One of the biggest adjustments that congressional Democrats have had to make in the last month is not having the Clinton White House there to churn out economic analyses of Republican proposals â¦ pie-charts, data-sheets, how this or that proposal affects people in your state or your district.
There are a lot of more obvious (and, yes, more important) reasons why it’s nice to have one of your own in the Oval Office. But this one turns out to be really important. That’s made it all the more important for Democratically-inclined think tanks and policy shops to pick up the slack. And the doing more on this count than any other at the moment is the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. CBPP is turning out to be the number-crunching arsenal of the Democratic counterattack on the Bush tax plan. If you’re interested in finding out all the details about Bush’s plan their site has a series of briefing papers which give all the ugly details.
The one percent of the population with the highest incomes would receive between 36 percent and 43 percent of the tax cut, depending on the calculation used. The bottom 80 percent of the population would receive 29 percent of the tax cut.
Approximately 24.1 million children – 33.5 percent of all children – live in families which are excluded from the tax cut entirely.
While one-third of all children would not benefit from the Bush tax plan, more than half of black and Hispanic children would not receive any assistance. An estimated 55 percent of African-American children and 56 percent of Hispanic children live in families that would receive nothing from the tax cut.
White House officials have claimed that lower-income families would receive the largest percentage tax reductions. Such claims focus only on income taxes. Low- and moderate-income families pay more in other federal taxes – principally payroll taxes – than in income taxes. It is possible to eliminate a large percentage of the small income tax liability that many moderate-income families incur and register only a small impact on the total federal taxes that such families pay.
Again. This stuff ain’t for the faint of heart. But if you really want to understand the details of what’s going on here by all means check out their site. Start with this overview and then go from there.
For a much more bare-bones run down of the details see this graph from the Center for Tax Justice.
And to hear some of the Democrats’ counter-proposals for a progressive, across-the-board tax cut see this floor speech that Joe Lieberman gave earlier this week in the Senate.
P.S. Next up, Talking Points reveals some new info on the Democrats emerging counter-attack on the Bush tax plan.
Ahh! How cool is this? If you missed Talking Points this morning on C-Span’s Washington Journal you still have a chance — and not just in the endless reruns on C-Span today. They have it available online if you’ve got Real Player installed on your computer.
It’s Talking Points v. National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg, a pretty fire-breathing Clinton-hater, but actually a pretty decent guy on a personal level. (Am I just saying that to be polite online — like I often do about other people? No, in this case, believe or not, it’s really true).
And does Talking Points still keep flogging smear-gate? No doubt. No doubt.
You’d be surprised at how knocked on their heels Senate Dems have been acting for the last couple weeks while they’ve been waiting for Bush to send up his tax bill. But today’s news that Senators Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe and Linc Chafee want to scale back the president’s $1.6 trillion tax cut should let them all breathe a big sigh of relief.
(Keep in mind that Jeffords and Snowe are both close to John Breaux (D) and he may be a force behind this.)
Each of the three announced their opposition to Bush’s bill in its current form with rationales quite similar, at least in their outlines, to the ones Democrats have been making: not enough left for domestic priorities, not enough help to those who need it most, too reckless in assuming those future surpluses will arrive.
Yet the real issue, the real dividing line, may be less over the size of the cut than over its structure. One thing that’s left Dems struggling over recent weeks is a flood of polling data (some of which the Dems’ commissioned for themselves and heard at their caucus meeting last week) all showing the same conclusion: Bush’s campaign trail critique of Gore’s targeted tax cut plan – that it ‘picked and choosed’ who would get a tax cut – was very effective. (Simply paying down the debt also no longer seems an effective argument against tax cuts.)
That’s left Dems without one of their key tax policy weapons – Clintonite targeted tax cuts. So they’ve been trying to come up with ways of crafting an ‘across the board’ tax cut which doesn’t play with marginal rates. The key in every case is giving everyone the same size cut (or close to it), but in dollar terms, not percentage terms — which is much more progressive (and, yes, vastly more honest).
The best idea making the rounds is to give a rebate on payroll taxes out of your income tax. So say, for instance, that everyone gets to deduct a percentage of their payroll taxes from their income tax. That’s across-the-board (everyone gets it) but it focuses the benefit on middle and lower income families, not the very wealthy, like Bush’s plan.
Some of them are even catching on to the idea of pitching this as eliminating the ‘work penalty’ – like this article said a few years back.
P.S. Wow. That was pretty earnest, wasn’t it? Next we’ll do some pictures.
Ha! You thought that measly six minutes on Reliable Sources was cool. How ’bout this. Tomorrow Talking Points takes a turn on C-Span’s Washington Journal from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM (and presumably at odd times throughout the day).
P.S. The topic? News of the day with an as-yet-to-be-named right-winger.
Not long ago a very prominent conservative activist gave a talk to a private audience in which he explained one of the chief reasons conservatives wanted one of their own at the Justice department. The reason? To go after liberal and left-leaning political organizations with Justice’s muscle. (Sorry to be so cloak-n-dagger about the details – it’s a matter of shielding sources.)
