Obama Screws Over Young People?

That is Andrew Sullivan's take on The Daily Dish where he has come back from his sick leave spoiling for a fight with the President he so often supports:

The logic behind president Obama's budget has one extremely sensible feature: it distinguishes between spending that simply adds to consumption, and spending that really does mean investment. His analogy over the weekend - that a family cutting a budget would rather not cut money for the kids' education - is a sound one. We do need more infrastructure, roads and broadband, non-carbon energy and basic science research, and some of that is something only government can do. In that sense, discretionary spending could be among the most important things government could do to help Americans create wealth themselves. And yet this is the only spending Obama wants to cut. . . .

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

I agree with a fair bit of what Mr. Sullivan says, in general. And in this case, I similarly agree with a fair bit of what he is saying in his analysis. However, I fail to see any line of clear thought that can fairly lay this all, or even mostly at the feet of this President. Sure, he's supposed to lead and he was elected to make the tough decisions, but at this point with the economy, he is coaching someone else's team, if you will allow the metaphor. Of course, it's two years in and that is a difficult argument to win with people who don't pay careful attention to these sorts of things. But to anyone who thinks seriously about the economy, it is rather obvious that the President is still dealing with someone else's mess. But he's judged on wins and losses and so he's trying to rack up as many wins as he can now, so he can secure a long-term contract extension. Once that extension is achieved, then he can go about putting in a new system and improve the overall quality of the team.

I don't think Sullivan's critique is unfair, I just think it is a bit too reactionary without being cognizant of political realities. What are your thoughts?

Supremely Political

(if it's not already, someone should make this post's title, the name of a blog!)

Yesterday, Noah Feldman published a phenomenally interesting op-ed in the NYTimes. I encourage anyone who cares anything about law, history, politics, and the places where they all meet, to check out this rather quick read. You will find it well worth your time. Personally, I also find myself in complete agreement. Some highlights:

Today, even the justices’ minimal extrajudicial activities come in for public condemnation — some of it suspiciously partisan. Does anyone seriously think Justice Thomas would become more constitutionally conservative (if that were somehow logically possible) as a result of his wife’s political activism? It is true that Justice Thomas voted to protect the anonymity of some corporate contributions in the Citizens United case. But this vote reflected his long-established principles in favor of corporate speech. The personal connection was nowhere near close enough to demand recusal, any more than a justice who values her privacy should be expected to recuse herself from a Fourth Amendment decision.

After all, Martin Ginsburg, a model of ethical rectitude until his death last year, was for many years a partner in an important corporate law firm. But surely no one believes that his career made his wife, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, more positively inclined toward corporate interests on the court than she would already be as a member in good standing of America’s class of legal elites.

Justice Antonin Scalia, for his part, naturally spends time with like-minded conservatives including Representative Michele Bachmann and Charles Koch. But when the brilliant, garrulous Justice Scalia hobnobs with fellow archconservatives, he is not being influenced any more than is the brilliant, garrulous Justice Stephen Breyer when he consorts with his numerous friends and former colleagues in the liberal bastion of Cambridge, Mass.

A FEW years ago, many insisted that Justice Scalia should not sit in judgment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s claims to enjoy executive privilege, noting that the two had been on the same duck-hunting trip. Justice Scalia memorably explained that the two men had never shared the same blind. He could as easily have pointed out that before President Harry Truman nationalized the steel mills, he asked Chief Justice Fred Vinson, a poker buddy and close friend, if the court would find the action constitutional. (Vinson incorrectly said yes.)

Just a point of personal privilege...

Perhaps this is not really a topic worthy of the blog and is a bit more regional in nature, however, I just saw this article referring to the death of former Chief of the Virginia Supreme Court Leroy Hassell. Chief Hassell swore both me and my wife into the Virginia Bar. Yesterday, he was laid in state in the Capitol in Richmond:

Hassell is the first African American to lie in state in the Capitol in the former capital of the Confederacy. Other notable men to lie in state there include former president John Tyler in 1862; Confederate general Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson 1863; and Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

Sen. Henry L. Marsh (D-Richmond), a hero of Virginia's civil rights movement, said he was struck by the symbolism of the tribute to Hassell in a space that was long used to remember Confederates.

"It's a tribute to a man who did so much to help us enter the modern age," Marsh said. "It shows the regard with which people held his service."

