as a result,

Dozens of Israeli guards trying to rescue prisoners threatened by the worst forest fire in the country's history died Thursday when their bus became trapped in the same inferno.

As the guards raced toward the prison holding mostly Palestinians, a lone tree fell across the road, blocking their path. With no way out, many of them were burned alive inside the vehicle. Others perished while trying to flee the flames fed by brush left tinder-dry by lack of rain.

When the smoke cleared, at least 36 were dead.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million people, is smaller than Virginia. And at least 36 of its first responders have died. They died, reportedly, "racing toward (a) prison holding mostly Palestinians." Died trying to rescue Palestinians- incarcerated Palestinians, even.

Many on our side extol the Palestinians whenever possible, especially when our Middle Eastern ally can be excoriated. But the circumstances of this catastrophic loss of life cannot be omitted- even if it interferes with pursuit of an anti-Israel agenda.

Share|

On The High-End Income Tax Cut


Last week, the President pledged to "correct our long-term fiscal course" and proposed a two-year pay freeze for all federal civilian employees. "The hard truth." he maintained, "is that getting this deficit under control is going to require broad sacrifice."

Now, however, not so much. President Obama Monday

announced a tentative deal with Congressional Republicans on Monday to extend the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels for two years as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy....

The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.

But even as he took a major step toward increasing the deficit and the national debt, the President couldn't resist implying that he is simultaneously cutting the deficit:

A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit....

President Obama assures us that the impact of the cuts will be short-lived, as

.... these tax cuts will expire in two years. And I'm confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down...

Expire in two years? These income tax cuts were due to expire on December 31, 2010. Currently, the President faces a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate (which this fellow does not find a happy circumstance) and nearly two years to turn his presidency around- and he negotiates with himself and accedes to Republican demands. In two years, the House will be, and the Senate probably will be on the verge of, being run by Republicans.

Nate Silver explains how the tax issue, sure to return in 2012, will play out if the economy, as is likely, rebounds, modestly or otherwise:

See, this is proof that lower taxes work, I would argue if I were a Republican.
The stimulus — all that government spending — didn’t work. It just increased unemployment. But keeping taxes low worked, and the economy is finally recovering. So why on earth would we want to raise anyone’s taxes now?

What if the economy doesn't recover? Republicans are in favor of tax cuts on high-income brackets in good times. In times that are neither good nor lean. And in lean times. And for that, they have a playbook, and this time they don't have to steal it. As Republicans move in a year and a half (they won't wait till after the election), to make tax cuts a campaign issue as they lobby for the wealthy, they then could quote the President saying

It's not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery. It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.

Unfortunately, as the CBO reported in February of this year (captured in the hard-to-read graph below), the impact of an income tax cut on employment is likely to be minimal:





Responding to the same analysis, Paul Krugman explains

A two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, it estimated, would lower the unemployment rate next year by between 0.1 and 0.3 percentage points compared with what it would be if the tax cuts were allowed to expire; the effect would be about twice as large in 2012. Those are significant numbers, but not huge — certainly not enough to justify the apocalyptic rhetoric one often hears about what will happen if the tax cuts are allowed to end on schedule.

Of course, the impact upon the unemployment rate of an extension strictly on the upper incomes, which was the only extension at issue, would be even less.
Were he a Democrat, the President might note that, under the tax plan which he originally proposed and House Democrats fought for (cuts only on the brackets under $200,000/$250,000), upper-income Americans themselves get a tax break. They, too, would benefit from the decline in rates for income beneath that threshold. Unfortunately, GOP talking points die hard, and not at all in the mouth of this President.

Halloween came and went nearly two months ago. Apparently, Mr. Obama finds little need to go to his closet and drag out his Democratic costume, donned only for special occasions.

Share|

Dignity, Thy Name Is Chris

Oh, it was so cruel of then-New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, running for re-election against Repub Chris Christie. In October, 2008, The New York Times captured the flavor of mainstream media outrage at the attention Corzine's ads drew to his opponent's body frame:

It is about as subtle as a playground taunt: a television ad for Gov. Jon S. Corzine shows his challenger, Christopher J. Christie, stepping out of an S.U.V. in extreme slow motion, his extra girth moving, just as slowly, in several different directions at once.

Christopher J. Christie, who said he had struggled with his size since his teens, called an ad by Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s campaign that makes a snide reference to his weight “silly” and “stupid.”

Mr. Corzine, a fitness buff, said candidates often objected to depictions of themselves.

