The Kentucky senator unveiled a budget proposal this week that would slash the federal budget by half a trillion dollars. Included in his proposal are, among other things, a $20 billion reduction in foreign aid -- which includes eliminating the $3 billion in military aid that the United States provides to Israel annually.
No doubt, we'll hear the Bill Kristols, Joe Liebermans and Norman Podhoretzes of the world shrieking about the invaluable linkage between the two nations, and some likely will suggest that Sen. Paul's proposal evinces anti-Semitism. To many pundits, there is nothing more important than the American-Israeli relationship, and they are offended anytime anyone -- from any party -- questions why this relationship is so expensive.
I suppose Sen. Paul and I are on the wrong side of American popular opinion, but I frankly don't care -- and I hope he doesn't either. Israel, like Britain, Australia and our other close allies, is a sovereign nation with plenty of resources and a stable economy. It has arguably one of the three most powerful militaries in the world and is more than capable of defending itself. Additionally, if given the choice, most Americans would likely support a wide number of programs, both domestic and foreign, because their irresponsible elected leaders haven't explained that such programs have to be paid for.
America's fiscal house is in disarray, and hats off to Sen. Paul -- a legitimate, true-blue conservative -- for sticking his neck on the line for something he believes in.
While his proposal probably has no chance of passing, his candor is refreshing, and I hope more Republicans follow his lead.
At the very least, a discussion of our blind, blank-check support of Israel is one worth having.
28 January 2011
25 January 2011
Good riddance, Joe Lieberman
A few days ago, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman -- once, this site's preference for Sen. John McCain's vice-presidential nominee in 2008 -- has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2012.
In light of his announcement, pundits from both sides have lauded Lieberman's "bipartisanship" and "centrism" in an age of increasing partisan polarization.
For those of us who believe in individual liberty, however, Lieberman was a nightmare.
On domestic issues, Lieberman is a clear-cut liberal, voting in lockstep with the Democratic Party on virtually every major issue of import. His 2008 rating (on a 100 scale) from the American Conservative Union was eight. His lifetime rating is a shade over 16, putting him, unbelievably, to the left of Harry Reid (lifetime rating of 18). That is absolutely absymal -- because it means that for 21 years, he has voted for the liberal position more than four times in five. Recently, Lieberman voted for the bloated, wasteful "economic stimulus" of 2009 and was a key cog in securing the passage of Obamacare early last year. He has been a careerist booster of labor unions. He has favored government censorship of movies and video games. The NRA has given him a lifetime rating of "F." He has opposed even partial privatization of Social Security.
In short, Republicans who give Lieberman credit as some sort of palatable centrist who only goes off the reservation occasionally are kidding themselves.
On the other end of the spectrum, Lieberman has co-opted the worst excesses of the 21st Century Republican Party. He openly supported the Bush Administration's position that the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda -- a legal fiction rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006. In the wake of the Wikileaks scandal, Lieberman used his Homeland Security chairmanship to pressure various American media outlets into not publishing certain leaked documents, and to pressure websites like Amazon.com into ending business activities with Wikileaks -- actions that bordered dangerously close to full-on censorship. Since 9/11, has urged the United States to go to war against not just Iraq, but also Syria, Yemen and Iran. This past July, Lieberman co-sponsored the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which would give the president "emergency powers" over the internet -- and in arguing for the bill's passage, Lieberman argued that because the communist Chinese government has a similar power, the president should too. Equating the American presidency with a totalitarian dictatorship is nothing short of outrageous.
This isn't to say Lieberman shouldn't be commended for certain stands -- it took genuine political courage to endorse McCain over Barack Obama in 2008 and support the surge in Iraq in 2007. Lieberman, like McCain, understood that once we were in, withdrawal in Iraq would sink the country into a certain civil war. He was among the Gang of 14 that has been so celebrated on this site. These positions undoubtedly made him very unpopular among the liberal base.
But by and large, Lieberman's record taken as a whole represents everything that has gone so horribly wrong with public policy. He has consistently supported a bloated, activist government in both the domestic and foreign-policy arenas, one without any reasonable limitations -- by its ability to coerce you to engage in private enterprise (Obamacare), by pressure on news outlets to censor news stories (Wikileaks) and its desire to deny you the most basic due process rights (virtually every civil liberties issue of the last ten years).
Joe Lieberman's America is not an America in which I would want to live -- where the federal government has the power to snoop, imprison and torture without consequence; where private citizens can be coerced into engaging in private economic activities; where a growing welfare and entitlement state aggregates revenue like a cancer; and where the American vision of the Framers is consigned to the ash heap of history.
By supporting the absolute worst excesses of both parties, Lieberman somehow became a champion of the Beltway class. It's a sorry statement about the state of our political affairs that Joe Lieberman is greeted as a hero in virtually every corner of Washington.
The country will be better off -- and the Constitution will be safer -- with Lieberman back in Connecticut.
Good riddance, indeed.
In light of his announcement, pundits from both sides have lauded Lieberman's "bipartisanship" and "centrism" in an age of increasing partisan polarization.
For those of us who believe in individual liberty, however, Lieberman was a nightmare.
On domestic issues, Lieberman is a clear-cut liberal, voting in lockstep with the Democratic Party on virtually every major issue of import. His 2008 rating (on a 100 scale) from the American Conservative Union was eight. His lifetime rating is a shade over 16, putting him, unbelievably, to the left of Harry Reid (lifetime rating of 18). That is absolutely absymal -- because it means that for 21 years, he has voted for the liberal position more than four times in five. Recently, Lieberman voted for the bloated, wasteful "economic stimulus" of 2009 and was a key cog in securing the passage of Obamacare early last year. He has been a careerist booster of labor unions. He has favored government censorship of movies and video games. The NRA has given him a lifetime rating of "F." He has opposed even partial privatization of Social Security.