I will always remember when my wife was sworn into the Bar in a fairly small ceremony (smaller than the mass ceremony where I was sworn in ) and the way Chief Justice Hassell was insistent on the good that attorneys can do in our society and the good they must do. Even though I wasn't being sworn in, it made a great impact on me and has stuck with me to this day. Hassell will surely be missed but his legacy will continue to resonate.

A Budget Cut I Can Believe in

This is one of the best plans I've seen lately to reduce spending at the federal level: "Today, U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-Va), joined Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Ed Markey, John Conyers, Lois Capps, Peter Welch and David Price to introduce legislation to cut the budget by ending roughly $40 billion over five years in wasteful subsidies to the oil industry." The bill is called the Ending Big Oil Subsidies Act.

The sponsor of the bill, Representative Blumenauer reminds us how well the oil industry actually does for itself. He said:

The oil industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world and does not need help from the government. With Congress already discussing painful budget cuts that will require American families to make sacrifices, it is only fair that we also stop the handouts to our richest oil companies. It makes no sense that we are borrowing money from China to subsidize the most profitable industry in the world and corporations like ExxonMobil that earn billions every year. It’s time for us to have a serious, rational discussion about cutting the budget.

From a policy perspective, it just doesn't make much sense to hand out tens of billions of dollars to wealthy corporations while we cut spending from programs that need it. While Americans struggle with unemployment, hunger, and homelessness, why should we continue to subsidize big oil corporations? It will be interesting to see if Republicans will even allow this to come to a vote. I kind of feel like they are going to choose their big business constituents over actually trying to limit spending. I predict they will show that they are actually just budget peacocks.

Another One BItes the Dust

It's hard to find compelling news stories what with all that's going on in the Middle East. We got one this week that was almost buried when Jim Webb announced he would not seek reelection. This was a little surprising, but we did all suspect it, especially after he released his fundraising numbers. Naturally, this led our conservative media to whip up their frenzy to "inform" us that it pretty much guarantees that Republicans will take the Senate in 2012. I even saw one "expert" on our local Fox affiliate saying that with Webb, Joe Lieberman, and Kent Conrad retiring, it would make it that much more difficult for the Democrats to hold the Senate.

Not so fast. I hate to let facts get in the way, but I don't think this is that terrible. First, I'll concede Kent Conrad. That was a winnable seat that the Democrats will lose. Joe Lieberman? In Connecticut? Not only will the Democrats hold that seat, but they'll get a better Senator to replace Joe Lieberman. He's caused many problems since Ned Lamont beat him in a primary, and I don't see the Republicans picking this one up. Let's look at Virginia now. Just before the announcement, my new favorite politics blog looked at the potential reelection match up between Webb and former Senator George Allen (let's just assume for now that Allen wins his primary against a tea party organizer that has already declared). According to Public Policy Polling, Webb was only leading Allen 49-45 and Webb has a 43/41 approval/disapproval rating. Not bad. But also not overwhelmingly convincing for Webb. Allen isn't any more popular though. His approval/disapproval is 40/41 overall and 38/45 with independents. Allen's numbers just don't jump out to me as a well-known candidate who has it in the bag.

Now, I'm just going to spitball here about possible replacements for Webb. Tim Kaine has already won a statewide race but has said he will not run. I'm going to guess he will jump in if polling shows he is the only candidate who can beat Allen. I've heard Gerry Connolly may jump in. I like Tom Perriello more. Sure, he lost his House election, but he stuck by his principles. It was a tough year for Democrats and he fared pretty well downstate near Charlottesville. If Terry McAuliffe decides to run, he has great name recognition, a huge ability to raise funds, and has been doing good work creating jobs in Virginia. That's a bench that is 3 deep with names that could probably fare pretty well in an election. At the very least, they would make it difficult for the Republicans to win.

Elsewhere, I have a hunch that Republicans are vulnerable in Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. Olympia Snowe is already being challenged by a tea party group and may lose the very far right in a more liberal state. Scott Brown is also being challenged by tea partiers, but has amassed a large war chest above $7 million already. He's also the state's most popular politician, but this is still Massachusetts. Jon Ensign is not popular in Nevada since he had an affair with a married staffer and had his parents pay off her husband. Nevada also has a growing Hispanic population and an excellent blueprint to follow from Harry Reid's recent win. Finally, since Webb's announcement, Jon Kyl has announced his retirement. Kyl was going to be an easy win, and it will still be difficult for the Democrats to pick up this seat, especially since they don't have any big names down there. However, this seat is now at least more in play and will probably require some resources to defend.

