- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–29
- Mar 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Apr 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- May 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Jun 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Jul 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Aug 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Sep 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Oct 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Nov 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Dec 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Bob Kaplan’s Penniless Legacy
Posted by on 1.5.13 @ 11:18PM
I read Jay Homnick’s piece on the late former Liberal MP Robert Kaplan.
The thing I remember best about Kaplan was when he introduced a private member’s bill to abolish the penny shortly before his retirement from public life in 1993.
Well, Kaplan lived to see the Tory government announce it would stop producing the penny in last year’s federal budget.
I guess you could say Kaplan left Canadians a penniless legacy.
In Defense of Paul Ryan’s iPod
Posted by on 1.5.13 @ 12:45PM
Frank, I think it depends on the mood. That version of Dean Martin’s “Sway” might be perfect for relaxing with a martini. But walking through the halls of Congress on the way to a caucus meeting to rally the troops… well, that calls for stronger stuff.
Ryan famously admitted being a fan of Rage Against the Machine (though the band quickly rejected his affections), and I can totally see him getting pumped up for a big vote by listening to their 2000 version of “Renegades of Funk.”
Granted, when the singer goes off about Chief Sitting Bull, and Malcolm X, and whatnot, Ryan probably mentally substitutes names like Jack Kemp and Art Laffer.
G.W. Bush Gets a Win in Tax Cliff Deal
Posted by on 1.5.13 @ 9:54AM
Me, on local TV in Mobile, to explain why.
Friday, January 4, 2013
The Cool '50s
Posted by on 1.4.13 @ 8:59PM
At lunch with friends we talked of Patti Page, whose obit in the NY Times dripped with sarcasm. So much for nil nisi. I argued that the '50s were hipper than the '80s, that Mitt Romney’s playlist was cooler than that of Paul Ryan. Here’s my proof: a cover of the old Dean Martin standard “Sway,” by the Puppini Sisters:
Besides, people back then were not so antiseptic as the NYT made out. A friend of mine, now sadly deceased, had a great crush on Doris Day, back in the '50s. One day he heard that she was coming to his college, and his frat brother insisted they drive out to the airport to greet her. Which they did. They saw her in a limo at the airport, just parked, and after much prodding from his friends, he went up to her car to say hello. She didn’t look at him. Her car window stayed down. He didn’t know what to do, but was embarrassed to go back to his friends, so he just stayed at her window. Finally, she rolled it down, looked him in the eye, and said “F____ off, sonny.”
Elizabeth Warren (D. Elizabeth Warren)
Posted by on 1.4.13 @ 2:42PM
Do you remember the line about how all clever economists were tall, with the exceptions of Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith? Clever or not, the 6’8” Galbraith was one of the wittiest of economists, and under a pseudonym once wrote a book mocking academic jargon called The McLandress Dimension. The Dimension in question measured the amount of time a person could spend without thinking of himself, scored from 100 (1 second) to 1 (60 minutes).
Today’s winner is unquestionably the new junior senator from Massachusetts. I once received a six-page letter from her, the gist of which was that I had written an article on bankruptcy law and had failed to cite her. She is the kind of person Tom Wolfe had in mind when he wrote that university buildings have windows which are hermetically sealed, for otherwise the stench of ego would blast the birds from the trees.
An Appalling Attack on Jack Kemp
Posted by on 1.4.13 @ 11:00AM
Over at National Review the normally sensible Jay Nordlinger has for some undetermined reason abruptly gone off the rails.
In a piece nominally defending Mitt Romney — “The Superb Mitt Romney” — Nordlinger makes the case that Romney was a whole lot better than his post-election critics are suggesting.
Fair enough. While we were Romney critics in this corner during the primaries — skeptical that yet another moderate Republican in the mold of McCain, Dole, Ford, Bush 43 in 1992 and on back to Dewey and Willkie etc. — could win, Governor Romney did in fact have some good moments during the campaign. Two of them the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate and his performance in that first debate with President Obama. As is true with presidents, history debates the performances, contributions and careers of losing presidential nominees forever — William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater, and George McGovern come to mind.
This applies to Romney as well. So Nordlinger’s defense of Romney was fine.
Abruptly, however, Nordlinger launches into a mind-boggling rant about the late Jack Kemp.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, it needs be said that I — like a lot of other people — was enormously privileged to work for Kemp, in my case when he was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I also had the opportunity to work for Ronald Reagan, Kemp’s one-time boss (when the young Buffalo Bills quarterback did an off-season stint as a special assistant to then-Governor Reagan) and longtime political ally and friend.