In short, Republicans who give Lieberman credit as some sort of palatable centrist who only goes off the reservation occasionally are kidding themselves.
On the other end of the spectrum, Lieberman has co-opted the worst excesses of the 21st Century Republican Party. He openly supported the Bush Administration's position that the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda -- a legal fiction rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006. In the wake of the Wikileaks scandal, Lieberman used his Homeland Security chairmanship to pressure various American media outlets into not publishing certain leaked documents, and to pressure websites like Amazon.com into ending business activities with Wikileaks -- actions that bordered dangerously close to full-on censorship. Since 9/11, has urged the United States to go to war against not just Iraq, but also Syria, Yemen and Iran. This past July, Lieberman co-sponsored the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which would give the president "emergency powers" over the internet -- and in arguing for the bill's passage, Lieberman argued that because the communist Chinese government has a similar power, the president should too. Equating the American presidency with a totalitarian dictatorship is nothing short of outrageous.
This isn't to say Lieberman shouldn't be commended for certain stands -- it took genuine political courage to endorse McCain over Barack Obama in 2008 and support the surge in Iraq in 2007. Lieberman, like McCain, understood that once we were in, withdrawal in Iraq would sink the country into a certain civil war. He was among the Gang of 14 that has been so celebrated on this site. These positions undoubtedly made him very unpopular among the liberal base.
But by and large, Lieberman's record taken as a whole represents everything that has gone so horribly wrong with public policy. He has consistently supported a bloated, activist government in both the domestic and foreign-policy arenas, one without any reasonable limitations -- by its ability to coerce you to engage in private enterprise (Obamacare), by pressure on news outlets to censor news stories (Wikileaks) and its desire to deny you the most basic due process rights (virtually every civil liberties issue of the last ten years).
Joe Lieberman's America is not an America in which I would want to live -- where the federal government has the power to snoop, imprison and torture without consequence; where private citizens can be coerced into engaging in private economic activities; where a growing welfare and entitlement state aggregates revenue like a cancer; and where the American vision of the Framers is consigned to the ash heap of history.
By supporting the absolute worst excesses of both parties, Lieberman somehow became a champion of the Beltway class. It's a sorry statement about the state of our political affairs that Joe Lieberman is greeted as a hero in virtually every corner of Washington.
The country will be better off -- and the Constitution will be safer -- with Lieberman back in Connecticut.
Good riddance, indeed.
18 January 2011
Obama's year ahead
Happy New Year.
We've seen an encouraging post-Election Day trend from President Obama -- namely, that he seems to be following President Clinton's lead and moving toward the center. Evidence of this is abundant -- the tax-cut compromise, a free trade agreement with South Korea, a non-proliferation agreement that received the blessing of virtually the entire Republican foreign-policy establishment, and a final report from his Deficit Reduction Commission that was embraced by most deficit hawks (including Tom Coburn).
We wrote in 2008 that due to the myriad crises facing the country at his inauguration, Obama would have the chance to be a very good president. In short, he could be as Clinton, but without the moral/ethical problems. Unfortunately, Obama refused to compromise on either the budget-busting stimulus or the healthcare bill, blowing through his political capital, angering Republicans and leading to a historic defeat at the polls. Simultaneously, he managed to take a page from the Jimmy Carter playbook and ignore the stagnant economy, instead focusing his attention on healthcare, a colossal error in judgment.
Obama must realize that he can't accomplish much of anything without considerable Republican support, as the GOP now controls the House and 7 more seats than they did last month in the Senate.
As a result, I expect that the president will actually have a very good year, and his approval ratings will stay above 50 percent. His response to the Tuscon shooting was presidential and gave him a much deserved (albeit perhaps short-lived) bump in the polls. A Republican Congress will serve as a check on his liberal excesses, and it's likely he will find common ground on issues like tax reform and education policy. Replacing Rahm Emanuel with Bill Daley (fresh off his stamp of approval from the Chamber of Commerce) was encouraging.
I've believed all along (and written in this space before) that Barack Obama is a shape-shifter -- the second coming of Bobby Kennedy to leftists (borne out clearly by his Senate record), a messiah to formerly disengaged college kids, the great hope of the black community and a post-partisan healer to independents and Republicans. During his journey to the White House -- and really, throughout his entire political career -- Obama has tried to be all things to all people, and in November 2008, these disparate factions coalesced around him and delivered the presidency.
He has largely failed at the business of governing. However, he has shown himself to be nothing if not adaptable to circumstance, which is why I expect a Clinton-like move shuffle toward the center. Already, we've seen an uproar in the liberal blogosphere over his tax-cut sellout and an uproar from big labor on the South Korea free trade agreement. Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi opposed the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles. Obama simply realizes that if he wants a second term, he must co-opt the center. At least, I hope he realizes it.
I haven't approved of the job the president has done thus far, but there clearly is plenty of time for him to turn it around.
As a consequence, the Republican primary -- which will begin in earnest in just a few months -- will be critically important. Will Republicans trot out an old retread, like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Rudy Guiliani? Or will they nominate a pragmatic fresh face like Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels or John Thune? Will they nominate a wonkish problem-solver (Pawlenty, Daniels, perhaps Romney on a good day) or a hysterical reactionary (Gingrich, Palin)? WIll the message appeal to independents, or will it simply be about tax cuts, guns and "repeal-and-replace"?
History has showed us that voters don't like to change presidents mid-stream, and tend to favor letting incumbents return to the White House during uncertain times. This was true with Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2004. Bush was busy bungling a war, and voters still gave him a second term. This means that the GOP must nominate a serious, pragmatic candidate who can match Obama's rhetoric and personal appeal and win over the independent voters who decide every election.
