It is a great ability to be able to conceal one's ability.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Sunday Talk Soup
Brent Bozell of conservative-leaning Media Research Center does a good job of exposing liberal media bias on the national networks without any help. Not that it's that hard; a prominent liberal talking point is that Senate Minority Leader McConnell's top goal is to make Obama a one-term President. It is often accompanied by related conspiracy talking points that the Republicans are opposing Obama across the board, having no constructive alternative agenda, and the opposition is based on a personal, not substantive basis.
In fact, the reality is quite different. First of all, McConnell is not stupid; the American people will be making the decision on whether to reelect Obama. That decision is beyond McConnell's control. Second, McConnell is really making a statement to the GOP base, trying to set expectations: the Minority Leader does not set the Senate agenda, and there's not much he can do to overcome a Presidential veto with the Democratic majority. There are only a few things McConnell and the GOP House can do to dismantle the damage done by the spendthrift, empire-building progressive Democrats and President under a super-majority; they can try to put the beast on a diet, but more importantly, they can also impose an end to Obama's Big Government agenda.
There were a couple of threads during Sunday morning talk soup I wanted to address. First, Bob Schieffer had a conversation with outgoing House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (soon to be Minority Whip). One of the topics that came up was the Bush tax extension. How sick and tired are my readers of hearing some hypocritical, disingenuous Democrat moan about the $700B price tag for maintaining the current top two tax brackets. Let's put this in perspective: the $700B is an estimate for another TEN YEARS of maintaining the status quo. That's $70B per year--versus about $532B paid in taxes, a large percentage of just over $2T in overall tax revenues. When you take into account probably at least 1 out of 3 in the top brackets report more than half their income from small businesses, just a subset of job creators in that area, is it particularly a wise strategy to provide less of an incentive to grow their businesses and thus create new jobs? Those newly employed people pay taxes, too...
So when Steny Hoyer starts talking about borrowing from the Chinese to pay for the equivalent of $70B out of a $1.3T deficit, give me a break. What about the $3.1T over the next 10 years to sustain the rest of the Bush tax cuts that Obama and the Congressional Democrats want? And why is it that money is strictly added to the deficit versus any other federal revenues? Money is fungible. I see once again Warren Buffett is talking about other rich people; a Republican on one of the talk shows yesterday agreed that Warren Buffett should pay more taxes. What a hypocrite! Buffett doesn't have to pay the lowest taxes possible; the US Treasury is willing to accept more. Incidentally, it's clear the reason he pays maybe 17% is because long-term capital gains are taxed at around 15%.
Bob Schieffer has been moaning ever since he got John Boehner to admit if the Democrats tried to box him in with a middle-class-tax-cut-only, he might settle for half a loaf. So he was pumping Hoyer on possible workarounds to the GOP "holding the middle class tax cuts hostage"--e.g., bumping up the income threshold for the higher rates (e.g., to $500K or $1M), or making the high tax brackets temp (but making the lower tax brackets permanent). This type of "compromise" is really no compromise at all. Every formulation Schieffer specified leaves class warfare, an ideological stand, in place. If you split the groups getting the perm tax hike, that means you have to press for the expiring ones in a separate bill later: does the GOP stand a realistic chance of passing a separate bill to make the others permanent 2 to 5 years from now? Talk about a Democrat's dream legislation to run against and demagogue! The GOP has to insist on an all-or-nothing: make the cuts permanent across the board or temporary across the board. But what is absolutely required is a pro-growth agenda absent during the last 4 years: you are not going to get more business and job growth by punishing success. Since many businesses do planning over, say, a 5-year period, the GOP should compromise, suggesting extending all tax cuts for the next 5 years.
The second issue I want to raise is Christiane Amanpour's This Week. Ms. Amanpour quite clearly, by any objective analysis, assumed a pro-START Treaty (see below) stance that verged on propaganda. There was absolutely no discussion of the limitations or disagreements; for example, Jim DeMint, a prominent critic, was not included in the discussion. If there was any discussion, the tacit (or even explicit) assumption was the opposition was politically motivated and ignorant of the basic facts. Amanpour stressed backing of many European countries, a list of high ranking officials from prior administrations (going back to Kissinger) and appealed (like the Administration) to Lugar (R-IN), allegedly "the" expert Republican. The Obama Administration's talking points were largely adopted in full, without critical appraisal. (I should point out that George Will was on the broadcast, but he only had limited input in a slanted panel discussion.)
New START Treaty Confirmation in Lame-Duck Session?
Thumbs DOWN!
First of all, I'm not saying I am against the new START treaty, but Obama's attempt to try to pass a major treaty within a lame-duck session of Congress (before 6 net new Republicans senators are sworn in) is blatantly political; he's worried he won't win the two-thirds vote in the new Senate. I also don't like the high pressure sales pitch he's using (remember he pulled the same thing with last year's stimulus bill?) and the Chicken Little consequences of not passing the treaty ASAP.
The last thing we need is to pass a critical treaty in haste. The fact that Obama has worked towards unilateral deep cuts in defense R&D and related spending, if anything, leads one to question whether he made the best, most effective bargain in terms of the strategic long-term interests of the US--and/or whether he's simply putting lipstick on a pig, with hyped, dubious verification procedures. There are also some serious issues about missile defense that go beyond the Russian/American balance of nuclear weapons. Russians, of course, are wary that a super-effective American defense shield would call into question their own security and ability to respond in a crisis. Americans are worried about the proliferation of long-range missiles being developed by Iran and North Korea (this weekend's revelation about North Korea having built a nuclear enrichment facility didn't ease these concerns), not to mention a possible nuclear race in the Middle East by countries seeking to encounter Iran's developments and other countries (of course, China, but others as well).
Let me summarize some of Jim DeMint's (R-SC) reservations: (1) America lets Russia lock into a large advantage of tactical nuclear weapons; (2) missile defense, particularly against the types of threats posed by rogue countries, would be adversely affected; (3) Russia is able to continue upgrading its nuclear technology while under Obama, modernizing has been severely hampered; (4) Russia has a poor record of treaty compliance.
Heritage has published, among other critiques, an independent assessment: it argues in effect that the claimed 30% warhead reduction is misleading, with an apple vs. oranges comparison with less restrictive language and bomber counting in the new treaty; the same liberalized language occurs with respect to launcher limits; some limits require unilateral reductions for the US, but no compensatory reduction for Russia; and the new treaty terms limit conventional strategic warheads (which Russia wants) but not tactical nuclear.
Political Humor
In Portugal, Obama pointed out that his dog, Bo, is a Portuguese water dog. That’s a good way to make friends — “Hey, you know who’s just like you people? My dog.” - Jimmy Fallon
[In response, Portuguese prime minister José Sócrates noted that his dog, Michelle, is an American pit bull terrier.]
An original:
- Sarah Palin earlier this month took aim at Federal Reserve chairman Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke, demanding that he "cease and desist" his $600B bond purchase program under quantitative easing, aimed at lowering longer-term interest rates and thus boosting the economy. This comes from a woman whom thinks that M3 is a new Irish rock band...
Bill Conti, "Gonna Fly Now (Theme From 'Rocky')"