So.
Continue reading…Weapons Grade Stupidity
Posted by on 1.4.13 @ 10:48AM
TAMPA— In the grip of the, “Do something, even if it makes no sense!” hysteria that always follows soul-crushing events like Newtown, Hillsborough County Commissioner Kevin Beckner is recommending the county start an annual gun buyback program. Terrific.
As a former police officer, Beckner should know that government gun buybacks tend to fetch in three kinds of weapons: (1) old clunkers that are of no use or risk to anyone — sort of Tuesday night specials, (2) guns the seller has stolen for the purpose of selling it to the government, which will pay him more than he can get at Lucky Sid’s Pawn, and (3) guns owned by law-abiding citizens that would do no harm to anyone if they stayed in the desk drawer where they’ve been for years. No jurisdiction has ever been able to establish that gun buybacks, conducted at great expense to the local taxpayers, have lessened gun crime.
I’ve met and talked with Beckner. He doesn’t appear to be stupid. So the only explanation for the fool’s errand he is whooping up is that he wishes to appear to be doing something useful about a problem every voter is concerned about. But even if Hillsborough County depletes its treasury buying guns, local residents will be no safer for the exercise. If this comes about, Beckner, along with every commissioner who supports this crackpot scheme, should be charged either with weapons grade stupidity or aggravated charlatanism.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
6-Year Old Suspended For Pointing His Finger Like a Gun
Posted by on 1.3.13 @ 10:40PM
A 6-year old boy in Maryland received a one day suspension from school for pointing his finger like a gun and saying, “Pow!”
This kid probably would have got into less trouble for pushing one of his classmates to the ground.
Alexandra Petri of The Washington Post gets the absurdity of the situation:
Look, if we have a problem six-year old boys pointing fake guns, the place to start is not the kids….Children used to play Cowboys and Indians or Cops and Robbers. These days, they’d be arraigned for genocide and theft. If we have a problem with children with imaginary guns, the answer is not to clamp down on their imaginations. They only put out what we put in.
Whether it’s suspending six-year olds or a newspaper publishing the names of registered gun owners, let’s stop making Adam Lanzas out of people who aren’t.
Will U.S. Supreme Court Rule Definitively on Affirmative Action This Year?
Posted by on 1.3.13 @ 4:28PM
In response to a November ruling from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), state Attorney General Bill Schuette is petitioning the U.S Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of preferential policies. A new non-profit group, the XIV Foundation (as in 14th Amendment), has filed an amicus brief on behalf of Schuette, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 6th circuit ruling. A definitive ruling on affirmative action in college admissions and government hiring could be in order for 2013.
Jennifer Gratz, the plaintiff in the 2003 Gratz v. Bollinger Supreme Court decision that struck down the quota system in place at the University of Michigan’s undergraduate school, co-founded the XIV Foundation shortly after the 6th circuit court ruled against the MCRI.
“Much progress has been made over the past 15 years in challenging the discriminatory policies that are errantly described as ‘affirmative action’ policies,” Gratz said in press release. “Eight judges put this progress at risk when they decided to overturn MCRI and the will of over 2.1 million Michigan voters who chose equality over discrimination.”
The MCRI is closely modeled on California’s Proposition 209, which states: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Similar measures have also passed in Washington state, Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Florida, and New Hampshire.
Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has twice upheld California’s Proposition 209, the XIV brief argues that “lower courts need firm, clear direction” on this issue. “Without such clarity,” XIV insists, “States and federal courts will continue to struggle with race and gender equity and, in so doing, stymie citizen-led progress toward racial equality.”
Up until now, the Supreme Court has split the difference in its rulings on affirmative action policies.
The Gratz decision was issued in conjunction with Grutter v. Bollinger. Writing for the majority in Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ruled that it was permissible for the University of Michigan Law School to use race as one of many factors in a “narrowly tailored” fashion to achieve student diversity.
Since the high court is already taking up the constitutionality of race conscious admissions policies in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, now would be an opportune time to strike down preferential policies with an unambiguous ruling rooted in the principles of the 14th Amendment.
Rebel Without a Cause
Posted by on 1.3.13 @ 2:46PM
In reporting on John Boehner’s reelection as speaker, the Wall Street Journal uses some curious language when it notes that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California joined “149 other GOP rebels” to vote against the fiscal tax bill that passed on New Year’s Day. Rebels?
