Toles: Friday, April 03, 2009
Think Progress: Fox News poll asks if increasing taxes for the wealthy means ‘nobody gets to be too rich.’
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls are known for often including a few loaded and misleading questions. In their latest survey out today, Fox’s pollsters asked a question that assumed that raising taxes would mean that “nobody gets to be too rich“:
Another question asked respondents whether they believed that President Obama “wants the financial crisis to continue so government can take over more businesses and grow the federal government.” Twenty-three percent said they thought Obama wanted it to continue while 68 percent said they think Obama wants the crisis to end.
- Drum on the CEO Blues
The Wall Street Journal reports that CEO pay was down a whopping 3.4% last year. But wait!
CEO compensation decreased more sharply at banks and brokerages, long the source of some of the biggest paychecks. Median annual cash compensation for CEOs in the financial industry fell 43%, to $976,000. Total direct compensation fell 14.2%, to a median $7.6 million.
So that's what happens when you destroy the global financial system: your pay goes down 14% to a mere $7.6 million per year. I guess we showed them, didn't we?
- Fernholz on ESTATE WACKS.
The senate voted yesterday to pass, 51-48, the Lincoln-Kyl amendment to lower the estate tax. It's essentially a $250 billion giveaway to people whose estates are worth more than $7 million. The various mid-western Democrats who supported it will undoubtedly claim this about all those small family farmers who amass large fortunes, but only .02 percent of the bills costs will actually go to those fortunate agrifamilies. Most just goes to the massively wealthy. You know, like investment bankers. Every single senate Republican voted for the amendment, along with nine Democrats, most in the "moderate" caucus of no policy positions: Bayh, Baucus, Cantwell, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murray, the Nelsons, and Tester.But there is some light at the end of the tunnel. For one, the provision isn't likely to make into the finally congressional budget resolution, since both House negotiators and Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad will oppose the provision. In case it does, Senator Dick Durbin offered an amendment, which also passed, 56-43, requiring that if any estate tax reduction is included in the bill, an "equal amount of aggregate tax relief is also provided to Americans earning less than $100,000 per year." And though it's good that working people would recieve proportional tax breaks under this plan, there really is no good reason to reduce the estate tax. As Ezra observed yesterday, all the folks freaking out about how the Obama administration's very reasonable plan to lower the tax deductions to Reagan-era levels would hurt charities haven't said a peep about how removing the estate tax would hurt charities much more.
It's nice to see our conservative and moderate senators taking time to focus on the peopl ewho have been really hit hard by the economic crisis -- the heirs of estates ranging between $7 and $10 million.
Our President, my President, concluded a town hall meeting a few hours ago in France. Standing room only crowd. He brought the same intelligence, grace and honesty to it as he did to the campaign in the U.S., and it was wonderful watching the faces of all those Europeans just lighting up as he talked. As he walked out, everyone in the stadium wanted a piece, wanted to touch him. And suddenly I had tears in my eyes. An American President, honored and trusted and pre-eminent in the world again. A black President to boot. Stunning.
Benen: HOW'D HE DO?....
The world leaders who assembled at the G20 reached an agreement to address the global economic crisis, but whether their plan has merit depends a bit on who you ask. On the one hand, the agreement "was more than what experts expected," and was arguably "remarkable given the discord that preceded Thursday's meeting." The LA Times said the end product "surprised many observers with its unusually substantive achievements." At the same time, the WSJ and NYT were less impressed.Benen: CONGRESS ADVANCES FEDERAL BUDGET....But how about President Obama's first turn on the global stage, just two months into his first term? He told reporters yesterday, "I think I did O.K." By some measures, Obama was selling himself short.
For example, there was a heated disagreement between France and China over tax havens and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Obama personally intervened, took the opposing leaders aside, and brokered an agreement based on little more than a rhetorical shift. The process seemed a little silly, but it was the U.S. president's "first moment as a statesman."