Who’s in their cross-hairs? The usual suspects. Unions, the NAACP, NOW, etc. They see this as payback for the (largely fanciful) ‘persecution’ they believe they’ve been subjected to by the Reno Justice Department and the Clinton IRS. What was striking about this statement was less the intention expressed than the openness with which it was expressed.
(Ironically, liberals may end up being the victim of conservatives’ paranoia about the Reno Justice department. Got that? No? I’ll explain later.)
Anyway, here’s the first shot across the bow in the reliably lapdogian Washington Times. (The Times is where DC right-wingers go to try out new arguments before they take ’em to the bigs). The Times is reporting that “conservative critics” are saying the NAACP’s tax exempt status should be revoked because the organization is too tight with the Democratic party.
We’ll be hearing a lot more of this.
Hey, what happened to Talking Points?!?! What happened to the multiple daily updates? Did he go Hollywood after his big TV appearance on CNN?
Nope. Just on vacation. TPM returns Tuesday February 6th with posts galore. For the moment, be sure to see this article in the Washington Post on the upcoming tax policy debate. The first good one I’ve seen thus far – and hopefully a sign of things to come. Straight talk on tax policy means talking about the payroll tax – which is the main tax for the great majority of Americans. For the outlines of a possible progressive tax politics see this article from a couple years back.
Meanwhile a few boobs have convinced themselves that Bush’s tax cut proposal is actually ‘progressive’ because its nominal cuts for low-income wage-earners are actually higher than the cuts for high-income earners. More soon on why they’re such boobs.
Trust me, after my performance today on Reliable Sources my own show right after Spin Room is a done deal. Mark my word, it’s in the bag.
Actually, I can barely remember anything that happened after Howie Kurtz introduced me. And it seemed like the whole thing lasted about nine seconds, even though I’m told the segment ran for six or seven minutes.
Kurtz led off with gusto. He laid out the White House vandalism story; described my rebuttal article in Slate; and then said something like: “Joshua Marshall, aren’t you just shamelessly shilling for Bill Clinton?” (or something like that)
Hmmmm â¦ As nearly as I could tell this got a chuckle from Bernie Kalb and Chris Caldwell (I think in sympathy, but who knows).
My first thought was to say, “But, of course …” But then I thought, okay, okay â¦ maybe that’s not the best approach to take. Then I launched into it. And I have no idea what I said after that.
Just between us, Kurtz seemed a touch prickly. My theory is that maybe he ran into Andrea Mitchell at a Washington cocktail party and she told him to give me a good working-over as payback for the Slate piece. But who knows. (Actually, Kurtz was quite gracious off-the-air.)
But Bernie Kalb. I really like this guy. As a viewer of Reliable Sources I always figured Bernie for a bit of a curmudgeon. But he was great. Gracious, avuncular and he was wearing a turtleneck (which was very cool in my book). The whole thing went by so quickly that I can’t quite remember why else I thought he was great. But he was great.
P.S. The show airs on Saturday at 6:30 PM EST and Sunday at 11:30 AM EST.
P.P.S. If you’re interested in all the twisted details, here’s the actual transcript — it’s the second-to-last segment.
Is the liberal Washington media ever going to level with the American people? For all the years of the Reagan-Bush recovery (1992-2000) the media just had to give credit to Bill Clinton whose policies didn’t have anything to do with it anyway. Then when the 1993 tax hike finally caught up with the economy last year those media dogs couldn’t help but try to cover for their man Bill. Hopefully now with all the bad economic data coming out day by day they’ll finally admit that their man Bill screwed everything up after all. But you know what the kicker is? Look at those dour unemployment numbers that came out today. All those people lost their jobs. But look a little more closely. The rate of job creation also jumped well above what economists had expected. You know what that means, don’t you? You got it, bud! The first inklings of the Bush recovery!
Who’s gonna report this!?!?!
Rush, Lucianne, Drudge? Who?
Hey, you thought you’d heard enough about smear-gate (Talking Points’ admittedly grating name for the fake White House vandalism story). But no. This weekend I’m going to be on CNN’s Reliable Sources to flog the vandalism story a couple more times. You know, that’s the show with Howie Kurtz, the media reporter guy (pictured below)?
And starting the week after that I get my own half-hour show right after Spin Room! Okay, the second part is bogus. But I really am going to be on Reliable Sources (Sat. 6:30 PM EST; Sun. 11:30 AM EST).
“If you were a right-wing conspiracist,” Andrew Sullivan asked Hardball’s Chris Matthews on January 23rd, “could you have devised a more typical ending for the Clinton administration – pardons to a lot of criminals and then vandalism by 20-somethings in the White House? It’s like Gary Aldrich’s fantasy.”
Well, yeah. It did sound a bit like an Aldrich fantasy, now didn’t it? Sullivan is still harping on the Marc Rich pardon story and embroidering it into a thick quilt of anti-Clintonism. And, frankly, who can blame him? The Rich pardon looks pretty ugly.
