This Week in Political News

THIS WEEK IN POLITICAL NEWS -- 9/9/11

OBAMA PRESENTS HIS JOBS PLAN: I just watched the Obama speech. You all should stop what you’re doing and watch it; it’s only 30 minutes. It was exactly what I needed. He was FIRED UP and ready to go -- finally! He announced he’ll be submitting a detailed bill, called the American Jobs Act, that will include payroll tax cuts, tax credits for businesses that hire, funds to repair bridges, roads, and schools, extended unemployment insurance -- all to be paid for by methods he’ll announce next week. The plan is “considerably larger than expected, with an estimated $447 billion in stimulus money.” When was the last time Obama issued something bigger than expected?! He insisted that Congress act, and right away: Obama used the phrase “pass this bill” 12 separate times. And he specifically called out Republicans by reminding them they have supported these exact measures before. One of my favorite lines, calling for a payroll tax cut: “I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.” Another great line, which can be seen as a swipe at Rick Perry: “We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top. And I believe that’s a race we can win.” One more, which only comes across half as good in text: “Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can't afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can't afford to do both. This isn't political grandstanding. This isn't class warfare. This is simple math. These are real choices that we have to make. And I'm pretty sure I know what most Americans would choose. It's not even close. And it's time for us to do what's right for our future.” And then he ended by declaring that he will “take that message to every corner of this country.” In other words, Repubs, he’s coming for you.

Really, just go watch it. Obama in scrappy mode is really fun.

GOP DEBATE LOWLIGHTS: On Wednesday, the Republicans gathered in the Reagan library in California to try to see who could sound the craziest in the least number of words (winner: Rick Perry by a 10 gallon hat!). Most attention-grabbing moment: Perry defended and reiterated his position that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” (ie, a criminal fraud), and that anyone who denies that position is telling a “monstrous lie.” You have to love the political pandering that went right along with his seeming political suicide, when he emphasized that current retirees have nothing to fear and can count on their benefits continuing to flow. You could almost hear him shouting to the Florida grandmas, “Yes, I said Social Security is a criminal monstrosity, but that won’t change anything that you get. See? Nothing to worry about here!” Romney tried to come off looking reasonable by insisting that the GOP nominee “has to be someone who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security but who is committed to saving Social Security.” But as Rachel Maddow noted last night, Romney has repeatedly endorsed Social Security privatization -- or, in other words, “abolishing” the program as we know it. Other great (meaning terrible) moments:

• Perry explaining that the reason so many Texans are uninsured is because of the federal government (Direct quote: “Well, bottom line is that we would not have that many people uninsured in the state of Texas if you didn't have the federal government.”);
• Santorum reveling in magical thinking about taxes (Direct quote: “We cut the corporate tax from 35 percent to zero, because we want to build the great middle of America again.”);
• Ron Paul insisting that the free market could absolutely replace food safety regulation, air traffic controllers, and drug inspections (Quote excerpts: “I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. … And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not.”);
• Michele Bachmann flat out lying by saying the CBO said “ObamaCare” “is killing jobs” (In fact, the CBO said impact on jobs would be minimal.);
• Newt “Tiffany” Gingrich insisting that, as president, he would fire Ben Bernanke “tomorrow” -- despite the fact that a president likely has no such authority;
• Perry transitioning from praising the Navy SEALS who killed bin Laden to decrying Keynsian economics, all in one sentence (Direct Quote: “I give more props to those Navy SEALs that did the job, but -- and the other thing this president's done, he has proven for once and for all that government spending will not create one job. Keynesian policy and Keynesian theory is now done. We'll never have to have that experiment on America again.”)