Republicans underestimate Obama at their peril.
We've seen an encouraging post-Election Day trend from President Obama -- namely, that he seems to be following President Clinton's lead and moving toward the center. Evidence of this is abundant -- the tax-cut compromise, a free trade agreement with South Korea, a non-proliferation agreement that received the blessing of virtually the entire Republican foreign-policy establishment, and a final report from his Deficit Reduction Commission that was embraced by most deficit hawks (including Tom Coburn).
We wrote in 2008 that due to the myriad crises facing the country at his inauguration, Obama would have the chance to be a very good president. In short, he could be as Clinton, but without the moral/ethical problems. Unfortunately, Obama refused to compromise on either the budget-busting stimulus or the healthcare bill, blowing through his political capital, angering Republicans and leading to a historic defeat at the polls. Simultaneously, he managed to take a page from the Jimmy Carter playbook and ignore the stagnant economy, instead focusing his attention on healthcare, a colossal error in judgment.
Obama must realize that he can't accomplish much of anything without considerable Republican support, as the GOP now controls the House and 7 more seats than they did last month in the Senate.
As a result, I expect that the president will actually have a very good year, and his approval ratings will stay above 50 percent. His response to the Tuscon shooting was presidential and gave him a much deserved (albeit perhaps short-lived) bump in the polls. A Republican Congress will serve as a check on his liberal excesses, and it's likely he will find common ground on issues like tax reform and education policy. Replacing Rahm Emanuel with Bill Daley (fresh off his stamp of approval from the Chamber of Commerce) was encouraging.
I've believed all along (and written in this space before) that Barack Obama is a shape-shifter -- the second coming of Bobby Kennedy to leftists (borne out clearly by his Senate record), a messiah to formerly disengaged college kids, the great hope of the black community and a post-partisan healer to independents and Republicans. During his journey to the White House -- and really, throughout his entire political career -- Obama has tried to be all things to all people, and in November 2008, these disparate factions coalesced around him and delivered the presidency.
He has largely failed at the business of governing. However, he has shown himself to be nothing if not adaptable to circumstance, which is why I expect a Clinton-like move shuffle toward the center. Already, we've seen an uproar in the liberal blogosphere over his tax-cut sellout and an uproar from big labor on the South Korea free trade agreement. Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi opposed the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles. Obama simply realizes that if he wants a second term, he must co-opt the center. At least, I hope he realizes it.
I haven't approved of the job the president has done thus far, but there clearly is plenty of time for him to turn it around.
As a consequence, the Republican primary -- which will begin in earnest in just a few months -- will be critically important. Will Republicans trot out an old retread, like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Rudy Guiliani? Or will they nominate a pragmatic fresh face like Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels or John Thune? Will they nominate a wonkish problem-solver (Pawlenty, Daniels, perhaps Romney on a good day) or a hysterical reactionary (Gingrich, Palin)? WIll the message appeal to independents, or will it simply be about tax cuts, guns and "repeal-and-replace"?
History has showed us that voters don't like to change presidents mid-stream, and tend to favor letting incumbents return to the White House during uncertain times. This was true with Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2004. Bush was busy bungling a war, and voters still gave him a second term. This means that the GOP must nominate a serious, pragmatic candidate who can match Obama's rhetoric and personal appeal and win over the independent voters who decide every election.
Republicans underestimate Obama at their peril.
31 December 2010
Year in review
This will be our 87th and final post of 2010.
The story of the year is, without a doubt, the Republican takeover of the House and the near-takeover of the Senate. We warned against the Republicans reading the election results as a mandate and instead termed it a "revolt." We lamented the exit of Russ Feingold, the last great civil liberties crusader.
We officially discarded our John McCain Fan Club cards.
We applauded the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission.
In case there was any doubt that President Obama's policies are largely an extension of the Bush administration's, it was erased with this astonishing theory of executive power. While we slammed his abhorrent conception of the state secrets privilege, we gave a thumbs-up to START. We tried to crystallize our thoughts on Iraq -- still a work in progress.
It seems like ages ago, but healthcare reform -- if you want to call it that -- passed back in February. Our thoughts in opposition here. On Memorial Day, Israel killed 19 civilians aboard a tiny ship floating toward Gaza. A month earlier, we had begun to unpack our instincts as to why Israel isn't entitled to unbridled deference from the U.S. government.
We eviscerated Elana Kagan, Arlen Specter, Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, Chris Dodd, Glenn Beck, and of course, Sarah Palin.
I've begun to long for the 1995-1998 period, when a Republican Congress teamed with a centrist Democratic president to comprehensively reform welfare, make markets freer, cut the size of the federal bureaucracy and balance the budget. Will Obama follow President Clinton's lead? Or will he and the GOP back into their respective corners and continue the food fight that consumed most of 2009 and virtually all of 2010?
Here's to finding out in 2011.
The story of the year is, without a doubt, the Republican takeover of the House and the near-takeover of the Senate. We warned against the Republicans reading the election results as a mandate and instead termed it a "revolt." We lamented the exit of Russ Feingold, the last great civil liberties crusader.
We officially discarded our John McCain Fan Club cards.
We applauded the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission.
In case there was any doubt that President Obama's policies are largely an extension of the Bush administration's, it was erased with this astonishing theory of executive power. While we slammed his abhorrent conception of the state secrets privilege, we gave a thumbs-up to START. We tried to crystallize our thoughts on Iraq -- still a work in progress.
It seems like ages ago, but healthcare reform -- if you want to call it that -- passed back in February. Our thoughts in opposition here. On Memorial Day, Israel killed 19 civilians aboard a tiny ship floating toward Gaza. A month earlier, we had begun to unpack our instincts as to why Israel isn't entitled to unbridled deference from the U.S. government.