One hundred fifty-one House Republicans voted against the bill, 85 voted for it. Wouldn’t the latter be more properly called rebels, given that they rejected the position held by a vast majority of their Republican colleagues? That of course would make the re-elected Speaker their real rebel here.
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
Posted by on 1.3.13 @ 11:34AM
Twenty years ago today, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine premiered. It was the second live-action spin-off of Star Trek, and the first that was set (and aired) at the same time as its immediate predecessor — in other words, the Star Trek universe was, for the first time, expanding outward rather than forward, and focusing not on the voyages of starship called Enterprise but on the happenings at a space station.
Deep Space Nine was conceived from the beginning as a departure from The Next Generation; the color scheme of the uniforms, heavier on the black than those on the Enterprise, signaled a darker tone. It would be a major oversimplification to call DS9 a conservative show, but defining the ethos of the show against TNG — which, especially in its first couple seasons, preached an almost childlike liberal utopianism — sometimes gave it a conservative flavor, and that (along with strong characters, fine acting, sharp writing, and so forth) helped make it great.
Continue reading…Historical Perspective on New Tax Rates
Posted by on 1.3.13 @ 11:16AM
At CFIF, I explain why we’re all still better off, from a tax standpoint (obviously not from a spending standpoint) than we were at the turn of the millennium. It’s also true that we are almsot no worse off on spending than we were a week ago.
Here’s the truth:
Surely, then, you would be shocked to learn that every single American would emerge from the battle paying lower taxes on comparable income than they were paying in 2000. Every single one.
For every income level below the top marginal rate, the lower taxes would be substantial. Those formerly paying 31 percent would pay 28 percent. Those in 2000 paying 28 percent would pay 25. Many of those who were paying 15 percent would pay 10.
And the top rate, both in 2000 and in 2013 set at 39.6 percent, now will not kick in until a much higher income than in 2000.
There’s also this, which is probably the most important thing of all:
Finally, the two intervening months give conservatives time to regroup and refurbish tactics and communications, without threat of an automatic tax hike. Those two months may be the best benefit of the whole deal.
As I will explain in the coming week or so, not only is there leverage for conservatives going forward, but there are strategies and tactics that can be used to make the most of that leverage. I will be outlining some of those strategies and tactics.
We’ve pulled off a tactical retreat to a new, better terrain. Shame on us if we don’t use the new terrain effectively.
Notes on the Cliff
Posted by on 1.3.13 @ 9:50AM
On his blog, Confounded Interest, GMU finance professor Anthony Sanders dryly notes that the American Taxpayer Relief Act does nothing of the sort. As he puts it, “How is adding $4 trilion to the federal deficit in 10 years called, ‘relief’?”
Depending on how much money you earn, the bill may bring some temporary “relief” from the sting of higher marginal tax rates on household and family income. Or it may cause you immediate stress. Stephen Entin of the Tax Foundation lays out the tax provisions and scores their effects on the U.S. economy.
- The top estate tax rate has been raised to 40 percent.
- The top rate on individual income is up to 39.6 percent from 35 percent
- and the capital gains and dividend rates have been raised to 20 percent.
On a static basis (without behavioral effects taken into account) Entin calculates this will raise $82 billion in revenue per year. Once economic effects are considered, the measures will raise only $29 billion. He concludes that for every $1 in revenue raised, GDP will fall by $8.50.
With tax rates raised on those earning over $400,000 some may imagine that only a rarified tier of high earners will be forced to fork over more income to the federal government. However, tax increases in this category also includes small businesses. These hikes will affect decisions over hiring, expansion, and wages. The outcome — slower economic growth for all.
And in the bargain it’s paltry revenue considering our fiscal path. Factoring in the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, the U.S. has amassed $16.3 trillion in total gross debt representing 100 percent of U.S. GDP. If Congress does nothing this will rise to $20 trillion in three years. The sequestration cuts that did not materialize in the bill wouldn’t have made much of a dent in spending. While markets jumped 2.4 percent on the news of the deal’s passage, some analysts caution, this rally more likely reflects a general sense of relief that any deal was reached at all.