But what happened to that other last-days-of-Clinton scandal – that whole business with the pranks and vandalism at the White House? (What we at Talking Points have taken to calling smear-gate). Should we still be waiting for more ‘proof’ of the vandalism to emerge? Or is Sullivan going to admit he may have gotten duped by the Bush spin machine?
Or would it be quicker to wait for OJ to find the ‘real killers.’
The Washington Times reports this morning that congressman Bob Barr (he of Council of Conservative Citizens speech-making fame) has asked the Government Accounting Office to investigate Clintonite vandalism at the White House. This is a procedural matter and a request from a congressman obligates the GAO to commence a preliminary investigation, which they have now done.
Could I be embarrassed if it turns out that the rumors were all true? Sure. But I’m happy to let the chips fall where they may.
Let’s say a few more words about John Ashcroft’s nomination before he’s confirmed tomorrow.
First, I like Chris Dodd, the senior senator from Connecticut. But what the hell is he thinking? Thus far the people who have come out in support of Ashcroft have mostly had decent reasons. I don’t agree with them. But there’s at least been a logic.
Zell Miller clearly wants to cover his right flank by sucking up to George W. Despicable, but understandable.
Russ Feingold? Well, Russ is sort of the beloved, honorable freak of the Democratic caucus. People give him credit for campaign finance reform and other than that have no idea what to make of him.
But what the hell is Chris Dodd’s excuse? Beside his car, his houses, his stock portfolio, and the rest of his possessions he owns one more piece of personal property: a senate seat from Connecticut! Dodd owns that seat. He inherited it from his dad!
I have to imagine that Dodd decided to vote for Ashcroft out of some sense of senatorial traditionalism and courtesy. But this ain’t bingo we’re playing here! A lot of senators are suffering the trials of the martyrs over this (Landrieu, Cleland, etc.). Senate Democrats are going to need to stick together in some really tough situations over the next two years. And the leadership is going to have to ask some Dems from Republican-leaning states to swallow hard and cast some very difficult votes. Why should they put themselves on the line when Dodd won’t even do the right thing when it’s a gimme? Dodd really has a lot of explaining to do.
Hopefully the Democrats will surpass forty votes tomorrow. But let’s pause for a moment to say what was important about stopping this nomination. This was not only about whether John Ashcroft gets to be Attorney General. It was important for the Democrats to defeat this nomination in order to make clear that George W. Bush is not the same as other presidents. Simple as that.
Right-wingers will probably react to that statement as though I’ve made some sort of fatal admission. But there’s nothing to hide. Democrats had to, and still have to, make this clear. I’ll say it again – that George W. Bush is not the same as other presidents.
This is not payback or vengeance or pettiness. It is simply reaffirming reality. And it’s an important reality to reaffirm.
I hesitate to take up valuable Talking Points real estate with housekeeping info. But here goes: Many readers have asked/complained (“Dear Talk”, “Dear Points”, “Dear Lord of the Point”, etc.) about not being able to give people the link to a particular post on the site – since, of course, they just keep scrolling down day after day.
People! You can already! It sounds a touch complicated. But it’s pretty easy.
Every entry is date-stamped and has it’s own unique address. So for instance this entry is January 31st 2001 at 2:24 PM – as it says in the datestamp above. So that means you take the normal address (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/index.html) and a ‘#’ and then the date and the time all run together ‘013101224pm’ like so.
(Note: Since this page is now archived it is no longer index.html# but jan0104.html# etc.)
Pretty cool, eh?
Next we return to the standard vital political intelligence from Talking Points. And coming soon TPM gets its own custom URL (Internet address)!
A reader raises a very interesting point which hadn’t occurred to me. The Bush team is doing something very similar with the pardon issue as they did with the now-discredited vandalism story â¦ leak that they are looking for a way to overturn the hideous pardon of Marc Rich â¦ leak that they’ve found a way to overturn the hideous pardon of Marc Rich â¦ cart out George W. to say that the Marc Rich pardon is hideous, but that the former president issued the hideous Marc Rich pardon, and George W. is going to rise above it and let the pardon stand (hideous, hideous, hideous!).
Chalk another one up for the lapdogian White House press corps. A pardon’s a pardon, guys. No matter what bogus legal theory Bush’s ex-Paula Jones lawyers may have fed you, there was no way (for better or worse) that they were going to be able to undo Clinton’s pardons.
Think of this as a memo to Democrats in the House and the Senate. (Actually — just between us — that’s exactly what it is.)
Dear Messrs. Daschle, Gephardt, et. al.:
This is important. You are rapidly losing ground in the battle to frame the debate over tax cuts. The approach you’re now pursuing utterly ignores the essential elements of the politics of taxation. Bill Clinton had an intuitive understanding of this. But sometimes it seems like he was the only one. Clinton understood that you can never run against tax cuts, per se. NEVER. And, really, why should anyone ever be able to run against tax cuts? All other things being equal, shouldn’t we all want everyone’s taxes to be as low as possible?
