Politics

by hilzoy

This is a very puzzling article. Here’s the lede:

“Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain are both proposing dramatic changes to Social Security, taking on the financially fragile “third rail of American politics” that Congress and recent presidents have been unable to repair.”

Here’s Matt Yglesias’ comment on it:

“This is a great lead except for the fact that Obama is not proposing dramatic changes to Social Security. Well, there’s also the fact that the projected deficits for Social Security are smaller and more manageable than those projected for the other entitlement programs (Medicare and Medicaid) and that the non-entitlement portion of the budget is running a huge deficit right now. Under the circumstances, Social Security would seem to be the least financial fragile aspect of the federal budget. And one more thing — to say “that Congress and recent presidents have been unable to repair” Social Security implies that recent presidents and Congresses have been trying to repair it when, in fact, George W. Bush’s Social Security proposals were, like John McCain’s, aimed at phasing the program out.

I think I’m afraid to read past the lede of that particular story.”

I, however, am willing to rush in where even Matt fears to tread:

Read more

by hilzoy

Item 1, from Jared Bernstein:

“When it comes to taxes, Obama has drawn a firm line in the sand at $250,000. He cuts taxes for the vast majority of families — more than 95% — and raises taxes only on those with incomes above $250,000. Whether its income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains, or stock dividends, his plan does not raise taxes on anyone below $250,000. He articulated this point today: “…if you’re a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes — not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Yet, from McCain’s speech today: “If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Senator Obama is your man. The choice in this election is stark and simple. Senator Obama will raise your taxes.””

Here’s McCain’s speech. Read it for yourselves: it says exactly what Bernstein says it does. Here’s a quick summary of McCain’s and Obama’s tax proposals, and here (pdf) is the longer Tax Policy Center Report. See for yourselves: Obama does not propose to raise taxes on people making under $250,000 a year.

So unless McCain was addressing an audience made up entirely of people who make over $250,000 a year in his Denver Town Meeting, he was lying.

More lies below the fold.

Read more

by hilzoy

(I see that publius just posted on this, but since mine is slightly different…)

Today, Barack Obama gave a speech on veterans that was instantly drowned out by the furor over this statement:

“I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when the conditions in Afghanistan are worsening, Al Qaeda has been able to establish bases in the areas of northwest Pakistan, resources there are severely strained, and we’re spending $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq that we desperately need here at home, not to mention the strains on our military.

So my position has not changed, but keep in mind what that original position was. I’ve always said that I would listen to commanders on the ground. I’ve always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

After the media went into a frenzy, he held another press conference at which he said that one of the points that was not up for refining was his commitment to ending the war as soon as possible.

I have a hard time seeing what the big deal is here.

Read more

by publius

[UPDATE 10:00 CT: Ok, hilzoy changed my mind (she’s frustratingly good at that). There’s absolutely nothing sloppy about what Obama said when you read the whole passage. The press got Schmidt-Rolled today. It’s a complete and utter farce. So scratch what I say below about Obama’s sloppiness. The larger point of the post stands though — Obama has a nuanced policy, but it’s politically vital that he emphasizes the withdrawal side of that policy.]

When I first saw all the hysterical headlines this evening about Obama’s “refinement,” I got annoyed at Obama for being sloppy. As it turns out, I foolishly took these headlines at face value – bad idea [jeans]. When I actually read what he said, I realized that the press was largely fabricating a story out of nothing. Obama today said what’s he always said. Period. Full stop. The press is manufacturing a new story, with the help of GOP press releases (see Steve Benen for a fuller background).

But that said, I think Obama was uncharacteristically sloppy too. True, the media is terrible, but it’s often terrible in predictable ways. And today’s headlines (and the GOP attacks) were entirely predictable. So Obama should have been more careful.

To be clear, Obama’s policy is – and has always been – phased withdrawal with flexibility. Conditions on the ground have always been part of it — indeed, it would be irresponsible if they weren’t.

But the real issue here isn’t policy itself, but policy emphasis. More precisely, the issue in the weeks ahead will be what aspect of Obama’s policy – the withdrawal or the flexibility – gets the most emphasis. To win the political battle, Obama must ensure that withdrawal receives more emphasis than flexibility. After all, the Bush administration has been citing flexibility to justify indefinite occupation for some time. That’s not Obama’s policy, and it’s imperative that he doesn’t let it get defined that way.

I’ll spell all this out in more detail below…

Read more

by hilzoy

Matt Corley of ThinkProgress caught this bit from the end of a Reuters article. Quoting one of McCain’s advisors:

“He also dismissed McCain’s comment last October on Russia and the G-8 as “a holdover from an earlier period,” adding: “It doesn’t reflect where he is right now.””

Matt also noted that McCain didn’t just say he wanted to kick Russia out of the G-8 in October; he said it at the end of last March in his last major foreign policy speech. As I have noted earlier, Fareed Zakaria called this “the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years.” So: what’s the big deal, and why does it matter if no one knows what McCain’s position on it is?