In case viewers missed the point, a narrator snidely intones that Mr. Christie “threw his weight around” to avoid getting traffic tickets.

In the ugly New Jersey contest for governor, Mr. Corzine and Mr. Christie have traded all sorts of shots, over mothers and mammograms, loans and lying. But now, Mr. Corzine’s campaign is calling attention to his rival’s corpulence in increasingly overt ways.

Mr. Corzine’s television commercials and Web videos feature unattractive images of Mr. Christie, sometimes shot from the side or backside, highlighting his heft, jowls and double chin....

The governor denies that he is deliberately ridiculing Mr. Christie’s weight, and tries to make light of such suggestions. “There isn’t a candidate in the world that likes how they’re depicted in their opponent’s ads,” Mr. Corzine said on Friday, smiling as he lamented that some have shown his bald pate. “Seems to be some sensitivity going on here.”

But the unflattering depictions of Mr. Christie, a Republican who has long struggled with his size, have been the talk of the political world in New Jersey, with Democrats snickering and Christie supporters privately complaining. The governor’s latest ad, which featured the “threw his weight around” line and was expected to be seen by some viewers as many as 10 times, brought sharp reaction, even from those who like Mr. Corzine.

“There’s no subtlety there,” said Bill Baroni, a Republican state senator from Hamilton who lost 130 pounds starting 15 years ago. “That’s not a randomly chosen phrase. It’s purposeful. And it’s offensive.”

Mr. Baroni said that Mr. Corzine risked a backlash from the “tens of thousands” of New Jerseyans who struggle with their weight. “It is a lifetime battle,” he said. “And it’s made harder when people that you expect better from make fun of you.”

Mr. Christie calls the ad “silly” and “stupid....”

Republicans "complained" while Democrats "snickered" that the challenger "threw his weight around." CNN's Howard Kurtz could have been speaking for his journalistic colleagues when, the weekend before the election, he charged "Jon Corzine calling the Republican candidate, Chris Christie fat, or implying he was overweight."

It was so good being assured that Jon Corzine, noting that Christie "threw his weight around," really was talking only about his opponent's weight. Perhaps these guys would like to explain this (illustration below):

Gov. Chris Christie took off his jacket, rolled up his sleeves and warned the crowd: This, he said, is when his explosive town hall moments happen.

He waded into Parsippany yesterday — the epicenter of his battle with school superintendents. He appeared to be looking for a fight.

And he got it.

The Parsippany town hall, his 15th such event, proved to be the governor’s most explosive yet. There were robust challenges to his economic and education policies from all sides, catcalls, heckling, and three people were removed by the police. And despite of all of that, or because of it, he ended the night with an ovation.

Keith Chaudruc, of Madison, got the final question of the night.

The Livingston school district elementary teacher launched into a list of complaints about drops in municipal aid, increasing NJ Transit fares and tax cuts for those making more than $1 million.

His question: How could Christie sign off on a tax cut for the most wealthy, ignoring the regressive nature of the sales tax, while those at the bottom were getting squeezed with increases like the transit fares?

The two adversaries went back and forth for a few minutes, until Chaudruc, a Republican, interrupted the governor.

"You want to come up here?" Christie shouted. "You come up here ... Let’s have a conversation.."

Chaudruc, who stands 5’6" and weighs about 160 pounds, backed away until the governor insisted "bring him up here," and a state trooper escorted him to the stage.

Christie, a few inches taller and several pounds heavier, loomed over Chaudruc as he launched into a tirade.

"Your wonderful increase in taxes would have killed jobs in this state," Christie said pointing his index finger at Chaudruc. "You and I have different ideas of what being a Republican is all about because I’m not going to raise taxes."

Before he could get another word in, Chaudruc was ushered off the stage and out of the room by a trooper.

"It’s his playground. He holds the ball," Chaudruc said afterward, adding that Christie never answered his question.







Let's go over this slowly for the Republican media. Questioner, 5'6", 160 pounds. Governor, much larger. Questioner dragged down by a state trooper to face the finger-pointing, lecturing GOP rock star and "escorted" back by a state trooper acting as Christie's enforcer. Governor Chris Christie. Very classy, and certainly never "throwing his weight around."

Share|

The Republican Media- No. 25

I've done it, repeatedly. ABC News has done it (from February):

The White House is seeking to make permanent the tax cuts introduced by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003, for individuals making less than $200,000 per year and families earning under $250,000....