But that’s the point: all other things aren’t equal. It’s tax cuts or paying down the debt or saving Social Security or instituting a prescription drug benefit and so on. Clinton understood this, and acted accordingly. And he added the kicker: which is better? Prescription drugs for your mother and grandmother, or a tax cut for the wealthy who are making out great already?
Thus far Democrats have failed utterly to approach the matter in this way.
But President Bush presented Democrats with a golden opportunity yesterday when he introduced his own pinched version of a Prescription Drug Benefit Plan (PDBP). This opened up a crucial point of vulnerability. The Bush plan is not only unpopular with the public – something ably demonstrated during the late presidential campaign, but also unpopular among politicians in congress, for a host of sometimes contradictory reasons. That provides a very big opening.
You must aggressively engage the president on PDBP. It is a golden opportunity to get off your backs and fundamentally reorder the legislative terrain of the 107th congress.
All the other shenanigans you’re up to pale in comparison.
What is accomplished by pushing PDBP now and not later?
Prescription drugs is not a two-fer or a three-fer, it’s a four-fer.
1. It’s just good public policy. A prescription drug benefit under Medicare would bring one of America’s most successful social programs into the 21st century by taking account of the increasing percentage of Medical costs taken up by prescription drugs.
2. It would outflank Bush on tax cuts. The president has introduced his winnowed-down version of a prescription drug benefit. Any Democratic alternative will be more generous, more popular, and – yes – more expensive. But that’s an advantage, not a liability. The White House will charge that the Democratic plan costs too much. At which point Democrats should respond: if it costs too much that’s only because the president’s tax cuts are so large. PDBP opens up a second front in the battle over fiscal policy. This moves the debate from an abstract discussion of taxes (which is inherently unfriendly to Democrats) to one of priorities (which is inherently unfriendly to Republicans.)
3. It will stymie and possibly derail efforts to reform Medicare along the lines of the Breaux-Thomas Medicare Reform Commission (the recommendations of which would convert Medicare into a voucher program run largely by HMOs).
4. It will throw the president off his legislative schedule and inflict the first real political damage on the new administration by exposing its political priorities as ones most Americans do not share.
There’s really no time to waste.
P.S. Next post we return to the fun stuff.
Good Morning and welcome to the first Talking Points report from Davos, Switzerland and the World Economic Forum.
I arrived last night and I must admit that the crisp Swiss air does add an extra charge to the heady and far-reaching discussions we’re all having here. I’m planning on meeting up with Tom Friedman for lunch today and hopefully also reconnecting with some friends from the British Labour Party who I haven’t had a chance to speak with since the end of our presidential election. I’m also going to be attending a seminar on bridging the global digital divide, especially in sub-arctic regions where the expansion of the Internet will apparently be a great boon for economic development. Much talk here of course about the American economy and whether the new American administration will retreat toward isolation or return to the embrace of â¦
Okay. Look. Fine. Whatever. I’m not in Davos, Switzerland. I’m in my Du Pont Circle apartment in Washington, DC. But obviously everyone else who is anyone is in Davos. But for me – no invite. Despite my heroic efforts exposing the Bushies’ attempt to smear the out-going administration with trumped up stories of inauguration day vandalism (contained in this article in Slate) I’m clearly not a big enough player to go to the international shindig’ in the Alps.
But who cares about that nonsense!
Look. The Dems have not had a good week. But if they’re shrewd their big opportunity just opened up for them. What is it? Easy. PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. It’s a three-fer. No. Make that a four-fer. 1. Good policy. 2. Outflanks Bush’s rapidly growing momentum on taxes. 3. Stymies those who support privatizing Medicare and turning it over to HMOs. 4. Draws the first real political blood from the new administration.
What about Ashcroft? &%$# Ashcroft! This is the real deal. That is, if the Dems know to seize the opportunity.
Well, since I grew up in California let me say a few quick words about the crazy California energy crisis. There is a growing chorus of conservative columnists who say that the crisis isn’t the result of too much deregulation but too little. (You know who they are!) It’s an argument as foolish as it is elegant.
Several California power companies face looming bankruptcy because the cost of the electricity they buy was deregulated but the prices they are allowed to sell at remained capped. So their prices skyrocketed but their revenues remained flat because they couldn’t raise their rates.
Now along come the gaggle of deregulation wiseacres who say: Wait a minute. Of course this isn’t working! You can’t half-way deregulate. You have to do it or not do it. Deregulate all the prices or none. If you hadn’t left in the caps on utility rates, prices would has risen, the whole system would have stabilized, and these utilities wouldn’t be on the brink of going under and dragging the whole state with them.
This is true, of course. But assertions can be true, and irrelevant, and even moronic all at the same time. And this one certainly qualifies.
You don’t get consumers to vote for deregulation by telling them their prices will go up. You entice them by telling them their prices will go down. And thus to make sure they’re not being hoodwinked voters will often require some guarantees. And thus the caps.
