Brinkmanship

One of the things you can always count on Republicans doing is sticking to their guns, no matter how misguided. George W. Bush didn't spend the last six plus years ignoring reality just to start acknowledging it now. That's why it's so important for Democrats to be firm in their opposition to Republicans. On two crucial issues, taxes and Iraq, the Democrats will have prime opportunities to make their stand.

Taxes
The elephant in the room, as it were, when it comes to taxes is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was instituted in the late 60's to stop millionaires from taking advantage of so many loopholes they ended up not paying any taxes at all. One potential solution would have been to close the loopholes, but instead this crazy, complicated parallel tax system was invented. The problem is, no one ever indexed it to inflation, so next year it is set to affect way more people (middle class people, specifically) than it was ever intended to. There is bipartisan agreement that this is a bad state of affairs, but no agreement has yet been reached on how to fix things.

This article from the NYT details Democrats' intention to overhaul the AMT so that it once again only affects the truly rich. The problem is that by doing so, billions of dollars of currently projected government revenue will dry up. The article has what I consider to be a fairly limited view of the range of options Democrats face:

House Democrats see multiple political benefits from seeking a permanent fix. Some are eager to position themselves as tax cutters. Others want to show their ability to tackle a big and difficult initiative. Last but not least, the alternative minimum tax has a disproportionate impact on states with higher average incomes and high state and local taxes — like New York and California — which tend to vote Democratic.

“It’s a tax cut to the 23 million American families who have no concept that they’re going to get hit with this tax increase,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Rahm's comment at the end there demonstrates the political peril of the AMT situation. Politics is NOT an arena in which, as the saying goes, "when you've done your job right, no one will be able to tell you've done anything at all. " In politics, when you do something right, you hit the road and the airwaves to make sure everyone and his sister knows. Fix the AMT now, and no one will really know you helped them because they will simply continue not paying a ridiculously high AMT. Don't fix it, and everyone will be mad at you for not having fixed it. What to do?

If the Democrats can stomach the brinkmanship, this could be a prime opportunity to reverse a core piece of Republican ideology. You see, for the last 25-30 years, it has been political poison to suggest raising taxes. But the sentiments that drove that political reality look like they may be fading, and fixing the AMT might be a good opportunity to get the ball rolling on our counterattack.

John Edwards, the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, has already announced that his universal health care plan will have to involve some higher taxes. Even some supply-side conservatives are now admitting that it is unrealistic to constantly lower taxes without ever raising them. As Mark Schmitt wrote in Washington Monthly recently, taxes will have to go up soon if we are to retain a government that can act on behalf of its people, but it's going to take some smart political planning to get us there. Schmitt goes on:

But the truth is that we are heading down a path toward fiscal crisis that will inevitably require a major increase in revenues. In case that sounds like a euphemism, I’ll say it plainly: Taxes must go up. If Democrats try to avoid that fact, they’ll become mired in trench warfare with Republicans over small-bore increases that will cost them political support and won’t really address the problem. But if Democrats seize the opportunity to define a new era of the politics of taxes, as Republicans did 30 years ago, they can shape the debate in a way that may actually help them to achieve some of their most-cherished policy goals.
...
[T]o make it possible to talk about revenues when the opportunity arrives to actually do something about revenues, Democrats and anyone else who is serious about avoiding economic crisis must spend the next two years thinking and planning how to condition the political environment so that politicians can move with courage. That will require, first, establishing the idea that taxes must increase as a non-debatable fact; second, fixing the political process that has greased the way for tax cuts; and, third, setting the framework in which we talk about taxes.

Fixing the AMT could be the opportunity to lay some effective groundwork for a new era in which taxes can actually be raised when appropriate. Democrats should use AMT debates to highlight the enormous loss of revenue that fixing the situation will cause. They should frame a choice between continuing popular programs and letting government wither away. They can offer Republicans the chance to work with them on overhauling other parts of the tax code to make up for the lost revenue. After making this offer, though, it gets tricky.

The Republicans will hear the offer, and their knees will jerk, and they will reject any form of increasing government revenue, no matter if the net effect keeps revenue constant. Republicans will offer their usual style of compromise (see below): you give up on your position and we get everything we want, in this case rolling back the AMT without doing anything about replacing revenue.

At this point in the process, there will be enormous pressure on Democrats to cave and do what the Republicans want. Instead, they must have the courage to let people get hit with a year's worth of really high taxes, if necessary. People will be furious. But, if Democrats have done their job right, they will have made sure everyone knows that they are paying more as a result of Republicans refusing to come to the table. Once a precedent like this has been set (that sane debate over revenue can and should take place), Congress' budget talks might start taking place in a whole new paradigm.

