GOP IN A PICKLE OVER TAXES: I don’t want to discount Democrats’ incredible ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but it looks like we may be on the brink of actually winning a PR battle. As you know, Obama has been pushing for an extension of the cut in the payroll tax -- one of the most regressive taxes in our system -- that was passed temporarily earlier this year. The Republicans apparently found a tax cut they don’t like, and have spent the last month or so making up reasons why such an extension shouldn’t pass. But the Senate managed to cobble together an enormous bipartisan majority (89 votes) to pass a 2-month extension late last week (tied to a provision forcing the White House to make a final decision on the Keystone Pipeline in 60 days, rather than waiting another year). However, House Republicans, for an as-yet unexplained reason, have refused to pass the extension. Worse, Speaker Boehner realized that if the Senate bill came up for a vote in the House, there would be enough Republican votes to pass it along with the Democrats, so in order to ensure its defeat, he refused to bring up the bill at all. Instead, the House voted to send the bill to conference, where it would likely die. Obama went into the press room on Tuesday and issued a stern warning to the House Republicans, telling them to get in line. The DC chatter has turned on them too. Here’s Karl Rove on Fox News, urging the GOP to get it together because they’d “lost the optics on it.” Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page fretted that the GOP was losing this battle, big time. Conservatives are in full panic mode over this PR disaster.
The House Republicans claim that they just want a full-year extension, rather than a temporary fix. This is a lie. The Democrats had been working for a full-year extension from day one, but could not work out a deal with the GOP, who wanted to use the deal to overhaul the social safety net by means-testing Medicare and slashing unemployment insurance. The GOP also hands-down refused to agree to pay for the tax cut with a surtax on income over $1 million, as the Democrats had wanted, and so the Dems dropped that demand. In other words, the Dems compromised. The two-month package was a temporray fix intended to give both sides more time to negotiate. Of course, that wasn’t enough for the GOP.
And now they’re in quite the pickle, as the press gets worse and worse for them. One House GOPer floated a three month extension as being somehow vastly superior to the Senate’s two-month bill. This morning, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell publicly called on Speaker Boehner to get the House together and pass the Senate bill. But Boehner’s office refused, insisting on a conference committee. It’s important to note that of the eight GOP House members Boehner appointed to the conference committee, a full five of them have expressed opposition to any sort of payroll tax cut extension. It can’t get much clearer that Boehner aims to spike this entire deal, as he has with so many other deals this year. The difference is that, this time, he might actually get blamed for it. (I should note, though, that there could be real damage to the economy if this tax cut isn’t extended, and there’s a larger than zero chance that the Dems will blink and seek big compromise just to pass this thing. It’s not totally clear whether that would be terrible, either, since failure could be bad both for the economy and for the Democrats politically.)
I SHOULD ALSO POINT OUT: that the tax-cut extension also includes an extension of unemployment insurance, which is desperately needed in this time of massive unemployment. A failure to extend these benefits would be, as the Washington Post editorial page puts it, “cruel and unwarranted.”
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: This is the problem with trying to get ahead with these things (I wrote the above this afternoon). Late this afternoon, Boehner caved and agreed to a two-month extension. The deal says that the House will agree to the Senate-passed two-month extension, and the Senate will appoint members to the conference committee to iron out a year-long compromise. “It may not have been politically the smartest thing in the world,’’ Mr. Boehner said. “But let me tell you what: I think our members waged a good fight.’’ Um...sure.