We eviscerated Elana Kagan, Arlen Specter, Mitt Romney, Charlie Crist, Chris Dodd, Glenn Beck, and of course, Sarah Palin.
I've begun to long for the 1995-1998 period, when a Republican Congress teamed with a centrist Democratic president to comprehensively reform welfare, make markets freer, cut the size of the federal bureaucracy and balance the budget. Will Obama follow President Clinton's lead? Or will he and the GOP back into their respective corners and continue the food fight that consumed most of 2009 and virtually all of 2010?
Here's to finding out in 2011.
20 December 2010
Why Republicans are wrong on START
Virtually every high-profile congressional Republican has come out against the New START treaty, which will reduce the arms arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia and most critically, put into place a verification regime to track Russian nuclear material -- which has been completely unaccounted for since the end of the Cold War.
Led by Arizona's John Kyl, many conservatives have announced their opposition to the treaty. Never mind that if it was 2007 and President Bush had negotiated its terms, New START would have the support of virtually the entire Republican caucus.
Mitt Romney's position is particularly offensive. Daniel Larison pounds him here. But what I'm most interested in addressing is Romney's laughable comparison of our current missile defense system to President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.
Romney's position -- no doubt, culled from Kyl and others -- is that we cannot give up our missile defense shields throughout Europe, simply because President Reagan refused to budge on SDI in 1985. In 1985, SDI was merely a glimmer in Reagan's eye, but he instructed Defense officials to move forward on trying to create a defense shield that could shoot down Soviet missiles from outer space.
But it's important to realize why Reagan refused to give up SDI -- because it's something Romney, Kyl and the rest of the conservative national security apparatus appears to completely miss: Reagan didn't budge on SDI because missile defense is in and of itself inherently sacrosanct; rather, Reagan didn't budge because he knew that the Soviets didn't have the technology. The tone of Gorbachev's negotiating style at Reykjavik -- initially making enormous concessions, and closing with a sly caveat that all Reagan had to do in order to secure these obligations from the Soviet government was to promise to abandon SDI -- indicated to Reagan that the Soviets were stunned by the concept of a space shield. When Gorbachev demanded he scrap SDI, Reagan famously walked out.
Comparing START in 1985 to New START in 2010, it is obvious that the Russians have the exact same technology as the U.S. Reagan was unwilling to halt SDI because he knew that America had a critical technological advantage; 25 years later, SDI has been consigned to the ash heap, and what is at issue is a missile defense shield of the same type that the Russians already possess.
Ronald Reagan was abhorred by sophisticated weaponry and believed that the biblical prophecy of Armageddon would eventually come about as a result of a nuclear arms race. Once you actually take the time to read about Reagan, it's impossible to overstate how frightened he was of nuclear weapons. Deep into my third book on Reagan, I am convinced that the Gipper would have supported New START.
It seems that Reagan's longtime Secretary State agrees. In this Washington Post op-ed -- co-authored by Jim Baker (Reagan's chief of Staff and President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State), Lawrence Eagleburger (a longtime Reagan and Bush State Department official, who briefly served as Bush's Secretary of State after Baker's resignation), and the incomparable Colin Powell (who also served under both Reagan and Bush) -- George Shultz sets out what he calls the Republican case for START.
Romney, et al. seem to only invoke Reagan when it's convenient for them.
Much like the tax cut debate and the deficit reduction commission's recommendations, the question is not whether New START is a perfect treaty, because by that lofty standard, virtually nothing is worth voting for. Rather, the proper question is whether New START will make us more secure and whether it is preferable to doing nothing.
The answer is an obvious yes.
Led by Arizona's John Kyl, many conservatives have announced their opposition to the treaty. Never mind that if it was 2007 and President Bush had negotiated its terms, New START would have the support of virtually the entire Republican caucus.
Mitt Romney's position is particularly offensive. Daniel Larison pounds him here. But what I'm most interested in addressing is Romney's laughable comparison of our current missile defense system to President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative.
Romney's position -- no doubt, culled from Kyl and others -- is that we cannot give up our missile defense shields throughout Europe, simply because President Reagan refused to budge on SDI in 1985. In 1985, SDI was merely a glimmer in Reagan's eye, but he instructed Defense officials to move forward on trying to create a defense shield that could shoot down Soviet missiles from outer space.
But it's important to realize why Reagan refused to give up SDI -- because it's something Romney, Kyl and the rest of the conservative national security apparatus appears to completely miss: Reagan didn't budge on SDI because missile defense is in and of itself inherently sacrosanct; rather, Reagan didn't budge because he knew that the Soviets didn't have the technology. The tone of Gorbachev's negotiating style at Reykjavik -- initially making enormous concessions, and closing with a sly caveat that all Reagan had to do in order to secure these obligations from the Soviet government was to promise to abandon SDI -- indicated to Reagan that the Soviets were stunned by the concept of a space shield. When Gorbachev demanded he scrap SDI, Reagan famously walked out.
Comparing START in 1985 to New START in 2010, it is obvious that the Russians have the exact same technology as the U.S. Reagan was unwilling to halt SDI because he knew that America had a critical technological advantage; 25 years later, SDI has been consigned to the ash heap, and what is at issue is a missile defense shield of the same type that the Russians already possess.
Ronald Reagan was abhorred by sophisticated weaponry and believed that the biblical prophecy of Armageddon would eventually come about as a result of a nuclear arms race. Once you actually take the time to read about Reagan, it's impossible to overstate how frightened he was of nuclear weapons. Deep into my third book on Reagan, I am convinced that the Gipper would have supported New START.