Now consider the U.S. has been running trillion dollar deficits since the 2007 recession. As this chart produced by my colleague Veronique de Rugy shows, there’s an alarming gap between revenues and spending. In sum, without tackling the long-run trend in entitlements and fundamental tax reform the fiscal future of the U.S. is a bleak picture of higher interest rates, diminished entitlements, and sluggish growth. For a tour of the U.S. in 2042 with the Ghost of the Fiscal Future, check out Matt Mitchell’s excellent analysis, here.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
From Al Gore to Al Jazeera
Posted by on 1.2.13 @ 9:42PM
So Al Gore is selling Current TV to Al Jazeera.
In the words of the former Vice-President, “Al Jazeera, like Current, believes that facts and truths lead to a better understanding of the world around us.”
I guess this means nothing much is going to change. It will still be the same anti-American outfit it’s always been.
One question though. Will Jennifer Granholm have to wear a hijab?
Charitable Deduction
Posted by on 1.2.13 @ 8:06PM
The good people at Donors Trust tell me that the Fiscal Cliff bill will not seriously affect a taxpayer’s ability to deduct charitable gifts.
I wish I could explain this better, but there was a reason I never became a tax lawyer.
And so, cher lecteur, donate away to the worthiest of causes: TAS.
Why My Change From Monday to Tuesday
Posted by on 1.2.13 @ 7:33PM
Some are wondering why I appeared to change my tune from urging no deal on Monday to a very, very grudging but clear acceptance of the deal on Tuesday.
First, when I wrote on Monday, the Senate hadn’t acted yet, and certainly not with an 80-vote majority. The political calculations, and the cost of inaction by the House, shifted once the Senate acted.
But that’s the least important reason. The second lies in the Senate deal actually meeting (or almost entirely meeting) my specifications on Monday:
Any deal that delays the spending cuts under sequestration (without replacing them with other cuts) should be anathema. If this deal re-raises spending (on anything other than defense), it should be an absolute non-starter.
Now, if it delays sequestration, but replaces it with other, specified spending cuts instead of an across-the-board bludgeon, then that is actually BETTER policy than sequestration.
Well, the end result was indeed that the sequestration cuts were replaced with other cuts. Or at least they were offset with an equal amount of “savings.” Now, it is true that small portion of the offset comes from a change in Roth IRA accounting rather than from spending cuts. And it is true that the cuts aren’t “specified” as I had hoped. But the offsets do come in the form of law — in budget “caps” going forward that, while hardly foolproof, do actually provide several important hurdles in the way of those who would exceed them. Moreover, by keeping intact under law the exact same budget targets as under the original sequestration deal, and by keeping 5/6ths of those savings in the form of the very hard-to-evade bludgeon of sequestration (if Congress doesn’t act, sequestration is automatic; the GOP need not do any more bargaining to achieve those savings), fiscal conservatives are no worse off than they were a week ago. Tactically, in fact, they are better off, because they preserved sequestration, but without the threat of higher taxes that will kick in for everybody and automatically, if they don’t act.
There are several other techical and tactical considerations, but space and time don’t allow a full exploration of them — except, except, except! — for the great victory conservatives achieved on taxes that was beyond anything I think anybody hoped for. That victory comes in the form of keeping the full $5 million exemption against death taxes ($10 million for couples!), plus the additonal benefits, never anticipated, of being permanent and being permanently indexed for inflation. The second victory comes in the permanent, indexed-for-inflation fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Considering that the right was facing a possible hike on all taxes being blamed on us, and that the alternative was a hike on all income about $250,000 without any conservative gains on the AMT and the death tax (and possibly a big loss on the latter), the end result was far, far better than had seemed possible after seven weeks of misplaying the conservative hand. Indeed, on tax policy, we nearly achieved a draw. On spending, we achieved at least a draw (with the added benefit of buying time to save defense). And in terms of politics, conservatives bought themselves two months to regroup and improve tactics, strategy, communications, and mood.
For all those reasons, the “over-the-cliff” advice I offered turned into the “cough-cough, splutter-splutter, well, okay, it’s not awful” conclusion I reached a day later. Both the policy and the politics of the situation argued slightly more in favor of the deal than before. On such a close call, considering the political reality that applied, I don’t see how anybody could be really angry at anybody who voted either way on the deal. If David Vitter, Jeff Sessions, Pat Toomey, Tom Coburn, and Ron Johnson(aong other solid fiscal conservatives) thought it was on ever-so-slight balance better to pass it than to defeat it, it’s just not fair to accuse those who voted for it of being “squishes” or “spineless”or “RINOs” or any other such epithet. This was no abandonment of principle; at worst, it was an improper weighing of conflicting pluses and minuses in terms of both principle and politics.
