Why do Democrats love tax increases?

So the Democrats got a substantial tax increase on the wealthy at the beginning of the year. That should be enough for the fiscal health of the country, right?

Not according to most of the Dems out on speaking tours these past few weeks. From Obama on down, they are saying that the federal government needs even more revenue. If that's true, we have to wonder why the Dems didn't get that extra revenue in the fiscal cliff negotiations. Here some speculative ideas about why the Dems want that revenue:

1. The Dems want to set the precedent that all deficit reduction will be a mixture of spending cuts (cuts below the current baseline, which is in an upward trajectory) and revenue increases.
2. Dems want to kill off the GOP preferred method of deficit reduction, which is by spending cuts only, with no revenue increases except from economical growth.
3. Dems want to force the GOP to capitulate to the Dem's preferred deficit cutting approach, and thereby humiliate the GOP.
4. Dems don't want to be humiliated by the GOP if it ends up that government can be cut significantly without huge gaps opening up in the social safety net.
5. Dems are concerned about the growth of income inequality and the reduction in broad, well-paying employment, and they want to even out the inequity using taxation to supporting public provision of standard benefits.
6. Dems are protecting their loyal constituencies of government workers and those who received federal benefits.
7. Dems honestly believe that the cuts will be devastating to government services that we depend on, so the sequester is too deep.
8. Dems always want to raise taxes and spend more on government programs, and they don't even remember why.

Obviously I don't know the talking point reasons the Dems give for needing higher revenue, and I'm getting more and more exasperated as I try to figure out the reason. If you're wondering why I can be so nasty to the Dems just 4 months after supporting Obama's reelection, I'll remind you that the GOP proposals were even more dangerous and ridiculous.

I may be getting the government I voted for, but I never had a chance to vote for the government I really want. (That's true for lots of people--just ask a libertarian.)

Image: democrats.org

What not to say, conservatives

The conservatives are trying to have a constructive discussion about how to improve their campaign message. They've mostly decided that their ideals are correct (a premature conclusion), but they sorely need to tweak the message.

To the world outside the conservative bubble, this looks suspiciously like denial, or yet another plan not to change anything. (Some are hoping it's a sign that the GOP has entered the first phase of death.  Let's see, the phases are "denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance," right? Somehow I think breathing will stop before 'bargaining' begins.)

However, according to RedState, some tweaks to the message are still out-of-bounds. RedState derides a young conservative for deriding Rush Limbaugh, while ignoring the constructive ideas in the 10-page article. According to RedState "Thou shalt not publicly castigate Limbaugh." I can be certain this applies to Limbaugh and not every Republican because another headline on the same day was "I am very disappointed with Governor Rick Scott."

Another post on the same topic meanders around to giving Karl Rove the benefit of the doubt concerning his mission to nominate better (less verbally vulnerable) candidates. RedState must have rethought their initial attack on this project, which they labeled as anti-grassroots. So Karl Rove has qualified permission to speak.

The most reasonable post they had on messaging was from February 2012. It is specific in its critique of the 53% meme:

What we’re essentially saying is that the income taxation model is unfair to 5.3 out of 10 of us and so we are going to stand toe to toe against the 4.7 other people and totally say that to them.  And we don’t care if it alienates them because screw them, they aren’t paying taxes anyway and on top of that, we can win even if it’s only with 53% of the vote, so who needs ‘em? 

What should the attitude and the message be? This much more appealing one:

We’re just one society, and it’s all overtaxed and you could afford to do more if you kept more of the money that’s being taken from you.

So what is the lesson for conservatives who want to learn how to deliver the message better? It's hard to suss out. Part of the message seems to be that Limbaugh can say anything stupid or obnoxious, and you must put up with in reverent silence. For all others, check with RedState to find out how far you can go.

 Image: zazzle.com

Countdown to sequester

Despite the [hollow] protests on each political side, the sequester is very likely to occur. That's because the sequester isn't going to be that painful, and there's no better deal on the horizon that can pass the House and Senate.

The GOP may complain about the deep cuts to defense, but they're on the record for wanting even deeper spending cuts. If all those cuts came out of entitlement programs, the GOP would actually be in more trouble. A lot of seniors would be furious over cuts in Social Security and Medicare that became noticeable, maybe even painful. Having a balanced sequester, for all the GOP bluster, is a boon to the GOP.

The Dems also complain, but about the broader effect of the cuts. It's bad for defense, they say (but most liberals are happy to give defense a good trim), but look at what it will do to food inspectors and air traffic controllers and first responders! Excuse me, but I think almost all first responders are paid for at the state and local level, so a 2.3%, 4%, 7% or whatever reduction at the federal level is minimal. But we do like all those spiffy uniforms at our press events.