Iraq
The Democratic-controlled House and Senate recently passed supplemental funding bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that set dates for American withdrawal from Iraq. Since that isn't precisely what Bush wanted, he's naturally kicking and screaming a bunch of nonsensical BS about how Democrats hate the troops. In times gone by, Democrats would have immediately run away with their tails between their legs at the very invocation of troop support.

One such bygone time was two weeks ago, when Barack Obama did precisely that. Obama was busily admitting that after Bush vetoes the Democratic supplemental bill, Congress will go right ahead and give him the money with no strings attached anyway. The best part was when he said that no one "wants to play chicken with our troops," which is such a great Republican talking point it might as well have been said by Karl Rove.

In times gone by, Democrats would have been sensitive to calls for compromise with Republicans. Such calls would lead to some very earnest press conferences and meetings, at the end of which Republicans would have everything they wanted and Democrats would have done all the compromising. This is Joe Lieberman's idea of compromise, and it's what snarky bloggers call "date-rape bipartisanship". It's also what the insider's insider (and noted U of C alumnus) David Broder thinks of as compromise.

Fortunately, the Democrats look like they are going to abandon Obama's idea of negotiating and Broder's idea of compromise in favor of principled action. (To be fair, Obama apparently improved his post-veto rhetoric this evening.) When Bush accuses Democrats of playing political games with troop safety, the correct response is what it looks like Dems might actually do: point out how we passed the damn bill already and now he's the one playing the games.

In particular, Harry Reid's statement hits all the right notes. Quoth Reid (emphasis added):

"The American people want the President and the Congress to work together to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are willing to meet with the President at any time, but we believe that any discussion of an issue as critical as Iraq must be accomplished by conducting serious negotiations without any preconditions. Our goal should be to produce an Iraq supplemental bill that both fully funds our troops and gives them a strategy for success.

"With his threat to veto such a plan for change in Iraq, President Bush is ignoring the clear message of the American people: We must protect our troops, hold the Iraqi government accountable, rebuild our military, provide for our veterans and bring our troops home.

"The President is demanding that we renew his blank check for a war without end. Despite the fact that the President persists in trying to score political points at the expense of our troops, congressional Democrats have repeatedly reached out in the spirit of cooperation. We renew our request to work with him to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability."

In a way, Obama's right: no one truly wants to throw our troops out on the curb. But the solution to that problem is not to cave to Bush, especially when we can fund the military through July without passing the supplemental funding bill. The correct solution is to stand our ground as long as we can and keep making sure the American people realize this is Bush's mess, and he's the one who is refusing to get us out of it.

Conclusion
Cautious observers are partly right: it is a dangerous game of brinkmanship for Democrats to call Republican bluffs on taxes and Iraq. But these are very dangerous times. The last twelve years of Republican Congressional dominance have proven there is nothing for Democrats to gain from timidity. I am encouraged by their refusal to blink on Iraq so far, and I hope they can bring that same resolve to our fiscal mess.

Faith-Based Policies

I'm no lawyer, but generally I approve of having some sort of standard of evidence. Which is why it's so funny to see the oil industry shills with their backs up against the wall.

Fact: global warming is happening right now, and humans are responsible for it. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report spells it out as starkly as such a document can. In an ironic bit of metaphor, global warming is an effect that will only snowball - the more heat gets trapped, the more the forces that trap heat speed up. There's really no denying that this is a huge problem that only we are responsible for. There's also no denying that we will have to wait until 2009, when a less evil president assumes office, in order to get started on implementing the policies we so desperately and urgently need.

As if this weren't enough reason to for the oil industry to worry, peak oil is also starting to rear its ugly head. Production at some of the largest, most productive oil fields in the world (including the crown jewel fields of Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Alaska) has started to decline despite increased drilling. We may soon see an irreversible worldwide decline in production.

So what is the oil industry response? Via their front group, the American Petroleum Institute, it appears to be make-believe. As observed in this diary on DailyKos, the industry shills are telling us that proven reserves aren't what matter - we should be looking at un-proven reserves. In other words, let's make our policy based on faith. In oil companies. Yep, that's probably superior to evidence.

It's truly astonishing that they have now taken up methods that not even Police Detective Riley would use. Per Jack Handey:

Police Detective Riley was a no-nonsense kind of guy. Before, he really loved nonsense, and would use it a lot in his murder investigations. But he found that most people didn't appreciate it, especially the family of the victim.

Now, granted that whoever was speaking for the API was probably a PR guy, which would make him the spinmeister for a spin group. Hardly someone you should trust. But clearly the American Petroleum Industry trusts this guy, so somebody is actually embracing nonsense as a methodology for science and policy.

Fortunately, supporting this kind of statement actually does seem to finally be eroding the credibility of the oil industry. And with Obama and McCain jointly sponsoring global warming legislation, it looks like 2009 may be the beginning of the end for the oil industry. I therefore issue the API, the industry at large, Bush, and that whole gang this challenge, by way of Homer Simpson:

You couldn't fool your own mother on the foolingest day of your life with an electrified fooling machine!