Now is the time to stop cannibalizing ourselves, and instead to move on and take the political advantages that are afforded by the next two budget-related battles. More on those advantages later…..
Bread, Circuses, and Subsidies
Posted by on 1.2.13 @ 10:45AM
At 2 a.m. the Senate passed in an 89-8 vote The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 that does not cut the deficit but does make permanent the Bush tax cuts for families earning under $450,000. Taxes will rise on all those earning above that level. Capital gains taxes will rise, the Alternative Minimum Tax has been patched and unemployment benefits extended for another year.
In addition there is a farcical mix of tax breaks for favored industries. These include provisions to extend tax breaks that benefit wind power, films and TV production and the dairy industry.
Though it’s unlikely to happen, here’s a modest suggestion for Congress as they take another pass at spending cuts in Feburary. If you want to give Americans a break: stop the subsidies for bread and circuses.
First the bread (or more precisely, the milk). In the days leading up to last night’s vote, Americans were treated to a spate of headlines that was nothing more than a variation on the Washington Monument Strategy, “Don’t make us charge $7 a gallon for milk!”
Dubbed, “the dairy cliff,” unless Congress agreed to extend dairy price supports from the 2008 farm bill, a 1949 law would automatically be triggered ‘forcing’ lawmakers to charge double for milk. Why not just scuttle the 1949 law? Because it was put there as poison pill to benefit the lactose lobby. The trigger helps lawmakers avoid reforming crop subsidies. All told, dairy subsidies cost $4.9 billion between 1994 and 2011. So, misguided price floors instituted in 1933 will continue to stimulate dairy overproduction, waste resources, and ensure higher prices for consumers in 2013.
Congress also extended its largesse to Hollywood. Approved in last night’s deal is an extension of a 2004 tax credit for film production companies. The credit applies to both film and television and allows companies to deduct between $15 and $20 million per production. If anyone thinks that $430 million in movie tax breaks helps stimualte employment, consider this study of state film credits by left-of-center Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Basically, film companies bring their own production companies to town, take the breaks, and leave — and you pay for it.
Ezra Klein notes several other “weird” special interest victories: including credits for NASCAR, railroad tracks, mining safety equipmement, $1.6 billion in tax-free financing for Goldman Sachs headquarters, and subsidized rum. Congress has extended the rum exicse tax with revenues that are directed to help the industry in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
There’s also an economic development tax credit for American Samoa.
And the feared spending cuts contained in the sequester? That’s been pushed to Feburary, just as the U.S. hit its debt ceiling of $16.7 trillion on New Year’s Eve.
Iraq: Some Further Points
Posted by on 1.2.13 @ 9:15AM
Here are some further points I did not discuss in the main article for risk of digressing too far, but are worth noting anyway:
• The Majlis Al-A’yan in Basra that declared its solidarity with the protests in Anbar is an example of how reactions to the current political crisis have crossed sectarian boundaries. As Qasim Zuhair of the Baghdad-based newspaper Al-Aalem pointed out to me, the tribal council in question is not all that influential.
Previously, the council has complained that the Maliki government has not done enough to provide good public services and stimulate economic growth in Basra. Thus, their sympathy with the anti-Maliki sentiment in the Anbar protests is not all that surprising.
Further, it is likely that at least some of the sheikhs on the council sympathize with the pro-autonomy movement in Basra province, which has the same grievances against the central government as the Majlis al-A’yan.
The autonomy movement encompasses members of mainstream parties like the Sadrist Fadhila (Islamic Virtue Party) and some from the ranks of Maliki’s own Islamic Dawa Party. However, as of yet it still lacks sufficient popular support to achieve anything meaningful on the ground, and Maliki himself remains opposed to the idea of autonomy for Basra.
• Some might see the attack of certain demonstrators on Saleh al-Mutlaq as indicative of openly militant sentiment in the Anbar protests, but given that Mutlaq was once a fierce critic of Maliki — openly describing him on CNN as a dictator worse than Maliki — it comes as no shock that many of the protesters regard him with such disdain. Further, it should be noted that the situation was exacerbated when guards in Mutlaq’s entourage fired on demonstrators who were throwing shoes at him (a sign of extreme dislike, to be sure, but not beyond the pale).