Read more

by publius

To follow up on Hilzoy’s post, the part of the FISA “compromise” I find most infuriating is that the Democrats are quite literally insulting our intelligence in describing what they did. Their press releases and statements on telecom immunity assume that we’re morons. If you want to grant immunity, then do it and have the guts to say you’re doing it. But don’t lie about what you did. This whole “treat them like rubes” strategy is unacceptable.

To illustrate — the telcos are getting immunity and everyone knows it. They literally only have to show that the Bush administration sent them a letter. That’s it. Show the letter, and you’re immune — no discovery, no nuthin’. (As I’ve said, I don’t care that much about punishing telcos, I care about generating information through discovery).

However, instead of just admitting that they caved, the Dem leaders are pretending like they’ve instituted tough new standards by requiring a district court to make the final decision. Thus, they’re essentially doing two things: (1) lying about what they’re doing, and (2) shifting blame to a politically unaccountable branch of government.

When I say “lying,” what I mean is that Democratic leaders are dressing up the district court “review” as something it’s not. Via Laura Rozen, here’s how Rockefeller’s committee described the rubber stamping:

A district court hearing a case against a provider will decide whether the Attorney General’s certification attesting that the liability protection standard has been met and is supported by substantial evidence. In making that determination, the court will have the opportunity to examine the highly classified letters to the providers that indicated the President had authorized the activity and that it had been determined to be lawful. The plaintiffs and defendants will have the opportunity to file public briefs on legal issues and the court should include in any public order a description of the legal standards that govern the order.

Sounds pretty scary, eh? Lots of big mean words in there. “Supported by substantial evidence” — tough! Exacting! And you gotta love the whole “opportunity to file public briefs on legal issues.” Yes, I’m sure we can all have a lively legal debate about whether the letter that everyones knows was sent was in fact sent. Should be a very detailed brief.

Read more

by publius

As we all remember from childhood, Robin Hood was the original working class hero. He, um, redistributed from the rich to help the poor. From reading Tony Pugh’s McClatchey piece on the candidates’ health care policies, you would think that John McCain is a modern-day progressive Robin Hood on health care. (I first saw the article in the print edition of the Houston Chronicle).

The article begins by describing a mother (Ms. Espinoza) who has employer-based health care for herself, but can’t afford to add her children (they remain uninsured). After Pugh describes to her the candidates’ rival health care plans, she ultimately decides that McCain’s policy sounds better. It’s outrageous and depressing, but it’s not her fault — it’s the fault of people like Pugh who need to do a better job describing the real-world consequences of these policies.

I’ll get to the policy side below, but first the politics. In one sense, McCain’s health care proposal shouldn’t be understood as policy at all — it’s merely a political weapon. It lets him say something in response to questions from the public and the press about health care. What’s troubling, though, is that the proposal may not be bad politics, assuming the public remains misinformed.

To the general public, McCain’s health care “policy” is “I’ll give your family $5000 — go knock yourself out.” And if that’s all you know, it doesn’t sound that bad. Having an extra $5000 is better than not having it (or $2500 for individuals). The problem is that McCain’s tax credit shouldn’t be analyzed in a vacuum. The same policy that would provide families $5000 would create enormous collateral damage — indeed, it would ultimately cause families to pay significantly more money for significantly less coverage (more on that below).

The political challenge, then, is figuring out ways to tell the truth in simple compelling terms — after all, it’s not demagoguery if it’s true and important. The public needs to understand that McCain’s policy isn’t just “here’s an extra $5000.” The promise of extra cash, though, is probably why Ms. Espinoza (depressingly) preferred McCain’s approach. True, she’s only one person — but we shouldn’t overestimate the ability of people to understand complex policy issues that can be obscured through, say, lying or lazy reporting.

So that’s the politics — below is my more detailed policy gripe with Pugh’s portrayal of McCain’s proposal:

Read more

by hilzoy

Here’s a YouTube showing John McCain’s shifting stands on whether he favors privatizing Social Security.

In 2004, McCain said: “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.”

Yesterday:

“My friends, I do not and will not privatize Social Security. It is a government program, and it’s necessary, but it’s broken, and we got to tell the American people that we’ve got to fix it, and we’ve got to sit down together the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did back in 1983 and fix Social Security. But my friends, I will not privatize Social Security, and it’s not true when I’m accused of that. But I would like for younger workers — younger workers only — to have an opportunity to take a few of their tax dollars — a few of theirs — and maybe put it into an account with their name on it.”

As Matt Yglesias says:

“In short, he stridently denies that he wants to favor privatizing Social Security. He just favors policies that are the same as the policies that were called “privatizing Social Security” before the GOP found out that privatizing Social Security is unpopular.”

But there’s more wrong with what McCain said than this sort of inconsistency. [UPDATE: “This sort of inconsistency” being not just the inconsistency between his past and present positions — people get to change their minds — but between his claim that he does not favor privatization and his claim that he favors, well, what everyone normally calls privatization. END UPDATE]

Read more