TNR's John Judis said Obama's "performance at the G-20 has been flawless." TAP's Tim Fernholz added, "After the G-20, we can say that President Barack Obama had a successful entrance onto the world stage." The WaPo's Steven Pearlstein concluded, "All in all, a pretty successful opening-night performance for President Obama on the international economic stage. He achieved most of what he wanted while allowing others to claim victory and allowing the United States to shed its Bush-era reputation for inflexibility and heavy-handedness. And by the standards of past summits, this one was full of accomplishment."
And Slate's Fred Kaplan said the president "proved his mettle" at the summit, and "lived up to high expectations," which is good news for the United States "returning to diplomatic basics."
American leaders and diplomats have long struggled with the tension between their interests and ideals. Bush finessed the issue by pretending that the tension didn't exist. In his second inaugural address, he declared that our interests and ideals coincided, invoking an appealing but empty syllogism: Tyranny sires terrorism; terrorism threatens our security; therefore, promoting democracy enhances our security; hence, our interests and our ideals are one. The problem was that terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, and democracy is not necessarily a cure for it in any case. (Hamas won fair and free elections in the Palestinian territories -- elections that Bush insisted on, over the advice of many, on the premise that Hamas couldn't win the election because terrorism and democracy were incompatible.)
Obama seems to be aware of the tension between interests and ideals without letting it paralyze policymaking. In this sense, he is like most presidents in American history -- and his foreign policy, or for the moment his approach to foreign policy, signals a restoration of what was once called statecraft: literally, the art of conducting the affairs of state. The term has always implied a meshing of interests and ideals with reality while navigating the shoals of a dangerous world. Leaders can try to reshape an agenda, but they can't toss away maps or ignore laws of physics to get there. They have to deal with the world as it is, and that's what Obama seems to be doing.
The final G20 agreement is far from perfect, but the White House is probably pleased with the president's first turn as an international leader.
It's not identical to the budget President Obama sent to Congress, but it's close.Yglesias: Republicans as Unpopular as EverCongressional Democrats overwhelmingly embraced President Obama's ambitious and expensive agenda for the nation yesterday, endorsing a $3.5 trillion spending plan that sets the stage for the president to pursue his most far-reaching priorities.
Voting along party lines, the House and Senate approved budget blueprints that would trim Obama's spending proposals for the fiscal year that begins in October and curtail his plans to cut taxes. The blueprints, however, would permit work to begin on the central goals of Obama's presidency: an expansion of health-care coverage for the uninsured, more money for college loans and a cap-and-trade system to reduce gases that contribute to global warming.
The measures now move to a conference committee where negotiators must resolve differences between the two chambers, a prelude to the more difficult choices that will be required to implement Obama's initiatives. While Democrats back the president's vision for transforming huge sectors of the economy, they remain fiercely divided over the details.
To that extend, the real work -- on health care and cap-and-trade proposals, reconciliation, taxes -- will get underway after the two-week congressional recess. That said, Democrats have to be pleased with the major step forward the chambers took yesterday. The White House issued a statement last night hailing the budget(s) as having embraced "our most fundamental priorities: an energy plan that will end our dependence on foreign oil and spur a new clean energy economy; an education system that will ensure our children will be able to compete in the economy of the 21st century; and health care reform that finally confronts the back-breaking costs plaguing families, businesses and government alike."
A few highlights of note:
* The ridiculous House GOP alternative budget was brought up for a vote. Every Democrat voted against it, but among Republicans, it was 137 to 38. In other words, the proposal unveiled by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was so extreme, about one-fifth of the House GOP caucus voted against their own budget.
* John McCain's equally foolish budget alternative was also defeated. Every Democrat voted against it, but among Senate Republicans, it was 38 to 3. In other words, in the midst of an economic crisis, 93% of the Senate GOP caucus voted for an insane five-year spending freeze. Seriously.
* Arlen Specter voted for the stimulus package in February, and then voted for a five-year spending freeze last night. What a joke.
* The Democratic budget passed the Senate with 55 votes, but no Republicans. Two Democrats -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Evan Bayh of Indiana -- sided with the GOP. (Yes, Bayh is the new Lieberman.)