A SIDE NOTE ON SOCIAL SECURITY: With all this Social Security bashing going on (though today Perry’s people tried to insist that he never suggested the program was unconstitutional and that it’s “misinformation” to claim he wants to abolish it), it’s important to make a few facts clear. First, if we do nothing, it remains solvent through 2038. Second, if we raise the cap on taxable income, we could ensure the solvency of Social Security for 75 years. And third, it’s no more a Ponzi scheme, as Matt Yglesias puts it, “than anything else that relies on future economic growth.” Indeed, it strikes me that it’s no different than any government program -- like, say, disability payments for returning vets -- paid for by taxes. Just because my payroll taxes pay for current retirees -- just like my income taxes pay for current veterans’ benefits -- doesn’t make it some sort of fraud. It’s what a nation of young productive people and old non-productive people does; it’s how we support each other. Am I missing something?

A PARTICULARLY DEPRESSING/ENRAGING/ALIENATING MOMENT: There were some serious low points in last night’s debate, obviously. But one moment stood out, not only for how disgusted it made me, but also for how sharply it reminded me of the wide gulf between my and my compatriots’ views. This moment came when host Brian Williams asked Perry about the 234 people -- 234! -- executed by the state of Texas during Perry’s governership. Before he could finish the question, the audience burst into loud, thunderous applause -- just at the fact of these hundreds of executions. And then, when Williams is able to finish his question about whether Perry has ever struggled with or lost sleep over the idea that perhaps even one of those men might have been innocent, Perry unblinkingly declared he never worried about it for one second. “I've never struggled with that at all,” he said. (Watch it here.) Not even after journalists and experts exposed the execution of a man who was almost certainly innocent. In fact, Perry was so unperturbed by that execution that he single-handedly shut down the investigation into the prosecution that led to the most likely wrongful execution. During Perry’s most recent campaign for reelection as governor, one primary voter dismissed concerns over this issue: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.” Chait put it best: “It is telling that the political culture that has nurtured Perry is so morally demented that demonstrating that he blithely executed an innocent man is not a political liability.” Obama’s protestations to the contrary, there really is a Red America and a Blue America, and it takes moments like this -- seeing Americans leap to their feet to applaud the notion of executing hundreds of their fellow citizens -- to remind me how firmly entrenched in my own Blue world I am.

Good News: A Fourth Circuit panel threw out a pair of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Two of the three judges said they would have affirmed the constitutionality of the law.
Must Read of the Week: This is an old story -- it’s from 2009 -- but it’s the full account of the Texas execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a man who was almost certainly innocent of the murders for which he was convicted and sentenced to die. It’s an incredible piece of journalism, and with Perry as the GOP front-runner, it’s a must-read.
Must-Watch Video of the Week: A very moving tribute to the workers who dug out the rubble at Ground Zero in the hours and days following the 9/11 attacks.

Well, He Did It

There is little I enjoy more than seeing President Obama pissed off. His poise and equanimity, even when being shouted down on the floor of Congress during the State of the Union, can be maddening at times. It was thus highly gratifying to see that flash of anger in Obama’s eyes yesterday afternoon when he refused to accept Rep. Paul Ryan’s far-right, radical remaking of a less generous, less compassionate, less sound America. (You can watch the speech here. He gets fired up—for him, at least, starting around minute 22.)

Most importantly, Obama finally made the moral case for government, and for the social safety net that must be protected. He described these programs as “commitments” to our fellow-citizens, commitments that are essential parts of his—and our—“vision for America that we want to see five years, 10 years, 20 years down the road.” And he tied that radical shift to the moral bankruptcy of insisting on greater tax cuts for the wealthy:

[T]his is a vision that says even though Americans can't afford to invest in education at current levels, or clean energy, even though we can't afford to maintain our commitment on Medicare and Medicaid, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about that. […]

They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. That's not right. And it's not going to happen as long as I'm President.

This vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. … There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don't think there's anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don't have any clout on Capitol Hill. That's not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate. It's a land of opportunity and optimism. Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future that we share.