Dems are pressing for more tax increases, but the GOP isn't going to give them that. So the Dem proposal is dead on arrival. The GOP wants to cut everything but defense, but that's dead on arrival for non-blue-dog Dems.

One thing to remember is that this sequester was the best deal available, in that each side got what it really wanted back when it was negotiated in August 2011. The GOP got no tax increases. That is still the top priority for them, so that leaves little room for them to strike a new deal. The Dems caved on no new revenue (and just had to be patient for the Bush tax cuts to expire), but they got to direct where the cuts occurred. To Dems, it's still the best mix of cuts. They have no incentive to let the GOP change that mix.

By the way, the sequester doesn't even cut spending. It just slows the increase in spending. Per the CBO, the spending for 2012 was $3.538 trillion. For 2013, it's projected to be $3.553 trillion with the effect of the sequester. So if we're cutting the budget in some places, it must be growing like weeds somewhere else. Maybe that indicates we have a big job to do on that "somewhere else." That's sure to be fun with this Congress.

Image: themoderatevoice.com

Extras.

A nascent thought - the one-day-a-week furlough for civilian defense workers will keep those workers off the unemployment rolls. That's a good move now, but will it establish a 4-day work week for federal workers?

A funny twist on the serenity prayer: "...politicians are finding the strength to accept the things they cannot change, and change the things they cannot accept. That means accepting the sequester but changing who gets blamed for it." --Atlantic Wire writer Elspeth Reeve

GOP disarray over the sequester:

• Boehner - It's all Obama's faaaauuullltttt!
• Reaction to Boehner - what a whiner and idiot.
• Plain blog - those incoherent GOP arguments.
• RedState - yes, the cuts are unbalanced, but let's cut anyway. Plus, Obama's on the run!

Up Next: Look for a post soon on the next crisis point - the next Continuing Resolution, which we need by April 1 March 27.

 Image: cagle.com

The only fan of the sequester

It's hard to be for the sequester if you're an elected official. After all, the sequester will send pink slips to somewhere around 600,000 employees in defense-related jobs, both in the Defense Department and Defense contractors. If you have a military base or a military contractor in your district, you can hardly support the sequester. So politicians don't express enthusiasm for it.

So who is this lonely fan of the sequester? Howard Dean, expressing his support from the safety of private citizenship with no official post in government or the Democratic Party. I loved some of the Dean quotes:

About defense cuts: "This is a chance to cut Pentagon spending. We haven’t done it for 30 years... This would not be my favorite timing. I don’t think this is a great solution. I just think it’s the better of any of the ones that are on the table... There are going to be some jobs lost. The fact of the matter is that we will not get this chance again."

About Medicare cuts: "I’m not in the least worried about Medicare provider cuts... Whether this comes from drug companies or provider cuts, we’re going to do those anyway as soon as they get around to doing what really has to be done, which is paying by the patient, not by the procedure." [Wow--how clear and how true]

About the risk of recession: "It will be a short term, light, small recession. Look, we’re in deep trouble financially in this country... You can pay me later or you can pay me now, but paying later is going to be much worse and it’s going to hit much more vulnerable people than this does."

The GOP is generally pro-sequester at this point because it's better than the other alternatives currently being floated. Those alternatives are objectionable because they contain tax increases and fewer spending cuts. However, the GOP can't be whole-hog supporters due to the military jobs in each district, as I said above. Some are trying to connect the sequester, and subsequent job losses, to Obama. The usual phrase is the sequester is "the president's idea."

I'm confident that the sequester will happen. I'm also a fan for reasons similar to those of Howard Dean, though I support broadly cutting jobs in the federal workforce, not just in defense. I also think we shouldn't miss this chance, and I'm willing to weather the consequences. Think of the sequester as the cuts we should have had in the 90's and the 00's, but didn't. We shouldn't put them off any longer, or it's "going to be much worse" as Dean says.

Image: newrepublic.com

Short: The slow-motion tragedy of Adam Lanza

I think the shooting of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School could have been prevented, but I'm less sure after reading this long piece. It focuses on the struggles of the Lanza family in dealing with Adam Lanza's severe behavioral/neurological problems. After reading it, I wonder whether we, even with our best efforts, can prevent some of these tragedies. I would hope that we can (and we probably are) but the failures are a reminder of the uncertainty in our efforts.

Of course, trying just to prevent tragedies isn't enough. What we really need to do is to build lives that are safe and fulfilling and happy enough, not just for ourselves but also more generally in our society. That means doing good in small ways in our daily lives, but also making good decisions in the huge national and global issues. Ouch, that's sounds like too much responsibility. Maybe I'll try to do a lot of good in the small things, but let evolution be the ultimate arbiter on the big ones. In that way, I won't get overwhelmed and give up on both fronts. I should probably go do something worthwhile right now.