* The 233 votes in support of the budget in the House is the biggest majority for a budget in 12 years.
How’s that backlash against Barack Obama’s agenda coming? Not so well according to the latest Democracy Corps poll:
Note that this chart makes it difficult to understand the inclination of some Democratic members of the congress to buck the president and join forces with congressional Republicans as an act of political cowardice. The path of least resistance is for Democrats, who are relatively popular, to stick with the President, who’s very popular, and to stay far away from the very unpopular Republicans. Whatever’s driving them, it’s not timidity.
- Benen: WHAT DRIVES BAYH?....
Just last week, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) explained that he has no intention of "watering down" President Obama's agenda; he actually wants to "strengthen and sustain it." The goal, Bayh said, is make Democratic proposals more palatable to Senate Republicans, so that the GOP's filibusters will be easier to break.
And yet, last night, the Senate voted on the budget, and there was no threat of a GOP filibuster. The majority could simply pass the plan they wanted to pass. Every Senate Republican voted against it, as did the Democratic caucus' most conservative member, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Evan Bayh, the one who has vowed to "strengthen and sustain" the president's agenda, joined with Nelson and the Republicans.
Nelson's vote wasn't too big a surprise; he represents a pretty conservative "red" state. Bayh's motivation is a little tougher to understand. As Matt Yglesias noted this morning:
I've heard some see this as an act of political cowardice on Bayh's part, but I think that's wrong. Obama carried Indiana. There are many Senate Democrats in more vulnerable states who voted "yes." Bayh just made a decision of conscience and principle to stand with Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint on the most important domestic policy vote of his career.
I think that's right, and I'd add one key detail. Just yesterday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, effectively conceded that Republicans won't go after Bayh next year. "We have a sort of priority list," Cornyn said. "He's down on that."
Bayh, in other words, represents a state that supported Obama in November and he knew that no matter how he voted of Obama's budget, his re-election is all but assured in his home state.
Bayh didn't have to worry about impressing conservative voters back home; he didn't have to worry about fundraising; he didn't have to worry about a Republican opponent back home using this budget vote against him. Bayh was free to vote however he pleased.
And given all of this, Bayh still sided with a right-wing Republican caucus against the Obama White House.
- Ezra Klein: THE UNDENIABLE LOGIC OF EVAN BAYH AND BEN NELSON.
The President's budget also passed the Senate last night. Zero Republican votes. Two Democratic defectors. Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson. Interestingly, other senators you might associate with their precise position on the ideological spectrum -- Lincoln and Landrieu and Pryor and Carper -- voted for the budget.
In other words, if you had run an algorithm using past voting records to predict last night's roll call, you wouldn't have ended with Nelson and Bayh on their lonesome. But if you had run an algorithm using the amount of press a given Democratic senator has received for being willing to buck the President, you would have. Some wags are noting that none of Bayh's much-heralded Caucus voted with him. But that's precisely why Bayh voted against -- because no one else was.
This was, in a strange sense, the safe play. Because the budget only requires 50 votes, their opposition didn't seriously imperil the President's budget. If eight more Democrats had signed on, it would have, and there would have been consequences. But the consequences of ineffectual opposition are all positive. Bayh and Nelson have elevated their status as the Democrats willing to imperil the President's priorities. They've assured that the media will say the names "Bayh and Nelson" a lot. They've secured themselves a steady stream of requests to appear on news shows and many calls begging for a quote. They have further cemented their status as power brokers in a closely divided Senate and media stars in a conflict-hungry news environment. It's really a very good day for them.
In Iowa, consenting adults can now get legally married, regardless of their sexual orientation.The Iowa Supreme Court this morning struck down a 1998 state law that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.
The decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the fourth nationwide, to allow same-sex marriages. Lawyers for Lambda Legal, a gay rights group that financed the court battle and represented the couples, had hoped to use a court victory to demonstrate acceptance of same-sex marriage in heartland America.
The server is a little overwhelmed this morning, but the state Supreme Court's ruling, which was unanimous, is online.