Obamarama08 - Updated Repost

Note: I originally posted this when Obama for President started heating up in October. Now that he's declared, enjoy it in slightly updated fashion. --IVFK

Blacks in Chicago average about half the income of local whites. Barack Obama himself is probably doing his part to bring the average up, and good for him - he's a sharp guy who took advantage of his opportunities. But every politician has a pretty good living wage. What's sticks out about Obama? Why is he different from other politicians? Why do people love him so?

I think it's his silver tongue. Obama can give a damn good speech when he wants to, and frankly that's something recent Democratic Presidential nominees Kerry and Gore were unable to do. He's a charismatic guy, and he gives off the air of someone who is thoughtful, principled, and really smart. And what's more, he looks less stupid than most Democrats when he talks about religion. This is both good for Democrats and good for religion. The rampaging maniacs who currently control religion-in-politics are ruining us politically and ruining the reputation of religion. So on these two fronts, I think Obama is a great candidate.

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't meet the leadership standards I would really like to see, at least not at this point. My leadership standards are essentially the same ones that are being pushed across the internet by concerned rank and file Democrats. They include pulling the debate to the left instead of caving to the center and unplugging the influence machine in DC that puts its own above the country. But Obama came of political age at the tail end of the Clinton triangulation era, before these values rose to prominence.

In 2000, Obama was dealt an embarrassing defeat right here in Hyde Park. In the Democratic Congressional primary, entrenched incumbent Bobby Rush mopped the floor with him. His stated reason for tilting at this particular windmill was an astute observation that Bobby Rush is not a particularly responsive legislator.

For example, Rush is beloved across the netroots for his sponsorship of the legislation to destroy net neutrality. One begins to suspect some undue influence may have swayed his opinion on the issue, though. Telecom interests gave Rush hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars. He also helped arrange a hefty donation by telecom interests to a technology center in Englewood. I would argue the long term interests of his constituents are better served by having a measure of freedom on the internet than by having a technology center. Internet freedom is what allows jerks like me to fight otherwise unaccountable insiders like him. But at least Rush doesn't see a contradiction between constituent service and corporate corruption.

At any rate, Obama took his purified optimist shtick out for a test drive and was soundly defeated. He challenged the corrupted insider interests, and they put him in his place. The lesson he appears to have learned is not that he should try harder. Rather it is that he should play the insider game, even if he sticks to his populist rhetoric. For example, he has had problems respecting the will of the party's voters in Connecticut, where his show of support for Ned Lamont was tepid at best. He apparently feels it's OK to praise George Bush.

Obama also has some phraseology in common with Joe Lieberman. Of particular note is the unspecified phrase "a different kind of politics" to denote some sort of transcendent bipartisanship. I don't think anyone is saying that rancor, partisan or otherwise, is a good thing, but it's not a nuanced or sophisticated phrase to say. It basically tells to me, as a member of the liberal base, that Obama is committed to centrism. Again, no one is saying people shouldn't agree on stuff, but when you go for centrism, you move the whole debate to the right.

David Callahan recently wrote a book called The Moral Center in which he makes the case for (a) more moral bottom lines in political rhetoric, (b) more centrist policy solutions, and (c) more unity thereof. However, as this reviewer points out, the reason moral bottom lines would resonate is that they would appeal to people's hunger for (allegedly) Kantian absolutes. Per her interpretation of Kant, there is always one right thing and everyone should always do it. But if we take that interpretation, then "moral center" is an oxymoron and trying to find one will do nothing to sate the hunger.

But the point of pulling the debate to the left is that you have to if you want things to end up in the center at the end. If you start off shooting for the center, you get negotiated down by the right and end up with something right of center. For example, say you want to decrease income disparity. You can start (as Democrats are doing) by tinkering around the edges of the issue by lowering student loan rates. Doing so is a great idea, but it is certainly going to be opposed by the powers that be on Wall Street (who also happen to run the Treasury Department right now). To get anywhere, negotiations will need to happen and anything that ends up succeeding will probably be watered down significantly. In the end, not much will change with this pretty centrist approach. Whereas to fix the issue of income disparities between blacks and whites in Chicago will require a significantly more visionary, boldly leftist set of policies.

Offering up some bipartisan praise or refusing to go against a powerful guy at your office (especially if he's president of the US) aren't capital sins in and of themselves. But putting things like this together with co-opting Lieberman rhetoric leaves me thinking that Obama isn't on board with the grassroots platform. Not to say he would be a bad president (and certainly better than anything Republicans will ever offer), and not to say he couldn't straighten himself out, but I'm just not sold on him yet.

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOOOTBALLLLL!

Frankly I don't really think this post needs any introduction. Except to say that if the whole President thing doesn't work out, Obama definitely has a future in sports broadcasting...