MEA CULPA ON NDAA: Last week, as you may recall, I was pretty upset over the passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill (the NDAA), which I said would legalize indefinite detention, including military detention of Americans, and signaled a total capitulation by President Obama. I am still disappointed, but I need to walk back some of my larger claims. The bill was widely misreported in the press; it was really difficult to get a consistent take on what the bill would actually do. So Adam Serwer has helpfully cleared up some of my mistaken impressions. First, it does not allow the President to put an American citizen accused of terrorism who is captured on US soil in indefinite military detention without trial. “A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won't be based on the authority in this bill,” Serwer explains. The bill specifically leaves it to the courts to decide whether the President has power, under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), to detain American citizens indefinitely. Second, the bill does not necessarily make military rather than civilian detention mandatory (though it’s close enough). (Though, as Serwer points out, it’s symbolic importance is still very dangerous, as it codifies into the law for the first time an expanded role for the military in domestic terrorism cases.) This bill is still really bad. Really bad. It’s just not quite as terrible and terrifying as I had thought, and it’s important to let you know that. (Here’s another really helpful rundown of the history of the bill and its provisions regarding military detention.)
GOP ’12 ROUNDUP: The Iowa caucuses are less than 2 weeks away -- and yes, Drausin, I realize it should technically say “fewer” but less sounds better in this context. So the Iowa caucuses are less than 2 weeks away and the race is still in total flux! Let’s look through the candidates, shall we?
Newt: You may remember that Newt Gingrich was recently a frontrunner. No more. He’s dropped to third place in Iowa polls, and his national favorability ratings dropped thirty points in two weeks. As Chait reminds us, a mere three weeks ago, Gingrich declared that looking at the polls, it was clear he was going to be the nominee. “And by the way I don’t object if people want to attack me, that’s their right. All I’m suggesting that it’s not going to be very effective.” Yeah, he was really wrong on that. Negative ads work (and Gingrich is facing a whole slew of them). No wonder Newt has changed his tune on them: “The ads that [Romney’s] people have been running that are clearly false and misleading, that ought to be taken down. They're planning to spend $1.4 million in Iowa next week running attack ads against me,” he whined on Fox News last night.
Ron Paul: So Newt’s been knocked off his throne -- and by none other than Ron Paul (at least in Iowa). This is a bit strange, considering that Iowa Republicans tend to skew uber-conservative when it comes to social issues (they voted for Huckabee last go around). Then again, Paul has been blasting airways with soft fuzzy commercials trumpeting his anti-abortion bona fides. But Paul has some problems that extend beyond his libertarian positions on heroin (in favor) and the war on terrorism (opposed): He published a series of eye-poppingly racist articles (really, click that link) in his own newsletter throughout the 90s. It’s true that the author of these articles was likely not Ron Paul, but rather the libertarian activist Lew Rockwell. Still, as Ta-Nehsis Coates wonders, “How could we justify handing off the launch codes to a man so careless with his very name?” Paul may not have written them, but he published them under his own name. “If Larry Flynt were running for president, I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t care that much that he did not personally take the photographs that appeared in Hustler,” Chait pointed out. This is a legitimate issue, not a media-created kerfuffle, as Paul attests. And yet he’s refusing to answer questions about them.
Romney: The biggest story of the week, obviously, was the payroll tax cut. And wouldn’t you know it, but Romney has taken both sides of the issue -- and then refused to say where he stood on the particular wrangling happening in Congress this week. Romney originally derided the payroll tax cut as a “temporary little band-aid” that wasn’t worth passing. That was in October. Then this month he said he wanted to see the tax cut extended, “because I know that working families are really feeling the pinch right now.” By yesterday, he decided it was best to avoid taking a position altogether. “I’m not going to throw gasoline on what is already a fire,” he said, when asked what the House Republicans should do. Profiles in courage.
Perry: Nothing much to say about Perry. But he did put out a new ad featuring his wife explaining how much they love “Christian values.” Check out his cat-like pounce on her at the end! And is wearing a turtleneck?
GOOD NEWS -- EPA APPROVES NEW COAL PLANT RULES: The EPA makes history by finalizing rules regulating the emissions of mercury and other toxins from coal- and oil-power plants. David Roberts explains why this is a Big Deal.
Must Read of the Week: Be careful what you wish for, War on Christmas Warriors! (Side note: I tried to read this out loud to my roommate and started crying from laughing so hard.)
Fun Video of the Week: A sneak peek at HBO’s upcoming “Game Change” -- feauturing Julianne Moore as Palin.
No comments:
Post a Comment