Yet at the same time, those in the tax bracket above that limit -- higher than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families -- will see an automatic decrease in their paychecks as the tax cuts for that income group expire at the end of this year. The tax rates will rise for individuals, from 33 percent to 36 percent and for couples, from 35 percent to 36 percent.

CBS News, even in a poll question (article, December 2), has done it



Summarizing, CBS maintains "Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal. Another 14 percent of Americans say the cuts should expire for all Americans."

But assuming (as has always been inevitable) the tax cuts for incomes below $250,000 (households) and $200,000 (individuals) are extended, everyone gets a tax cut. The relatively affluent, in fact, get a larger absolute cut than do others, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities graphically demonstrates:






The lower tax rate is not on the lower income-earner but on the lower income. An individual with an income above $200,000 (or a household with income above $250,000) gains the full, maximum benefit from the Democratic tax proposal- all the cut for income at or below $200,000, at which point no additional benefit is gained. The additional tax is at the margin- for the income above the threshold.Hence, everyone wins (or at least gets a lower rate)! And if you bring in $200,000, you win as much as the billionaire, and more than he/she who earns $199,000, or $100,000, or $50,000.

When the middle-class tax cuts are extended, the lowest taxable rate will be 10%. The highest rate does not cut in at $200,000.01, because, the CBPP explains

the income tax operates as a staircase, not an elevator. This means that people who make $1 million a year do not go directly to the top “floor” (i.e., to the top tax rate, currently 35 percent) but instead take the “stairs,” paying tax on the first increment of taxable income at 10 percent, paying tax on the next increment at 15 percent, and so on until reaching the top rate.

Make all the money you want (and can); even, say $300 billion. You'll still be far better off than the middle class- and even the millionaire.

This is of more than academic- or blogging- interest. Among conservative- not even far-right, but mere conservative- talk show hosts and politicians, the cry is: everyone deserves a tax cut! Everyone does, however, receive a pay cut under the Democratic plan. It is only some income- income above $200,000/$250,000- that does not receive a pay cut. It should be the policy of the federal government to lend a helping hand (as both Republicans and Democrats believe it should, in the matter of tax cuts) to people- not to income. (This, although the GOP Supreme Court believes corporations have the same speech rights as do individuals- take that, original intent!)

When the mainstream media misleadingly implies that under one plan only the middle class gets a tax cut (such as here, here, here, and here) it parrots the GOP line that President Obama needs to veer over to the Repub side of the argument in order to compromise. But, as described (accurately) by the CBPP, the Democratic plan is the compromise, with everyone getting a cut.

With the Democratic Party and the middle class losing this message war to the GOP and its wealthy patrons, only about 1/4 (26%, to be exact) of Americans wants tax cuts extended to upper incomes, according to this month's CBS poll. That, at least, demonstrates the wisdom of an American people of whom Rush Limbaugh and some others on the right are so contemptuous.

Share|

************

Surely, comrades," cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, "surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?"

Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it
was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this
light, they had no more to say.

George Orwell's Animal Farm, Chapter VI

**********


I'm All You've Got

White House Director of Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes spoke last night at the American Constitution Society's "holiday" party at the Center for American Progress. Talking Points Memo reports that Barnes portrayed herself as

a guardian angel of sorts, trying her best Thursday night to pull progressives back from the brink.

Speaking at the American Constitution Society's holiday party at the Center for American Progress last night, Barnes drew parallels between the famous Christmas-themed movie (one of her favorite films) and the situation liberals find themselves in post-election 2010.

(It's a Wonderful Life; she's just an old-fashioned, small-town gal, doncha know.)

The President has nixed health care reform with no public option, let alone a single-payer system; pushed financial reform unlikely to prevent another crisis; refused to sign an Executive Order suspending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, despite protestations that he's just fine with gay people in the military; continued American military operations in Iraq, after flaunting his opposition to the war all the way to the presidential nomination; appointed a "debt reduction commission," inviting it to propose reductions in the most popular governmental program in American history.

Now, President Obama is maneuvering to have the GOP accept- accept!- tax cuts for the wealthy, if only (or especially) so he can get the new START treaty approved by the Senate. And then there is his proposal to freeze the pay of all civilian employees of the federal government because

Small businesses and families are tightening their belts. The government should, too.

Few instructors of Economics 101- Economics 101 in high school- would leave unchallenged a claim that an economic downturn, exacerbated by the reluctance of the private sector and of individuals to spend, would benefit from a cut in public spending.