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Don’t Amend… But If They Do…..
Posted by on 1.1.13 @ 3:25PM
Look, I think now is the time to cut losses, bank the permanent extension of key tax cuts and the few spending cuts that are preserved in the budget deal, and then completely revamp strategy going forward (with two months to get act together). In short, past this dog’s breakfast of a bill and move on.
But if the House insists on amending the bill as a show of strength, here’s what it should do: Add a single amendment. Just one. It should eliminate the medical device tax in ObamaCare. Dare the Senate to reject that, and dare the President to veto a deal it has been trumpeting just because it wants to put taxes on pacemakers and insulin pumps. Politically, this also shifts the focus of the debate onto ObamaCare, which helps conservatives going forward.
Emancipation
Posted by on 1.1.13 @ 11:57AM
It’s still not clear what constitutional authority Abe Lincoln actually possessed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. But, as today is the 150th anniversary of that presidential directive, let us all celebrate the Proclamation’s moral majesty. This was the beginning of the end of a horrid evil, the beginning of the expiation of a national sin.
Death Tax and AMT Victories
Posted by on 1.1.13 @ 11:40AM
More thoughts on improving the situation with respect to the death tax and the alternative minimum taxes: Follow this link.
Not an Awful Deal
Posted by on 1.1.13 @ 10:16AM
After about an hour of studying last night’s budget deal, I find it right on the borderline between (A) awful-tasting medicine we still need to take for our health and (B) a cure that is worse than the disease. But careful, careful attention pushes the calculation every-so-slightly toward the former. This isn’t even a 51-49 proposition, but only a 50.1-49.9 proposition. Still, here’s why the option of a “yes” vote for House Republicans — notwithstanding my warnings yesterday that “no deal” is better than a bad deal — is not an unacceptable decision.
First, obviously, we already have gone over the cliff, technically speaking. The tax rates now in effect under law are those of the Clinton era, not the Bush era. As Grover Norquist argues, any vote for the Senate deal now is a vote to cut a lot of taxes, not a vote to raise any. And this bill does cut a whole lot of taxes (even including some special-interest breaks demanded by liberals that don’t actually make economic sense). By locking in tax cuts for couples making up to $450,000 a year, by locking in a full $5 million threshold before the death tax kicks in, and by re-cutting the top cap-gains rate and dividend rate down to 20% (worse than the former 15%, but far better than the possible 39.6% that would apply now that the Bush cuts have expired), conservatives provide a ton of room for small businesses to grow and hire more workers, etcetera, before higher rates kick in — and also have saved pensioners who rely on dividends a whole lot of money. Permanently. This is a very good thing. We can “bank” those tax rates and then hope to achieve other rate reductions in conjunction with full-scale tax reform, as recommended by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, whose praiseworthy recommendations now in effect outweigh its remaining unpraiseworthy ones. Of course, Obama retains the bully pulpit and we retain an ineffective sense of strategy and tactics, but that’s all the more reason, not less reason, to bank some tax cuts now and take them off the table.
As for spending, conservatives are (slightly) misreading this accord. In macro-terms, Republicans haven’t lost any ground in the last two days on total spending levels. The exact same total spending levels, with the same amount of “cuts” as under the original sequester, still apply, but just in different form.
It’s sort of complicated, but here’s how it works. The blunt-instrument sequester still will kick in on March 1, absent any new agreements. In the meantime, the same amount of “cuts” that would have applied in the next two months under the sequester will still apply, but instead of being implemented immediately, it will come out of the overall budget “caps” for 2013 and 2014. In other words, those caps will be reduced by $24 billion, which is the same amount that would have come out of discretionary budgets under the sequester. The only difference is, it leaves it until later for Congress to detail where the cuts come from — to use an alligator-skinning knife rather than a machete. In some senses, this is better than the sequester, because it means Congress can target its cuts toward truly unecessary areas rather than cutting from both the necessary and unnecessary programs alike.
LET ME REPEAT: THE SAVINGS HERE ARE THE SAME AS UNDER THE SEQUESTER. THIS IS NOT A LOSS ON SPENDING. THIS IS THE KEY FACET OF THE DEAL THAT HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD, UNTIL EXAMINATION UNDER DAWN’S EARLY LIGHT.