Obama made a direct moral case for the preservation of our nation’s commitments to the poor, the sick, the elderly, recalling my favorite line from his 2004 speech that I mentioned yesterday:

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

This is the argument we have been waiting for. Obama included his usual homage to coming together as a nation, Republicans and Democrats bridging the divide, etc etc. But before that, he shredded Ryan’s plan not for its fishy numbers, its fake accounting, or its massive hypocrisy, but for its radical cruelty. “It’s not right,” he said of Ryan’s plan. Sticking with our promises is. Thank you, Mr. President, for finally saying so.

The Democrats’ Message Isn’t Resonating

This morning, CNN released a new poll [pdf] that suggests the White House and Democrats have so far failed to make their argument about the radical nature of the Republicans’ budget plan. While a large majority, 68 percent, agree that Republican proposals “unfairly favor some groups more than others,” a bare majority says that the GOP plans do not go “too far.” Here are some of the internals:

Question 14: In your view, do current Republican proposals to cut spending go too far, or not?

	Total	White	Non-White	65+	Under $50k
Too far	47%	38%	67%	41%	47%
Not too far	51%	59%	33%	53%	51%

Question 15: Do Republicans proposals to cut spending apply fairly to all groups in society, or do they unfairly favor some groups more than others?

	Total	White	Non-White	65+	Under $50k
Fair	29%	31%	25%	36%	27%
Unfair	68%	65%	75%	59%	72%

In combining some of the internals, I particularly wanted to look at seniors and poorer people, who have the most to lose in Paul Ryan’s budget. His plan would severely cut Medicaid funding for the poor and would end up requiring seniors to pay far more of their health care expenses.

On the one hand, these numbers show that people understand the unfair impact of Ryan’s budget. But the “too far” question suggests that, even if they understand the unfairness of the plan, they don’t seem to be too bothered by it. I draw two conclusions from this.

First, the Democrats’ message is not reaching the larger public. Ryan’s cuts so obviously favor the rich (slashing upper bracket taxes to the lowest point since 1931) that the plan on its face is unfair. The public doesn’t have to hear that from the left; any straight reporting of the facts of the plan make that clear. The “too far” question makes it clear that the left’s core critique—that the plan is radical—is not getting out to the people, or that the people aren’t buying it.

Second, these numbers emphasize how little the public has heard from Democrats and President Obama on the moral implications of the budget—on the morality of righting our fiscal house solely through the sacrifices of the lower and middle classes. During December’s tax deal, in which Obama extended the tax cuts for the uber-wealthy in exchange for tax cuts for everyone else, the President never framed the issue on what is morally right, except to say that it is wrong to raise taxes. He didn’t talk about the moral bankruptcy of handing out government welfare to those who are doing better than ever, who are richer than the majority of the rest of the nation combined. Nor did he talk about the moral responsibility we owe to those less fortunate, the moral duty of government to provide a robust safety net that protects those whose luck has run. These are not just questions of numbers and budgets and what we can afford; these are questions of the moral purpose of our government, questions that the leader of the Democratic Party, who made himself famous in a speech emphasizing that we are our brother’s keeper, needs to be making.

If Americans recognize that the Republicans' proposals are wildly unfair, but disagree that they go “too far,” that doesn’t point to idiocy or hypocrisy, or even confusion. It points to Obama’s failure to embrace the moral message of government. Let’s hope he starts making that case this afternoon.

UPDATE: WSJ Was Wrong—And So Was I (Hopefully)

This morning I quoted an anonymously-sourced Wall Street Journal article indicating that the White House “has opened the door to a deal with Republicans” to link the debt ceiling vote to significant spending cuts. I and other commentators used this to argue that Obama seemed, well, bad at negotiating. I am not so sure I am wrong on that point, but I shouldn’t be so quick to condemn, since White House Press Secretary Jay Carney implicitly refuted the WSJ’s account this afternoon.

In comparatively strong language, Carney insisted that the debt ceiling vote “will” pass, and that it should and will be disconnected from policy positions regarding the long-term debt:

Q: And one last one. What’s the relationship between the speech and the debt ceiling vote

MR. CARNEY: The speech and the debt ceiling? We don’t believe there is a relationship between the two, and we don’t believe, going back to questions I had yesterday, that there should be a link between efforts to address our long-term deficit problem and debt problem and the imperative of raising the debt ceiling, which the President and all the leaders of Congress have said has to be done.