It seems that Reagan's longtime Secretary State agrees. In this Washington Post op-ed -- co-authored by Jim Baker (Reagan's chief of Staff and President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State), Lawrence Eagleburger (a longtime Reagan and Bush State Department official, who briefly served as Bush's Secretary of State after Baker's resignation), and the incomparable Colin Powell (who also served under both Reagan and Bush) -- George Shultz sets out what he calls the Republican case for START.
Romney, et al. seem to only invoke Reagan when it's convenient for them.
Much like the tax cut debate and the deficit reduction commission's recommendations, the question is not whether New START is a perfect treaty, because by that lofty standard, virtually nothing is worth voting for. Rather, the proper question is whether New START will make us more secure and whether it is preferable to doing nothing.
The answer is an obvious yes.
15 December 2010
Does Gary Johnson know better?
The 2012 dark horse and libertarian favorite comes out against the bipartisan tax cut extension because -- wait for it -- the Bush tax cuts aren't made permanent.
Not because it would add to the short-term deficit. Not because the unemployment benefits aren't being paid for.
I really hope the former governor of New Mexico knows better.
Johnson said that Americans sent a message last month that the problem is government spending, not government revenues. Ostensibly, Johnson believes that Congress will be happy to find a trillion dollars to cut somewhere in the federal budget.
I'm sorry, but this is fundamentally stupid position as we've pointed out innumerable times before in this space. If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go back to Clinton-era levels -- during which America enjoyed years of balanced budgets and the largest peacetime boom in history. I'm genuinely confused as to what is so objectionable about this.
I suppose I'm a realist in this regard. Even the greatest president of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan, wasn't able to engineer balanced budgets -- and in fact, doubled the size of the national debt in eight years -- by cutting taxes and crusading against wasteful spending. While Reagan certainly transformed the way most Americans view the regulatory apparatus of government -- and arguably set the table for the Clinton-era reforms that slashed the federal bureaucracy by 20 percent -- the cuts in spending (again, largely discretionary) weren't nearly enough to offset the massive cuts to federal revenues.
The "starve the beast" theory many conservatives hold -- which argues that Congress will necessarily cut spending if lower tax rates force it to tighten its belt -- has been proven false time and again. Anyone who argues to the contrary has spent the last 30 years with his head up his ass. This has never happened, period. Most legislators are focused on the near-term, and it's much more politically palatable to both cut taxes (or at least, prevent tax rates from going up) and not cutting anything of substance, or, more critically, adding new programs without paying for them.
Furthermore, as we've noted in this space, many conservatives' unyielding fight to protect the Pentagon's wasteful, bloated budgets -- which are now nearly triple 2003 levels -- gives them little to no credibility on fiscal issues.
Back to Gary Johnson: I get it. I don't want taxes to go up either, especially during the early stages of a fragile economic recovery. But anyone who argues that tax rates -- which have literally never been lower -- can't go up on anyone is fundamentally ignorant about the size and scope of our long-term fiscal issues and blind to the way Congress operates.
Not because it would add to the short-term deficit. Not because the unemployment benefits aren't being paid for.
I really hope the former governor of New Mexico knows better.
Johnson said that Americans sent a message last month that the problem is government spending, not government revenues. Ostensibly, Johnson believes that Congress will be happy to find a trillion dollars to cut somewhere in the federal budget.
I'm sorry, but this is fundamentally stupid position as we've pointed out innumerable times before in this space. If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go back to Clinton-era levels -- during which America enjoyed years of balanced budgets and the largest peacetime boom in history. I'm genuinely confused as to what is so objectionable about this.
I suppose I'm a realist in this regard. Even the greatest president of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan, wasn't able to engineer balanced budgets -- and in fact, doubled the size of the national debt in eight years -- by cutting taxes and crusading against wasteful spending. While Reagan certainly transformed the way most Americans view the regulatory apparatus of government -- and arguably set the table for the Clinton-era reforms that slashed the federal bureaucracy by 20 percent -- the cuts in spending (again, largely discretionary) weren't nearly enough to offset the massive cuts to federal revenues.
The "starve the beast" theory many conservatives hold -- which argues that Congress will necessarily cut spending if lower tax rates force it to tighten its belt -- has been proven false time and again. Anyone who argues to the contrary has spent the last 30 years with his head up his ass. This has never happened, period. Most legislators are focused on the near-term, and it's much more politically palatable to both cut taxes (or at least, prevent tax rates from going up) and not cutting anything of substance, or, more critically, adding new programs without paying for them.
Furthermore, as we've noted in this space, many conservatives' unyielding fight to protect the Pentagon's wasteful, bloated budgets -- which are now nearly triple 2003 levels -- gives them little to no credibility on fiscal issues.
Back to Gary Johnson: I get it. I don't want taxes to go up either, especially during the early stages of a fragile economic recovery. But anyone who argues that tax rates -- which have literally never been lower -- can't go up on anyone is fundamentally ignorant about the size and scope of our long-term fiscal issues and blind to the way Congress operates.
10 December 2010
Reflections on Rudy
Daniel Larison contemplates a Gary Johnson primary bid in 2012 and assesses whether an apt comparison is Rudy Guiliani in 2008. Larison notes that both men are pro-choice, which in any Republican primary, is a tough road to travel. More critically, here's what doomed Rudy:
First, Guiliani built his entire candidacy around the fact that he happened to be the Mayor of New York City during a catastrophic terrorist attack. While the country appreciates Rudy's leadership, that didn't automatically qualify him to be president. Second, he wasted his frontrunner status by ignoring the first three primaries and instead focusing all his energy in Florida. McCain's victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, plus Huckabee's victory in Iowa and near-miss in South Carolina, swung many millions of Republicans toward one of those two candidates. Each of McCain and Huckabee made a compelling case for his presidency to either one side of the party or the other. Third, McCain's voting record and quixotic blend of economic conservatism and -- at the time -- western libertarianism -- captured the vast majority of Republican moderates. Even when his campaign was nearly bankrupt, McCain hit the pavement and the town hall circuit making the case for his candidacy. Rudy stayed home, and those (like me) who wanted a more moderate Republican nominee ended up falling in line behind McCain. Fourth, it's tough to build one's candidacy around being tough on terror when, again, the primary opponent is John McCain.