Of course, this just means there will be two more months of haggling, two more months in which bad tactics and bad communications couldput the GOP behind the 8-ball. But, in conjunction with debt ceiling deadlines that might (possibly, maybe, we hope) play more into conservative hands, those two months also can provide the time for the GOP to improve its strategy/tactics and communications.
I am not among those who think that John Boehner has done a terrible job here. In the wake of a horrible election, he has been dealing a very weak hand. I haven’t agreed with all his moves, but I think he has given it “the old college try” far better than, for example, the honorable but less feisty Bob Michel would have done in the early 1990s, and far better than Dennis Hastert would have done. And in retrospect, his “Plan B” would have been a better solution than we are faced with today.
Here’s the biggest advantage to buying these extra two months: Obama’s approval ratings can and almost certainly will go down. Why? Try a trillion dollars (ten-year numbers) in new tax hikes as part of ObamaCare that just kicked in ten hours ago. Conservatives will have two months now to highlight these and other parts of ObamaCare that should prove tremendously unpopular, and to lay the blame entirely on Obama and the Dems who voted for this monstrosity. Plus, there are all sorts of communications strategies and tactics that conservatives now have time to prepare and implement that weren’t necessarily available to them in the past seven weeks. (Memo to leadership press: Call me or others for ideas!)
In short, it is a fallacy to say that this agreement achieves no savings. Instead, it actually banks some savings (for now) that would have occurred under the sequester.
Now, those of us who are pro-defense are still worried sick about the defense implications under sequestration, but Congress easily can pass separate legislation restoring most of the dangerous defense cuts. With Leon Panetta out there publicly arguing for restoration of many of those funds, it is hard for Obama to have a leg to stand on if he says he won’t sign a separate, defense-only bill.
All in all, then, this is one of those situations where a tactical mini-retreat is not a bad option, because it allows conservatives to survive and fight another day. (And I do mean “mini”; this isn’t giving up much ground.)
It might just be time to lick our wounds, take our medicine, hobble away, and prepare a counterassault from high ground of our own choosing. In those two months, conservatives should push Paul Ryan back to the fore, and should listen to the wisdom of Jeff Sessions in the Senate about using open hearings to highlight the conservative case for lower spending, and should also push people to the fore such as Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, and Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.
More thoughts later, here and elsewhere, on communications strategies and tactics. For now, just know that if this agreement passes, time becomes our friend rather than the enemy it has been for the past seven weeks.
Goodbye 2012, Hello 2013
Posted by on 1.1.13 @ 1:02AM
I said goodbye to 2012 by partaking in First Night Boston where I watched a group of young Israeli jazz musicians before seeing jazz guitar legend John Scofield in concert.
With twenty minutes to spare, I returned home to watch the ball drop in Times Square. Ten years ago, I was in NYC. I couldn’t get to Times Square but I was at the corner of Fifth and 43rd. Close enough.
As for this year, it just isn’t the same without Dick Clark.
Well, as I wrote yesterday, my new year doesn’t begin until I see Groucho, Harpo, Chico and sometimes Zeppo. Another eleven hours.
The fiscal cliff has now come and gone. Deal or no deal, I believe it’s the last thing anyone wants to think about.
Well, hello 2013. It’s going to be long 365 days.
Monday, December 31, 2012
GOP Caves: Surrender on Tax Rates, No Cuts
Posted by on 12.31.12 @ 4:33PM
So the president waltzes out in his finest campaign style to proclaim that the GOP has caved on taxes — a loss for the GOP on principle.
And Fox reports that there will be no spending cuts. A win for Dems on principle.
Thus the Senate GOP leadership.
And the House GOP? We shall see.
The cliff clock ticks.
It’s the Spending, Stupid
Posted by on 12.31.12 @ 1:31PM
Any deal that delays the spending cuts under sequestration (without replacing them with other cuts) should be anathema. If this deal re-raises spending (on anything other than defense), it should be an absolute non-starter.
Now, if it delays sequestration, but replaces it with other, specified spending cuts instead of an across-the-board bludgeon, then that is actually BETTER policy than sequestration.
But this is worth noting: Boehner’s Plan B would have kept sequestration intact, but would have protected tax cuts for everybody up to a million dollars of income. Plan B was better than this deal, regardless. This game hasn’t been played well by the political right.
We await the final details of this thing. But if this raises taxes on small businesses whose proprietors earn (meaning the businesses earn, which means the money doesn’t actually end up as personal earnings) as little as $450,000, this might not be a deal worth accepting.