If rates were going to skyrocket, why do it in the first place?
Now the dereg floggers will argue that once all the magic of the market got going, incentives would kick in, new production would come on line, and prices would just fall and fall and fall.
Don’t bet on it.
Lots of my lefty friends can’t get the logic of markets through their skulls and refuse to see the benefits of market forces in many aspects of economic life. Phones are the key example, of course. But the applicability of market forces to all aspects of economic life is a classic bogey for high-IQ simpletons whose minds are apparently not big enough for more than one good idea.
Phones are one thing; electricity is different. Why is electricity different? More on that later.
No inside info. Just a hunch. Between 40 and 44 Democrats vote against John Ashcroft for Attorney General. But a critical portion of that number refuses to support a filibuster (Daschle, Leahy, et.al.). So after several days of slashing and acrimonious debate, Ashcroft is confirmed.
P.S. Could pushing still make a difference? Yup.
YES! Finally, Andrew Sullivan has risen to my provocations and lambasted me on his web site. Finally! And just when I was thinking of ditching this whole Talking Points racket!
As regular Talking Points readers will remember, I recently issued a very gentle and genteel diatribe against the increasingly shrill and rightward lurch of Sullivan’s recent writings about Al Gore, George W. Bush and the Florida recount. But this wasn’t about that.
Yesterday on his site Sullivan was dishing out DC’s recent conventional wisdom which says that the final rush of Clinton mini-scandals has pushed even the Clintons’ most dogged defenders past the point of forgiveness. He said â¦
I have yet to meet a single Democrat who isn’t sickened to his stomach by the excrescence of Clinton’s pardons, and by the puerile vandalism of the White House in the last hours of the old regime. Maybe they finally, finally get what some of us have been banging on about for years. [itals added]
Now today Sullivan has this post â¦
DUMB BUT NOT DISGUSTING: The American Prospect’s Joshua Micah Marshall, a rising star on the intellectual Left, emails to say he doesn’t find the use of presidential pardons as political pay-back/fund-raising tool to be beyond the pale. Just dumb – not disgusting. Dumb, presumably, because the Clintons didn’t get away with it! And this is the face of the idealistic Left these days. I emailed Josh to ask him what exactly would evoke disgust in him. He said, cryptically, “something disgusting.” Welfare reform? Prayer in schools? A tax cut? – 1/27/2001 02:23:59 PM
First let’s stipulate to a few points. Yeah, I really liked the “rising star” line. No question.
But ‘of the Left’? Please! As those who know me know, I’m anything but ‘of the Left.’ And it’s caused me no end of professional grief. But that’s another story.
Back to the post.
So basically what I said was that the pardon wasn’t disgusting just dumb – because they got caught.
Wow. I do sound pretty bad, don’t I? But is that really what I said? That it wasn’t disgusting, just dumb? That the only problem was that they got caught? Really?
But, hey, why argue? Let’s go the tapes!
Date: 9:28 PM EST, 1/26/01
To: Andrew Sullivan
From: Joshua Micah Marshall
not quite universal. even i’m bummed by the two stories. but no disgust.
Date: 12:36 AM EST, 1/27/01
To: Joshua Micah Marshall
From: Andrew Sullivan
what would it take for you to feel disgust?
Date: 12:39 AM EST, 1/27/01
To: Andrew Sullivan
From: Joshua Micah Marshall
At 12:36 AM 1/27/01 -0500, you wrote:
what would it take for you to feel disgust?
End of exhibits
First of all, let me stipulate to one point: I thought my rejoinder was pretty damn clever. You know, concise, punchy, tautological yet enigmatic, understated but in-your-face. You’d think an Englishman would like it! But I guess not. Anyway, back to our story.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be strict textualists! Don’t you think our friend Andrew maybe embroidered what I said just a smidgen for poetic/dramatic effect? Just a wee-bit maybe? I kinda think so. But I’ll let you be the judge.
(Note: Friends and readers should rest assured I would never publish their email without their permission. But, in this case, I think Andrew’s selective publication of my email gives me license.)
So what do I think of these “two stories”? Well, as I’ve noted in posts below, the vandalism story is quickly shaping up to be pretty much bogus. And, I would hope, an embarrassment for everyone who fell for a heap for unsubstantiated and self-serving leaks from the Bushies. As for the Marc Rich pardon, well that looks pretty bad to me. But disgusted? Sick to my stomach? No, not really. I can be disappointed in someone I like and still be free of digestive difficulties.
Anyway, we’re not so dissimilar, are we Andrew? Isn’t the real difference that I feel disappointment in someone I like and you feel vindication in the misdeeds of someone you hate? Isn’t the difference purely situational?
But, Andrew, let’s push all this textual analysis mumbo-jumbo aside. Let’s debate Clintonism and Clinton!