So what can Johnson learn from Rudy's mistakes? First, start campaigning NOW. It's a fool's errand to pin one's hopes on a primary further down the line and allow opponents to gain press coverage, supporters and money. Johnson needs to shoot for a top-four finish in Iowa and then angle for a top-two finish in New Hampshire. Second, don't become a caricature. Joe Biden noted that every sentence Rudy utters includes "a noun, a verb and 9/11." Guiliani, the only real social liberal in the Republican field, apparently believed he had to tack hard to the right on everything else, and he came off as inauthentic. In 2012, I suspect a third way may be more popular than it was in 2008. Third, explain to GOP voters that while you might be personally pro-choice, your view of constitutional jurisprudence is the same, so there would be no difference in the judges you'd appoint. Fourth, and most critically, begin to line up endorsements from the likes of Ron and Rand Paul. Ron, in particular, has suggested he won't run if his friend Johnson does in 2012.
Will Gary Johnson be the Republican nominee in 2012? Probably not. But his candidacy would be a blast to watch, and I think he would make a terrific president.
First, Guiliani built his entire candidacy around the fact that he happened to be the Mayor of New York City during a catastrophic terrorist attack. While the country appreciates Rudy's leadership, that didn't automatically qualify him to be president. Second, he wasted his frontrunner status by ignoring the first three primaries and instead focusing all his energy in Florida. McCain's victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, plus Huckabee's victory in Iowa and near-miss in South Carolina, swung many millions of Republicans toward one of those two candidates. Each of McCain and Huckabee made a compelling case for his presidency to either one side of the party or the other. Third, McCain's voting record and quixotic blend of economic conservatism and -- at the time -- western libertarianism -- captured the vast majority of Republican moderates. Even when his campaign was nearly bankrupt, McCain hit the pavement and the town hall circuit making the case for his candidacy. Rudy stayed home, and those (like me) who wanted a more moderate Republican nominee ended up falling in line behind McCain. Fourth, it's tough to build one's candidacy around being tough on terror when, again, the primary opponent is John McCain.
So what can Johnson learn from Rudy's mistakes? First, start campaigning NOW. It's a fool's errand to pin one's hopes on a primary further down the line and allow opponents to gain press coverage, supporters and money. Johnson needs to shoot for a top-four finish in Iowa and then angle for a top-two finish in New Hampshire. Second, don't become a caricature. Joe Biden noted that every sentence Rudy utters includes "a noun, a verb and 9/11." Guiliani, the only real social liberal in the Republican field, apparently believed he had to tack hard to the right on everything else, and he came off as inauthentic. In 2012, I suspect a third way may be more popular than it was in 2008. Third, explain to GOP voters that while you might be personally pro-choice, your view of constitutional jurisprudence is the same, so there would be no difference in the judges you'd appoint. Fourth, and most critically, begin to line up endorsements from the likes of Ron and Rand Paul. Ron, in particular, has suggested he won't run if his friend Johnson does in 2012.
Will Gary Johnson be the Republican nominee in 2012? Probably not. But his candidacy would be a blast to watch, and I think he would make a terrific president.
07 December 2010
Compromise kudos
An "attaboy" to President Obama and congressional Republicans for agreeing on the framework of a deal that will both extend the Bush tax cuts for an additional 2 years, and extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months.
Liberals are -- somewhat understandably -- upset by what they believe to be Obama's capitulation to the GOP on the tax cut issue. To be fair to our liberal friends, Obama ran on the premise that he would support a middle class tax cut but that he would strongly oppose any extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Some Democrats -- namely, Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner -- wanted Obama to frame the debate in a different way. Instead of allowing Republicans to -- correctly -- argue that hundreds of thousands of small businesses who file as S-corporations would see a tax hike at the end of the calendar year, Weiner wanted to exempt all small businesses from the hike and instead target the tax increases at individuals. SImilarly, Schumer suggested that the debate be framed as a "millionaire's tax" -- that is, if you make less than a million dollars, you'll keep your rate under the Bush tax cuts. Both the Schumer and Weiner ideas would have, admittedly, been savvy political maneuvers that would probably have won both the left and the middle -- but it's not clear that Obama would have been able to extend unemployment benefits by January 1.
And, with Republicans threatening to hold up unemployment benefits unless tax cuts were extended across the board, I'm guessing the president felt his hand was forced.
He certainly looked defeated during his press conference yesterday afternoon.
(By the way, can these things even be called "press conferences"? It seems that Obama is even slipperier than George W. Bush when it comes to taking reporters' questions. When was the last Barack Obama press conference, anyway? 2005?)
By engineering this deal -- which is, I think, a straight-down-the-middle compromise -- the president avoided a major fight and secured the extension of unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months. With the unemployment rate sitting at 9.8%, this was no small feat. Unemployment benefits, as has been astutely noted, are almost always pumped dollar-for-dollar back into the local economy for necessaries such as food, clothing and housing, so there is at least a modest stimulative effect to such an extension.
On the other hand, it would have been an abysmally terrible idea to impose a tax increase as our country continues its slow climb out of a recession. I'm not sure what liberal Democrats who pushed for across-the-board tax increases think will happen if hundreds of thousands of small businesses see tens of thousands of additional dollars go out the door in taxes. THEY STOP HIRING! AND THEY FIRE PEOPLE!