It will happen, because everyone recognizes the consequences of not doing it, which would be to throw the global economy into chaos, to halt on a dime the economic recovery that we’ve been experiencing and fought so hard to help foster. This is not an alternative. And we are confident that the Congress will vote accordingly.

This is encouraging. Similarly encouraging was Carney’s refutation of the notion that Obama, in his debt speech on Wednesday, would be whole-heartedly embracing the Simpson-Bowles debt plan, about which previously he had been lukewarm. These are encouraging news items, though of course the original stories—regarding the debt ceiling vote and the Simpson-Bowles plan—were presumably based on some sort of authoritative source leaking this stuff to reporters. Let’s just hope that Carney is the one in the loop on this stuff.

Is This Any Way to Negotiate?

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama was frequently portrayed as some sort of Jedi knight/chess master who could see three moves ahead and outplay all his opponents. Either those descriptions were laughably off-base, or Obama had to hand in his light saber upon entering the White House.

In this latest fight over the budget, remember that Speaker Boehner originally demanded $32 billion in cuts. Democrats said this would devastate the economy. The eventual “compromise” to stave off government shutdown implemented $39 billion in cuts. Democrats praised the “biggest annual spending cut in history.” A very odd way for Democrats—who control the Senate and the White House—to meet Republicans in the middle.

The very next day after the shutdown was averted, Speaker Boehner saddled up for the next fight, over raising the debt ceiling (a routine but economically essential act that prevents the United States from going into default and potentially triggering a second worldwide recession). Boehner made it clear that, once again, he’d be taking the government hostage until he got what he wanted:

On Saturday night House Speaker John Boehner declared, "The president says, 'I want you to send me a clean bill.' Guess what, Mr. President. Not a chance you're going to get a clean bill."

Boehner argued that "there's no plan to deal with the debt we're facing," and that Republicans would not vote to increase the limit unless Democrats conceded something "really, really big."

That was Saturday night. Three days later, the Wall Street Journal reports that Obama is now open to a “deal” with Republicans, in which he’s support additional cuts in exchange for this routine, economically essential vote on raising the debt ceiling.

This is a very odd way to negotiate. It is literally guaranteed to give the Republicans—who again control only one house of Congress—at least part of what they want. More damaging, it continues Obama’s ceding of the policy argument to the GOP: that government’s top priority right now should not be reducing unemployment, investing in infrastructure and technology, strengthening education, or moving to a new clean energy economy, but only to cut cut cut and focus on the debt (without, of course, any tax hikes). This is not only insane politically (polls show that the GOP’s plans are insanely unpopular [pdf]), but it is a betrayal of the policies Obama ran on. He is smarter than this. Or is that just the remnants of the Jedi-knight-narrative again?

Koh Defends Legality of Libyan Intervention

Speaking at Yale Law School yesterday, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh ardently defended the Obama administration’s record on human rights and international affairs, including the legality of its intervention in Libya without Congressional approval. He emphasized the Obama administration’s shift in posture toward international institutions, like the International Criminal Court and the Human Rights Council. “We would change the default from hostility to engagement,” Koh said of the administration’s goal.

He emphasized that the American “actions in Libya are legal under international law and domestic law,” highlighting a quote from Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in which he insisted that the intervention in Libya was not “going to war.” Koh agreed:

KOH: Is a no-fly-zone-plus a war? I don’t think so. I’ve never thought so. I have never thought so. … I would not support an action I thought to be illegal, and this one I believe in my heart to be on the right side of the line.