You’ll be ranting on about thin words like shabbiness and tawdriness. And I’ll be saying, who gives a #&@% and going on with arguments like the one I made here. You’ll be splenetic and over-heated and I’ll be jocular and whimsical. Trust me, it’ll be great. First of all, I’ll get all sorts of residual traffic from your site since my site is small-time and feeble and your site â¦ well, your site is huge because you get to go plug it on shows like Nightline and that weird show Jeff Greenfield does on CNN.
And, on top of that, this might develop into a genuine ‘feud’ or ‘dispute’ between writers. Yes, yes, yes, I know you’re big-time and I’m small-time. But that’s okay. This could help me become big-time. Trust me, it’ll work. I’m starting to feel like Edmund Wilson or Walter Lippman or Norman Mailer already!
P.S. Are those emails you posted really authentic? You bet they are. All I did was take out the addresses.
P.P.S. Are you really upset about Sullivan’s post? No, of course not. Actually I appreciated it. I was honored. So why the long response? Hey, that’s what you do on these personal political web sites! It’s all whimsy, all drama. Sullivan’s been very kind to me. I’m still hoping he comes to my birthday party next month.
Now the backtracking begins.
A few Clintonites, back from weeks in the Bahamas or drowning their sorrows in gin or whatever, have stepped forward to ask the White House’s new occupants to put up or shut up. And there seems to be more shutting up than putting up.
Read the Post and CNN stories to get the details. But basically it seems like all we’re talking about is removal of ‘w’s from the keyboards of some computers by a few of Al Gore’s twenty-something staffers and the posting of a few gag signs like “The Office of Strategerie.”
As the Post quoted some Clinton staffers as saying:
Former West Wing officials said they agreed that these pranks, which they attributed primarily to aides to former vice president Al Gore, were in questionable taste. But they said these lapses were a far cry from property destruction and an exception to the efforts the Clinton team generally made for a smooth transition.
Now let me try out my own alternative narrative of this story and do let me know if I’m far off the mark â¦
PART I: New administration comes into office and finds a some isolated gags and pranks left for them by the departing administration – a few gag signs, removal of some ‘w’s from keyboards. They take these and systematically exaggerate or fabricate all manner of other alleged infractions including widespread cutting of utility wires, leaving of pornographic material, lewd graffiti on White House office walls, theft of miscellaneous property, over-turned desks, vandalism of miscellaneous office property by gluing things shut, ‘trashing’ of offices, leaving of computer viruses on White House computers, and so on.
PART II: These stories are then aggressively leaked to the press by the new occupants of the White House (including senior staffers in the new administration) – all on a non-attribution basis. The White House press secretary elliptically confirms most of the story but couches it in self-serving statements to the effect that the new president wants to look to the future and not the past and will not support any prosecutions for the alleged offenses.
PART III: The whole scenario rather transparently fits into the new administration’s spin about the difference between it and the former administration – with lush evocations of pettiness, immaturity, obscenity, and lawlessness. But, surprisingly, the city’s porcine political press takes the ball and runs with it, without forcing any of the leakers to speak on the record, provide systematic documentation of the alleged infractions, or even provide physical evidence to document the offenses.
PART IV: Story begins to hemorrhage and then collapse for lack of evidence. Press moves on to next story. No questions asked.
Am I missing something here?
I asked before why the DC political press let’s itself get led around by the nose like this. But, honestly, I already know.
As long as the Bushies are leaking so much about the trashing of the White House, why no pictures? Why no specific cataloguing of what was done? Why no one on the record with specifics? Isn’t this a put up or shut up type situation?
When I first heard these stories about pranks and defacements at the White House from departing Clintonites, I confess, I felt a touch embarrassed. But if the Bushies are so keen on looking forward and not dwelling on the past, then why are they leaking about this to the media so profusely?
Karl Rove apparently leaked to various reporters that he had discovered a “hidden vanity mirror” in a bookcase in his new office – the office previously occupied by Hillary Clinton.
Isn’t this a bit transparent? Lemme guess tomorrow’s leak: sources close to Rove report he found secret bitch supplies apparently used by the former First Lady.
Come on! Isn’t news about Karl Rove being an $%#hole news about Karl Rove, and not the former First Lady?
And it’s very high-minded of the Bushies not to “prosecute” anyone for leaving cartoon pictures of George W. in printer trays. Please!
How does the political press get led around by the nose like this?
Sad to say it, but the Democrats seem to be losing the tactical battle to frame the tax cut debate. And there’s simply no reason for it. Alan Greenspan’s testimony yesterday is a setback. But it needn’t have been and still needn’t be a major one.
Every news story over the last month which points to support for a tax cut is chalked up as a victory for the president. Dick Gephardt says he’s for a tax cut; so that’s a victory for Bush. Alan Greenspan says he supports a major tax cut; so that’s a victory for Bush.
But wait. Al Gore ran on a platform which supported a major tax cut. Not a megalithic one like Bush’s. But one in the neighborhood of $500 billion. And for anyone who knows jack about economics, Gore’s tax cut would have a greater short-to-medium term impact on the economy than Bush’s since Gore’s is focused on people who tend to spend the extra money rather than save it. (Whether navigating recessions is better done through monetary or fiscal policy is another matter entirely).