One final word: Republicans cannot expect to be taken seriously as the party of fiscal responsibility if, in two years, they argue for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. I wanted to address this in a future post, but it bears mentioning now. There is an implicit argument made by conservatives that if taxes go up -- for anyone -- then the economy will immediately fall into a recession. But that certainly didn't happen during the Clinton presidency, when taxes on the top 5% of wage-earners rose from 36% to 39.5% -- instead of a recession, America enjoyed the longest peacetime economic boom in history. And yes, those tax increases set the table for a series of balanced budgets that were promptly obliterated by Bush and the Republican-controlled Congresses of 2001-2006.
Liberals are -- somewhat understandably -- upset by what they believe to be Obama's capitulation to the GOP on the tax cut issue. To be fair to our liberal friends, Obama ran on the premise that he would support a middle class tax cut but that he would strongly oppose any extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Some Democrats -- namely, Chuck Schumer and Anthony Weiner -- wanted Obama to frame the debate in a different way. Instead of allowing Republicans to -- correctly -- argue that hundreds of thousands of small businesses who file as S-corporations would see a tax hike at the end of the calendar year, Weiner wanted to exempt all small businesses from the hike and instead target the tax increases at individuals. SImilarly, Schumer suggested that the debate be framed as a "millionaire's tax" -- that is, if you make less than a million dollars, you'll keep your rate under the Bush tax cuts. Both the Schumer and Weiner ideas would have, admittedly, been savvy political maneuvers that would probably have won both the left and the middle -- but it's not clear that Obama would have been able to extend unemployment benefits by January 1.
And, with Republicans threatening to hold up unemployment benefits unless tax cuts were extended across the board, I'm guessing the president felt his hand was forced.
He certainly looked defeated during his press conference yesterday afternoon.
(By the way, can these things even be called "press conferences"? It seems that Obama is even slipperier than George W. Bush when it comes to taking reporters' questions. When was the last Barack Obama press conference, anyway? 2005?)
By engineering this deal -- which is, I think, a straight-down-the-middle compromise -- the president avoided a major fight and secured the extension of unemployment benefits for an additional 13 months. With the unemployment rate sitting at 9.8%, this was no small feat. Unemployment benefits, as has been astutely noted, are almost always pumped dollar-for-dollar back into the local economy for necessaries such as food, clothing and housing, so there is at least a modest stimulative effect to such an extension.
On the other hand, it would have been an abysmally terrible idea to impose a tax increase as our country continues its slow climb out of a recession. I'm not sure what liberal Democrats who pushed for across-the-board tax increases think will happen if hundreds of thousands of small businesses see tens of thousands of additional dollars go out the door in taxes. THEY STOP HIRING! AND THEY FIRE PEOPLE!
One final word: Republicans cannot expect to be taken seriously as the party of fiscal responsibility if, in two years, they argue for a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. I wanted to address this in a future post, but it bears mentioning now. There is an implicit argument made by conservatives that if taxes go up -- for anyone -- then the economy will immediately fall into a recession. But that certainly didn't happen during the Clinton presidency, when taxes on the top 5% of wage-earners rose from 36% to 39.5% -- instead of a recession, America enjoyed the longest peacetime economic boom in history. And yes, those tax increases set the table for a series of balanced budgets that were promptly obliterated by Bush and the Republican-controlled Congresses of 2001-2006.
01 December 2010
Scarborough annihilates Palin
My favorite conservative goes after my least-favorite. I love it.
The column is absolutely a must-read, and simply recapping or doing a large-scale copy-and-paste job won't do it justice. Just go read the thing.
We've slammed Palin's ignorant, hysterical, faux-folksly, patronizing brand of anti-intellectual populism here many times before. I was content to just let sleeping dogs lie.
But like Scarborough, Palin crossed a line for me when she referred to President Reagan -- the greatest president of the 20th century and the intellectual figurehead of the conservative movement -- as "an actor." He wasn't just "an actor." He was the president of the Screen Actors' Guild for six years. He spent eight years after that as GE's ombudsman, traveling the lecture circuit and meeting with tens of thousands of employees. He not only served out an entire full term as California's governor (gasp! A full term!), but ran for a second and was re-elected easily. He nearly took down an incumbent president in the 1976 presidential primary, and outperformed a stellar, crowded field of candidates to earn the 1980 nomination and, of course, become the 40th President of the United States. While so doing, Reagan invented modern conservatism and turned American politics on its head for the first time since the New Deal. He created the modern conservative movement.
For any Republican to criticize Reagan for anything other than the deficit or Iran-Contra is an unforgivable sin, and to dismiss this great man as an "actor" is offensive.
Palin also attacked George H.W. and Barbara Bush as "blue bloods." As Scarborough notes, this also is absurd, considering the former president voluntarily enlisted in the military shortly after his 18th birthday, and spent his entire adult life dedicated to the service of his country. He is a man of grace and integrity from whom a know-nothing like Palin has much to learn. For Palin to attack good and decent people like the Bushes is inexcusable, petty and unbecoming.
Palin's recent remarks are further evidence that she is nothing more than a cartoon, spitting tinny, cliched lines at crowds she doesn't really understand, singlehandedly furthering the intellectual decline of modern conservatism, and feebly attempting -- and failing -- to burnish her own laughably thin resume by taking shots at two of America's greatest leaders.
Sarah Palin is a disgrace.
The column is absolutely a must-read, and simply recapping or doing a large-scale copy-and-paste job won't do it justice. Just go read the thing.