It’s clear Koh was trying hard to convince the law school audience that not only were the Administration’s actions defensible, but that Koh himself believed them to be legal—and that he wouldn’t support them otherwise. Throughout the talk, Koh repeated that, while it was his job to defend decisions made by the Administration, he would never do so if he thought the decision was not legally permissible. He expressed frustration that people seem to assume he doesn’t believe what he is saying, whether he is opining on the legality of drone strikes, defending indefinite detention, or explaining the Administration’s failure to close Guantanamo. (We haven’t shut the prison camp, he said, “because we can’t do it ourselves. We need help from our allies in Congress and the Courts.”)

Later in the speech, Koh listed the significant differences between the Bush administration and the Obama administration’s approach to what he calls the law of 9/11. One of those differences, Koh said, was that, unlike his predecessor, Obama does not claim the entire war as a battlefield. “We do not call it a Global War on Terror,” Koh said. At the same time, he defended the targeting of al Qaeda operatives, be they in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia. It’s unclear exactly what the difference is between claiming the world as a battlefield and asserting the right to target enemies anywhere in the world.

Koh acknowledged the differences between the Bush and Obama approaches were “subtle,” but said that a Yale Law School audience should be able to distinguish them. While I do think there are significant differences—and that liberals are far too quick to lump the two administrations together—on this one point, apparently, my subtlety detector fails the Yale Law School test.

The Perils of Following the Clinton Model

President Obama and the Democrats headed off a government shutdown late Friday night by agreeing to a plan that, just months earlier, they had warned would potentially cripple the weak economy and result in tens of thousands of additional jobs lost.

But, somewhat infuriatingly, now Obama is selling the deal as a courageous and bold strategy that he, essentially endorses. Ezra Klein writes that Obama is following the Bill Clinton strategy straight toward reelection:

The Obama White House is looking toward the Clinton model. After all, Clinton also suffered a major setback in his first midterm, Clinton also faced down a hardline Republican Congress, Clinton also suffered major policy defeats, and yet Clinton, as the story goes, managed to co-opt the conservative agenda and remake himself into a successful centrist. The Obama administration has even hired many of Clinton’s top aides to help them recapture that late-90s magic.

Klein notes that this myth “misses something important” in ignoring how the booming economy—and not Clinton’s centrist triangulation—was the essential ingredient in creating Clinton’s successes.

But that’s not the only thing this myth misses. By co-opting the conservative agenda and remaking himself as a successful centrist, Clinton passed some seriously conservative legislation that continues to wreak enormously damaging consequences, from the perspective of liberals. The three most obvious—and most odious—bills are the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and the draconian cuts and restrictions to the Legal Services Corporation.

A quick primer:

· The PLRA: Passed in April of 1996, it severely restricts prisoners’ abilities to bring lawsuits that challenge the conditions of their confinement. The law requires them to jump through enormous hoops before suing the prison that allege constitutional violations in the facility, such as inadequate health care, overcrowding, or physical abuse.

·AEDPA: Part of the Republicans’ Contract with America, AEDPA gathered steam following the Oklahoma City bombing and was passed the same day as the PLRA. AEDPA ushered in unprecedented restrictions on habeas corpus appeals. It forces federal courts to defer to state court judgments so long as they were not unreasonable, even when the federal court acknowledges that the decision was incorrect as a matter of law.

·LSC: The Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 to ensure that poor people have equal access to justice. Also in 1996, Congress imposed draconian restrictions on the type of work LSC could do, the most damaging of which was banning LSC from bringing class action suits against the government. Clinton signed these cuts into law as part of his wide-ranging welfare reform.

The story goes that Clinton, in a masterful stroke, came out of the 1995 and early 1996 shutdowns by moving to the center, alienated the far-right Republican House, and effectively took up the cry of centrism that carried him straight to re-election 10 months later. But this story obscures the seriously long-lasting and far-reaching policy damage that Clinton’s triangulation wrought. If Obama’s goal is only to get re-elected, his strategy of embracing the cut-the-debt-at-all-costs rhetoric is smart. But if his goal is to protect progressive priorities, and to avoid doing lasting policy-level damage, he needs to pause before following Clinton’s road to centrism.