The change won't be immediate, and county and state governments in Iowa will reportedly get a few months to put procedural changes in place. In the meantime, opponents of marriage equality will begin a renewed push for an amendment to the state constitution, though that's likely to take a while.
What's more, about 12 hours before the ruling in Iowa, Vermont's state House joined the state Senate in passing legislation to allow gay marriage in the Green Mountain State. The final vote was 95 to 52.
The Vermont measure will be vetoed by the state's Republican governor, Jim Douglas, though proponents remain cautiously optimistic that the legislature can override the veto.
All in all, it's an encouraging day for social justice in America.
- Joe Sudbay (DC) adds: That noise you hear in the background is heads exploding at Mormon headquarters and the American Family Association. The Mormons are probably already trying to figure out how to overturn it -- and how much it will cost. But, the times are changing -- and changing fast. More and more Americans support marriage equality and it's only going to increase. The haters know that and it's driving them crazy. Today, in Iowa, equality means equality.
- Speaking of the haters, via Think Progress:
Update Iowa Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley released a statement calling on the Iowa legislature to "immediately act to pass a Constitutional Amendment that protects traditional marriage, keeps it as a sacred bond only between one man and one woman."Update Politico's Ben Smith writes of the ruling: "It's really a sweeping, total win for the gay-rights side, rejecting any claim that objections to same-sex marriage can be seen as "rational," rejecting a parallel civil union remedy, and pronouncing same-sex marriages and gay and lesbian couples essentially normal."
And the msm remains the msm. dday's Lugubrious Tales Of Woe
Zack Roth catches Chris Matthews mistaking Eric Holder's dismissal of charges in the Ted Stevens case, due to prosecutorial misconduct, with the notion that Stevens was completely innocent and the charges should have never been filed.
It's no surprise that Matthews has no idea how the criminal justice system works. And of course, the rest of the Village establishment has taken up for their pal Ted as well, deliberately misreading yesterday's events and intoning gravely how this honorable man has been "besmirched."George Stephanopoulos of ABC News (via Twitter): "Whatever your politics, hard not to feel for Ted Stevens."
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): "This incredible man, he served his country well, he was a power player ... he took care of Alaska."
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT): "We're delighted that it's been demonstrated that Ted was telling us the truth all along. (Ed: Needless to say, nothing of the sort was demonstrated.) Obviously, we're a little disappointed that this didn't come out before the election....I think he can get his reputation back. I don't know where he goes to get his legal fees back."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): "Here's a guy who gave 60 years of service to this country, and he was screwed [by federal prosecutors] ... How does he get his reputation back?"
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ): "That's why we have the presumption of innocence ... I never called for him to step down or resign or anything like that. I think those who did might regret it now."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): "[I am] deeply disturbed that the government can ruin a man's career and then say, 'Never mind.'"
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI): "I didn't tell him this, but, you know, he's really suffered ... I don't want to use the word 'angry,' but I'm just disappointed that prosecutors were involved in that type of misbehavior ... Lawyers' fees are not cheap. He'll have to work the rest of his life."
As Roth notes, the bulk of these quotes appeared in "responsible Beltway publications," without being challenged or balanced with a statement of the plain fact that nothing in the dismissal of the suits admits Stevens' innocence.
For the record I think Holder did the right thing. The prosecutors clearly committed misconduct and that shouldn't go by without consequences. I also hope this is just the beginning of restoring the assault on the rule of law committed at the highest levels of the Justice Department, and Don Siegeleman's phone should be getting a ring shortly.
But this is classic Village behavior. Their friend, the guy they see shopping at the Safeway all the time, gets off on a technicality, and the collective water works come out, and these encomiums, these tales of woe. Meanwhile thousands of people are railroaded all the time in the criminal justice system, a key piece of our failed prison policy. But of course the Village doesn't KNOW those folks.
...and the Alaska GOP thinks we should rerun Stevens' Senate election. Can't wait to see that in Ruth Marcus' column shortly.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
No comments:
Post a Comment