Now, throw in the fact that this is a Presidential election year, the electorate appears to be changing from 2010 back towards 2008 (but not all the way), the fact that Obama's approval ratings are growing in some of these states, and my prediction that Republicans nominate a Presidential candidate that is out of the mainstream, I'm going to guess that the Democrats are not in as precarious a situation as the media would make it seem. It's not that absurd to say that Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot again by choosing "ideological purity" over electability in Massachusetts and Maine while further weakening their prospects across the country by nominating a weak presidential candidate.

Reagan Turns 100

This past weekend, communities across the country held their annual love fests for Ronald Reagan. I find this amusing. I find it even more amusing when every Republican, especially tea partiers, bow down at his figurative feet as if he was some sort of deity. Then, in the same breath, they go on some nonsensical rant about taxes. It's funny because Reagan would be a democrat today. Eugene Robinson, so eloquent at stating the obvious, makes the case today:

Some Republicans, I suppose, might be so enraptured by the Reagan legend that they are unaware of his actual record. I hate to break it to Sarah Palin, but Reagan raised taxes. Often. Sometimes by a lot.

When he took office as governor of California in 1967, the state faced a huge budget deficit. Reagan promptly raised taxes by $1 billion - at a time when the entire state budget amounted to just $6 billion. It was then the biggest state tax increase in history. During Reagan's eight years in Sacramento, the top state income tax rate increased from 7 percent to 11 percent. Business and sales taxes also soared.

When Reagan moved into the White House, he brought with him a theory that critics derided as "voodoo economics" - the idea that the way to balance the budget was to lower taxes, not raise them. Reagan quickly pushed through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a tax cut of about $264 billion. Republicans seem to rank this event alongside Columbus's discovery of the New World as one of the great milestones in human history.

What eludes the GOP's selective memory is that Reagan subsequently raised taxes 11 times, beginning with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. All told, he took back roughly half of that hallowed 1981 tax cut. Why? Because he realized that the United States needed an effective federal government - and that to be effective, the government needed more money.

Republicans laud Reagan's unshakable commitment to smaller government. Yet federal employment rolls grew under his watch; they shrank under Bill Clinton. Reagan had promised to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education, but he didn't. Instead, he signed legislation that added to the Cabinet a new Department of Veterans Affairs.

It's no secret that I've never been a Reagan supporter, but I'll give him credit that he at least knew that to have an effective government, you sometimes have to raise taxes. Cutting every government program doesn't make government better. I think Burnsy nailed it today when he said to me, "Fuck the Gipper. I don't understand why he's so revered; I'd rather the mantle of Clinton than Reagan any day."

Friedman's Before Egypt

We continue to monitor the situation in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood just entered talks with the government. In the US, however, the issue always revolves around the question: "What does this mean for Israel?" I may never understand why every foreign policy issue in this country revolves around Israel, but Thomas Friedman had an interesting take:

If Israel does not make a concerted effort to strike a deal with the Palestinians, the next Egyptian government will “have to distance itself from Israel because it will not have the stake in maintaining the close relationship that Mubarak had,” said Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster. With the big political changes in the region, “if Israel remains paranoid and messianic and greedy it will lose all its Arab friends.”

To put it bluntly, if Israelis tell themselves that Egypt’s unrest proves why Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinian Authority, then they will be talking themselves into becoming an apartheid state — they will be talking themselves into permanently absorbing the West Bank and thereby laying the seeds for an Arab majority ruled by a Jewish minority between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

What the turmoil in Egypt also demonstrates is how much Israel is surrounded by a huge population of young Arabs and Muslims who have been living outside of history — insulated by oil and autocracy from the great global trends. But that’s over.

“Today your legitimacy has to be based on what you deliver,” the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, explained to me in his Ramallah office. “Gone are the days when you can say, ‘Deal with me because the other guys are worse.’ ”

I had given up on Netanyahu’s cabinet and urged the U.S. to walk away. But that was B.E. — Before Egypt. Today, I believe President Obama should put his own peace plan on the table, bridging the Israeli and Palestinian positions, and demand that the two sides negotiate on it without any preconditions. It is vital for Israel’s future — at a time when there is already a global campaign to delegitimize the Jewish state — that it disentangle itself from the Arabs’ story as much as possible. There is a huge storm coming, Israel. Get out of the way.

I find faults with the positions of both the Palestinian leadership and the Israelis, but right now, Israel could take the simple steps of halting settlements to restart the peace talks. As Friedman points out, with all that's happening in the Middle East now, renewing peace talks will be essential to the future of both Israel and Palestine.