We've slammed Palin's ignorant, hysterical, faux-folksly, patronizing brand of anti-intellectual populism here many times before. I was content to just let sleeping dogs lie.
But like Scarborough, Palin crossed a line for me when she referred to President Reagan -- the greatest president of the 20th century and the intellectual figurehead of the conservative movement -- as "an actor." He wasn't just "an actor." He was the president of the Screen Actors' Guild for six years. He spent eight years after that as GE's ombudsman, traveling the lecture circuit and meeting with tens of thousands of employees. He not only served out an entire full term as California's governor (gasp! A full term!), but ran for a second and was re-elected easily. He nearly took down an incumbent president in the 1976 presidential primary, and outperformed a stellar, crowded field of candidates to earn the 1980 nomination and, of course, become the 40th President of the United States. While so doing, Reagan invented modern conservatism and turned American politics on its head for the first time since the New Deal. He created the modern conservative movement.
For any Republican to criticize Reagan for anything other than the deficit or Iran-Contra is an unforgivable sin, and to dismiss this great man as an "actor" is offensive.
Palin also attacked George H.W. and Barbara Bush as "blue bloods." As Scarborough notes, this also is absurd, considering the former president voluntarily enlisted in the military shortly after his 18th birthday, and spent his entire adult life dedicated to the service of his country. He is a man of grace and integrity from whom a know-nothing like Palin has much to learn. For Palin to attack good and decent people like the Bushes is inexcusable, petty and unbecoming.
Palin's recent remarks are further evidence that she is nothing more than a cartoon, spitting tinny, cliched lines at crowds she doesn't really understand, singlehandedly furthering the intellectual decline of modern conservatism, and feebly attempting -- and failing -- to burnish her own laughably thin resume by taking shots at two of America's greatest leaders.
Sarah Palin is a disgrace.
30 November 2010
Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I always considered the John McCain, circa 2006, position on DADT to be the correct one -- whether gays and lesbians are allowed to openly serve in the military is a decision that is best left to military commanders. When Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks ruled the Pentagon, perhaps DADT was the right policy. But now that Robert Gates and Mike Mullen are in charge, I'm not quite sure why a repeal of the law is so objectionable.
Most of the GOP thinks that homosexuality is morally repugnant, and I agree -- but to craft public policy -- especially policies that could have a profound effect on national security -- around this belief strikes me as irresponsible and short-sighted. Much like the conservative argument against gay marriage, I have yet to hear a single conservative articulate a compelling secular purpose for preventing gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.
Barry Goldwater, one of the heroes of this site who rightfully earned the name "Mr. Conservative," was so abhorred by the Moral Majority crowd that his parting wisdom to the GOP was largely a warning to keep the moralizers like Tony Perkins and Pat Robertson at arm's length. He spent his last years in a constant battle with a Republican Party that he believed had been co-opted by these zealots. Ronald Reagan was famously ambivalent about dealing with homosexuality in public policy, and specifically rejected an anti-gay plank from the GOP platform in 1980. These are the two greatest conservative leaders in history, and any reasonable reading of their records would indicate that they would support a repeal of DADT -- or at the very least, wouldn't care one way or the other.
Why then is it the "conservative" position to support DADT -- or even stiffer policies?
If the military brass says a repeal is necessary -- and Gates and Adm. Mullen do -- then why shouldn't the law be repealed?
For further support of a DADT repeal, the Washington Post reports:
"According to a survey sent to 400,000 service members, 69 percent of those responding reported that they had served with someone in their unit who they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who did, 92 percent stated that their unit's ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor, according to the sources. Combat units reported similar responses, with 89 percent of Army combat units and 84 percent of Marine combat units saying they had good or neutral experiences working with gays and lesbians."
Like Goldwater, I continue to be confounded by the necessity of singling out homosexuals with respect to public policy. I fail to understand how this is the "conservative" thing to do, and continue to wait for an articulate conservative to make the case against DADT repeal.
I think I'll be waiting awhile.
Most of the GOP thinks that homosexuality is morally repugnant, and I agree -- but to craft public policy -- especially policies that could have a profound effect on national security -- around this belief strikes me as irresponsible and short-sighted. Much like the conservative argument against gay marriage, I have yet to hear a single conservative articulate a compelling secular purpose for preventing gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.
Barry Goldwater, one of the heroes of this site who rightfully earned the name "Mr. Conservative," was so abhorred by the Moral Majority crowd that his parting wisdom to the GOP was largely a warning to keep the moralizers like Tony Perkins and Pat Robertson at arm's length. He spent his last years in a constant battle with a Republican Party that he believed had been co-opted by these zealots. Ronald Reagan was famously ambivalent about dealing with homosexuality in public policy, and specifically rejected an anti-gay plank from the GOP platform in 1980. These are the two greatest conservative leaders in history, and any reasonable reading of their records would indicate that they would support a repeal of DADT -- or at the very least, wouldn't care one way or the other.
Why then is it the "conservative" position to support DADT -- or even stiffer policies?
If the military brass says a repeal is necessary -- and Gates and Adm. Mullen do -- then why shouldn't the law be repealed?
For further support of a DADT repeal, the Washington Post reports:
"According to a survey sent to 400,000 service members, 69 percent of those responding reported that they had served with someone in their unit who they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who did, 92 percent stated that their unit's ability to work together was very good, good, or neither good nor poor, according to the sources. Combat units reported similar responses, with 89 percent of Army combat units and 84 percent of Marine combat units saying they had good or neutral experiences working with gays and lesbians."
Like Goldwater, I continue to be confounded by the necessity of singling out homosexuals with respect to public policy. I fail to understand how this is the "conservative" thing to do, and continue to wait for an articulate conservative to make the case against DADT repeal.
I think I'll be waiting awhile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)