Most Democratic presidents, too, would be unlikely to scapegoat public servants or at try to attribute a growing federal deficit to the impact of their salaries. And while the President continued to pander eagerly to those who have pledged his political destruction, Barnes, TPM notes

expressed confidence that courts would continue to uphold health care reform as constitutional, calling efforts to oppose reform "a page out of the old playbook: let's take it to the courts."

"We've seen it over and over again, we were prepared for that, we knew it was going to happen. We saw it with the Voting Rights Act, with the Civil Rights Act," Barnes said.

Brown v. Board of Education. Bailey v. Patterson. Loving v. Virginia. Jones v. Maye., Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Batson v. Kentucky. And Baker v. Carr, which established the "one man, one vote" principle and opened the door to election of minorities who had been largely denied the opportunity to run competitive races..... And Barack Obama's employee raises the old right-wing trope, attacking the appeal to the judiciary for justice?

Ironic, too- given Barnes' pep talk for President Obama- was the presence of Dawn Johnsen, who was nominated to be head of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen had condemned Bush/Cheney policies on warrantless wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention, ignoring international treaties and conventions, and concentration of power in a unitary executive. Despite- or because of- that, when the Administration found that confirmation would be an effort, the nomination was withdrawn, demonstrating "the failure of Barack Obama and his Administration to support their own nominee and stand up for the values she proffered which led them to select her in the first place."

Notwithstanding the irony of an Obama Administration official knocking use of the courts to gain justice and the prominent presence of a progressive, cast aside as mere collateral damage, at an event boosting the President, Melody Barnes effectively encapsulated the Obama political strategy. She cautioned

Yeah, it's bad, Barnes acknowledged. But, she implored, think of how much worse it would have been if Democrats hadn't been in power at all.

It all comes down to that with President Obama. The Party of Palin, Boehner, and Fox News- or me. Really, they argue, you have no choice anymore. You made me your nominee for president and now you're stuck.

Share|

Cut Police, Become GOP Star


Tom Corbett can be forgiven. Perhaps. Elected governor of Pennsylvania on November 2, the Republican boasted “Throughout the campaign, people asked me, ‘What kind of role model do you have?’ I reminded them: Just look across the Delaware River to New Jersey. Take a look at Governor Christie.”

He's not alone in his sentiments. Elected governor in 2009, New Jersey's governor has proven to be a huge hit among GOP politicians and voters nationwide and has become a YouTube standout.

Eleven incoming Repub governors, almost as a tribute to Christie, have pledged not to raise taxes, with Wisconsin's Scott Walker remarking "Chris Christie is the primo example of how you turn around government" and Iowa's Terry Branstad remarking "he tells it like it is, and it's time for that."

Barely after taking office, Christie vetoed a millionaires tax increase passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature in New Jersey and now says that he wants to cut income taxes for the wealthy. In a development (sarcasm alert) that may please conservative Republicans even more, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Wednesday

Camden will lay off nearly half of its police officers and a third of its firefighters, while eliminating positions in every other city office, according to a layoff plan approved Tuesday by the state.

The 383 layoffs represent about a quarter of the city's workforce and touch all corners of city government - from 15 courtroom positions to 20 police dispatchers to all four animal-control officers.

The elimination of 180 positions from a 373-member force means more bad news for a poor, violent city that has seen 37 homicides this year. A national survey recently named Camden the second-most dangerous in the United States, although police officials have pointed to some recent reductions in crime.

Camden appears to be in a worse predicament than Newark, which laid off 167 of its 1,034 police officers this week after negotiations broke down between their union and the city. Cities and towns around New Jersey are struggling this year following cuts in state aid, with layoffs in public safety increasingly common.

The news here is, or should be, the risk to public safety in New Jersey's deteriorating cities of cuts in state aid engineered by a Republican governor who, now in California on yet another tour to raise his national profile, has taken on the trappings of a rock star. It is, more significantly, a classic example of the impact on the lives of people by solid Republican theology, emphasizing tax cuts for those least in need of them, a strategy now being played out nationally. Nationally, in New Jersey, or in states throughout the nation, public officials are aware of the devastating effect those tax policies will have on their populace. But they won't let the public in on it, and neither will a media which will largely report on a declining quality of life without tying it directly to an ideology friendly to the wealthy and hostile to the middle class.

Perhaps it is merely overheated rhetoric to suggest that people in Camden and Newark will die as a result of Governor Christie's tax cut mania. No, it probably isn't.

Share|