So the Republicans aren’t the only ones supporting a tax cut. And, yes, you can find Dems who make these arguments. But that’s just not how it’s playing in the press. So the Dems tax cut talk is just trees falling in the forest.
Another point. As president Clinton ably demonstrated, you can never run against tax cuts per se. Never. You can make political arguments about who benefits from them. Or you can make arguments about priorities – tax cuts versus ‘saving social security’ or paying down the debt, etc. And why shouldn’t that be so? All other things being equal, shouldn’t we all be for everyone’s taxes being as low as possible? I think we should.
But that’s the point. All other things aren’t equal. Too often Democrats get tangled up in abstract arguments about equity or spending qua spending. This will choke off all possibilities for activist government, etc. etc. etc. (Traditional libs will complain most about losing this tax cut debate. But they’re actually most responsible for the problem.)
The conventional wisdom seems to dictate now that the public just isn’t interested in major new government spending and thus – with the debt pay-off argument receding – the Dems have no available arguments at their disposal.
But this is foolish. With Bush arguing that Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed because baby-boomers are going to bankrupt the programs, isn’t the issue money? If the programs are in such a bind why cut their potential sources of new revenue? Or let’s think more immediately. How about a prescription drug benefit under Medicare? It’s real popular. And, trust me, it’ll cost a ton of money. So why not line up prescription drugs against tax cuts. The Dems’ half a trillion dollar tax cut and a prescription drug benefit for your parents and grandparents versus Bush’s cut for his wealthy campaign contributors (and, yes, our wealthy campaign contributors too). That sounds like good politics, doesn’t it?
Ironically, the folks at the DLC (who I skewered in an article in the current issue of The New Republic) are actually the one’s doing the most to get out in front of Bush in a tactically intelligent and principled fashion. But no one seems to be listening.
Anyway, I know I’m not the only one to think of these things. But it’s not getting translated politically and there’s really no time to lose. This ain’t rocket science; but for most Dems you’d think it was advanced Relativity Theory.
Someone call Chappaqua! I think we need the old guy back. At least to call the shots.
Okay, so who’s on this list of Senate Dems who are thinking of running for President in 2004 â¦
John Kerry: thinks it’s gonna happen, could happen
John Edwards: everybody loves him, we’ll see
Joe Lieberman: Talking Points likes him, we’ll see how he does
Joe Biden: not a bad guy, maybe the first time was just a run through
Evan Bayh: thinks it’s gonna happen, not gonna happen
Tom Daschle: just a small, small chance he runs
Paul Wellstone: great guy, no chance, may run
Bob Torricelli: may be deluding himself into thinking it’s gonna happen, it’s not
Dick Durbin: the dark horse
And outside the Senate? Bob Kerrey (it really ain’t gonna happen) and TPM’s one and only, Al Gore (ahhhh … we can dream).
We’ll be talking more about this list?
Hey, now that I’ve been reminded of John Ashcroft’s rationale for opposing James Hormel’s ambassadorial nomination, I think I understand what his problem was with Judge Ronnie White. He didn’t oppose White because he was black, he opposed him because he promoted the black lifestyle.
Don’t get it? Read this.
Seems like the New York Times got it wrong about Tom Daschle â¦ And it sounds like Ari Fleischer got it really, really wrong by trying to play Daschle in the press by quoting his alleged assurance to president Bush that Bush would get each of his nominees.
Of course, it’s also possible that Daschle did give Bush an assurance and is now just backpedaling like crazy.
But, hey, same difference.
In his press conference today he seemed pretty unhappy with the White House â¦
I would hope that the administration would not make it a habit of quoting me. And if they do, I would hope that we (sic) would get it right
He later said that the quote in the Times was “not my message to the president yesterday.”
Now, having said that, Daschle said that what he did say both privately and publicly was that “we will not filibuster any nomination.”
Now, obviously if the Dems are not going to filibuster any nomination then that really does amount to a guarantee that Ashcroft gets confirmed since no one thinks 51 senators are going to vote against him. So, if Daschle is serious about this, his statement against a filibuster is tantamount to an assurance.
But how locked in is Daschle to opposing a filibuster?
What it means is that I will discourage Democratic filibusters, but it doesn’t mean that any one of my colleagues may not still make the effort. It’s not my expectation that there will be one. I have indicated I will oppose one if one were to occur. But again, I would reiterate, that’s a matter left to each of my colleagues.
So what the hell is actually going on here? My assumption is that Daschle told Bush he wouldn’t lead a filibuster against Ashcroft – which is tantamount to an assurance, since he can only be defeated by a filibuster. Rove and Fleischer and Hughes (and maybe even Bush if they let him in the planning session) figured they’d interpret Daschle’s statement broadly and try to nudge him a bit or play him in the press to push things along.