Gallup reports that Obama’s disapproval ratings are up a whopping five points in just the last week. If no deal is reached, he’ll get plenty of blame, too, and the pressure will remain on both sides after going over the “cliff” to come back and fix things (including retroactively). In fact, Obama might LOSE leverage, because when the economy goes bad, the president ends up getting the blame in the long run. Obama knows this too. therefore, why rush into a bad deal, when the leverage for a better deal might improve after going over the cliff?
Of course, it would help if the GOP knew how to communicate. I sure know people who can help them out.
Desk Cleanout Time?
Posted by on 12.31.12 @ 12:13PM
The latest Rasmussen telephone survey shows likely voters would choose generic Democrats over Republicans by 44 to 38 for their member of congress.
Considering the dog’s breakfast of an economy and the perilous and essentially untended world the Democrats have bequeathed us, and the low esteem in which Republicans are held in spite of this, is this latest finding not an argument that everyone above the rank of major at the RNC should clean his/her desk out and consider looking for a real job?
Why a Bad Deal is Worse Than No Deal
Posted by on 12.31.12 @ 11:39AM
Based on good reporting by the WaPost’s Chris Cillizza, showing that more Dems are vulnerable in 2014 than GOPers, I explain at CFIF why a bad deal is worse than no deal. Defense cuts do worry the heck out of me, but I think Congress will go back soon and restore the defense spending. Aside from that, there’s no good reason to accept a really bad deal — if a bad deal is indeed forthcoming.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Trouble with Clint’s Latest
Posted by on 12.30.12 @ 2:09PM
I watched Trouble with the Curve Saturday, courtesy of Netflix, and it was a Major League disappointment. It’s one of those movies that could have and should have been much better. Even a grumpy old Clint couldn’t save this one. His grumps were more entertaining in Space Cowboys and Grand Torino. Both the baseball part of this movie and the father/daughter, Dr. Phil portion are lame.
And the romance is flat and unbelievable, mostly because neither of the characters is particularly attractive or engaging. Hard to see what either of them sees in the other. He’s a nonentity (that scene where he roars of like a jilted teenage girl after the Braves draft the oaf is almost embarrassing to watch), and she’s your generic chip-on-her-shoulder, kick-butt, all-attitude, young female lawyer. What’s to like?
The you-were-never-around-when-I-was-a-kid lament and whine has been done so many times it’s beyond wearisome. It’s not even done well here, assuming it needs to be done again, which it doesn’t. And the visit to the dead wife’s graveside scene was lifted right out of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and is unconvincing. The Duke did it better.
Most disappointing was the baseball part of the movie. The writing here alternates between awful and non-existent. One of the things the luxuriously-paced work of art that is baseball produces among those in and around it is good talk. We get none of this from Clint’s character or from his fellow scouts, both those we see with him in Dogpatch and those back at the shop in Atlanta. There could have been a fount of humor here. But apparently the 25-year-olds wearing propeller caps that Hollywood hires as writers these days know nothing about baseball, have little or no humor, and have no idea how non-professional, non-trendy men of a certain age talk.
We’re told repeatedly that the Clint character is a great scout and knows the game better than anyone. But he never says much of anything to establish that he knows baseball. Again, this is doubtless because the aforementioned twerps don’t know anything about baseball and therefore can’t put words in the mouth of a great scout (or a mediocre one, come to that).
And the central trope that is supposed to establish Clint’s bona-fides as a scout, the idea that only Clint and his daughter could discover that this guy has trouble hitting a curve ball, is absurd. It’s true enough that to hit well you have to keep your weight and hands back as long as possible, and not let them drift forward on off-speed pitches. If you let your hands and body move forward ahead of the pitch, you’ve lost all your power and can’t hit the ball with authority even if you make contact. But nowadays every kid playing ball knows this by junior high school. By high school the oaf in question would have been getting a steady diet of off-speed, breaking pitches, which he would have to learn to hit before he ever saw another fastball. (And with his attitude, the only hummers he saw would have been headed for his ear-lobe.) EVERYONE, including the sideline ball girls, would know he couldn’t hit a curve.
Clint was a more engaging and sympathetic old grump in Grand Torino, a better movie and better personal performance to put a period on a great acting career. Let’s hope we see squinty Clinty on the silver screen again. Neither Clint nor his many fans want this turkey to be his final inning.
ADVERTISEMENT
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- The Great Train Robbery
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