That made Daschle, to put it mildly, look real bad in the eyes of his caucus and just about everyone else; and he flipped.
The real story? This was amateurish ball by the Bush crew. And it’ll hurt them.
What to make of this New York Times article which says Tom Daschle assured George Bush that he’d get his nominees approved?
Bush Press Secy. Ari Fleischer quoted Daschle to that effect; and Daschle’s office, according to the Times, didn’t dispute it.
This is very choreographed, isn’t it?
There’s obviously some complicated footwork taking place here, especially considering the growing anti-Ashcroft mood in the Dem caucus. (See the article linked above for harsh words from Judiciary Committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein re: Ashcroft.)
The clearest explanation of what’s going on here is that Daschle is signaling to Dems in and out of congress not to get their hopes up that Ashcroft is going to get filibustered.
But this still isn’t the final word. Look who we’re dealing with.
Hey, look! The Ashcrometer just took a tumble from 82% chance of confirmation to 69%. Okay, okay, I admit, it’s still pretty damn likely he gets confirmed. But the last few days have not been particularly good ones for Ashcroft.
The big news of course is that Democrats have forced a delay of at least one week in a vote on Ashcroft. The New York Times came out strongly against the nomination. And there are some rumors swirling around Capitol Hill about possible surprises. But I don’t expect anything on that front.
But the real issue is a simple hardening of resolve on the part of the Democratic caucus. Evan Bayh’s stated opposition to the nomination probably brings with it most of the other Democrats who have even the slightest thoughts of running for president in four years. (Joe Biden was on Hardball this evening and left little doubt he was voting against.) The number of announced ‘no’ votes is currently six. But the actual number of assured ‘no’ votes is probably closer to 25. (One senate staffer told me yesterday that after the Democrats’ caucus meeting yesterday his senator thought the Dems would do well to get 25 ‘no’ votes against Ashcroft. But that doesn’t sound right to me. Also, expect some high profile announcements next Tuesday.)
On the other hand several key Senators who seem inclined to vote against Ashcroft’s nomination have stated publicly that they won’t support a filibuster. Among others, these include Pat Leahy, Jean Carnahan and Tom Daschle.
So why the delay? Hard to tell. The best answer I can come up with is that you’ve got a number of senators who are truly undecided and find themselves in an extremely difficult position, namely – Tim Johnson, Max Cleland, Mary Landrieu, and a number of others. These are Senators who come from states where they have to downplay their party affiliation. The idea of getting dragged into a filibuster that has Teddy Kennedy’s name all over it is very frightening for these guys (and gal) and for good reason. The last two, Cleland and Landrieu, also have the misfortune of serving with senior Senators who are signaling support for Ashcroft and thus making their situation that much harder.
(Note: Technically, Max Cleland is the senior senator from Georgia. But Cleland isn’t particularly well liked back home among party regulars; he’s in a heap of trouble in his reelection bid; and Miller is both chronologically older and a powerhouse of Georgia politics. So, in effect, Miller is the senior senator.)
Tom Daschle, both as Democratic Leader and as someone who himself comes from a conservative state, is very sensitive to the difficult spot these senators face and he’s clearly trying to give them as much space and freedom as he can to make a decision they can live with.
So here’s the question: If Dems are going to have a hard time getting to forty ‘no’ votes, and if even some of those ‘no’ votes won’t support a filibuster, how exactly do you figure Ashcroft actually gets rejected?
Answer: If you assume all these contingencies then there’s no way Ashcroft gets rejected. But my strong sense at this point is that these contingencies are far from locked in. A number of non-scandal, but possibly important, stories are bubbling to the surface (like this one) which touch upon Ashcroft’s candor during the committee hearings. The mood seems to be gravitating strongly against Ashcroft in the Democratic caucus. And the delay itself shows that the Dems feel time is on their side.
It may just be.
By waiting, the Senate Democrats likely insure something close to an even partisan split on the Ashcroft vote which, politically, they feel works to their advantage. And with things so evenly they balanced, they figure, one more shoe drops and his nomination is sunk. So either way, they feel it’s a win on partisan terms.
And one more thing. Daschle and the rest of the Democratic leadership clearly feels it’s extremely important that the Democratic base not feel they caved, even if they’re not able to block the nomination. So taking their time helps in that regard too.
So that’s your utterly disorganized and formless Talking Points run-down of where we are on the Ashcroft nomination. And why the Ashcrometer stands at 69% likelihood of confirmation.
P.S. For those of you who feel disappointed that the Dems aren’t fighting hard enough on this one, consider this: My sense is that Tom Daschle’s hand is controlling the big picture here. And for what it’s worth I’ve got immense confidence that Daschle has a very good sense of what is in the best medium and long term interests of the Democratic party and the principles and issues Democrats believe in. So just keep that in mind. Also, see this excellent recent article on Daschle for more info.
Is something brewing on the Ashcroft front?
Maybe so. Maybe so … Check back this evening for a Talking Points update.