Image: colourbox.com

Update 11/26/14. Here is a summary of a report on Adam Lanza's mental history. It faults his mother for not taking important measures in light of his mental situation and its deterioration.

Grand political strategies of our times

Hat tip to commenter Anastasios for this topic. He wrote:

The GOP thinks that they are well-entrenched in the House and time will eventually bring them back into power with a well-timed recession or a major Dem mistake... The Dems acknowledge the mid-term danger but believe the GOP is slowly being throttled to death by demographic and social change, and that by about 2030 the left will have grown strong enough that the dreams of conservatives will be forever dead... In any case, neither side is trying to get things done, but to set agendas for when their expected futures come about. Whatever happens with the sequester and the budget is merely a blip in the sweep of the longer-term strategies they are pursuing... At this point I don't think either party finds it in their interest to minimize problems. [Emphasis added by MP.]

I don't know whose agenda the future will favor, but his point spurred me to think about grand political strategies of the recent past.

 The Permanent Republican Majority

Back in 2001, or even earlier, Karl Rove envisioned a permanent Republican majority. That wasn't so long ago, but I still had to remind myself how it was supposed to come about. In a nutshell, the GOP would build a coalition of reliable, motivated supporters who would vote in larger percentages than the general public. This coalition was conservative (social, fiscal, and foreign policy) with pro-business and evangelicals being in the forefront.

Rove was very solicitous of the concerns of evangelical and conservative groups. But he also needed to make sure that the GOP blind-sided by bread-and-butter concerns, so education and Medicare were also on the radar. I recall reading the Medicare Part D came about because Rove didn't want the Dems to have the lack of medication coverage as an issue.

Of course this dream didn't survive the debacle of the Iraq war, with all lives lost, money borrowed and wasted, and arrogance that it was going well. The dream, already dead, was killed even deader by the financial crisis of 2008. No wonder I had to research to remind myself how 'the permanent Republican majority' was supposed to work.

The Obama plan?

This is much more speculative (meaning I have no data to help me determine either way), but perhaps Obama has a similar plan for a permanent Dem majority. The Dems tend to be favored when turnout is high, which means that they gain the most from turning irregular voters or non-voters into regular voters. Obama's 50 state strategy and local campaign offices that stay open and active through the off-years are aimed at this pool of irregular voters. I think the major drives to sign people up for food stamps and Medicaid also aim to turn irregular voters into regular voters.

If Dems can keep these voters coming to the polls, and sign up even more, they will have an electoral advantage. There's little the GOP is doing to woo these voters away, and they don't have an equivalent pool to tap. Lots of people think the GOP is screwed. So it would seem unless the Dems revert to being their own worst enemies through overreach.

Triangulation

I can't end this reflection without mentioning the Clinton strategy of triangulation. Under this strategy, Clinton negotiated a successful reform of welfare. He also avoided the fate of many old-line Democrats (turned out of office in 1994), and won reelection in 1996. Though it wasn't a 'grand' strategy, it worked well for Bill Clinton. Hillary wasn't so lucky or adept, and the Dems gave the nomination in 2008 to someone friendlier to the traditional left.

Successful planning

I notice that political strategies don't have as long a shelf-life as their supporters hope. I also notice that I can talk about strategies without talking about principles or deeply held values. Of course, deeply held values probably don't have a long shelf-life either as political strategy, or a successful strategy at least.

Deja vu

Image: amazon.com

Merry-go-round of irony and lies

First horse on the merry-go-round: Brietbart's story that Chuck Hagel took funding from a group called "Friends of Hamas."

•  Second horse: Lots of conservative news sources pick up the story.

Third horse: "Friends of Hamas" doesn't actually exist.

• Fourth horse: Is the editor-in-chief, Ben Shapiro, who published the story, still at Breitbart? Or was he fired like the NBC producer who was caught doing misleading edits on the Zimmerman 911 tape? Of course he's still at Breitbart. Scruples are for sissies, as are truth and accuracy.

Fifth horse: Breitbart tells the Washington Post 5 ways to clean up its act, like no longer publishing false charges and mysteriously removing them. Also, not publishing fraudulent stories about racist statements by an Ag Dept official Palin going to Al-Jazeera.

• Sixth horse: How can Breitbart complain about WaPo when they just days ago inflated this fake story about Hagel? Well, it was attributed to a "Senate source [that] told Breitbart News exclusively."

Seventh horse: Didn't something similar happen when Harry Reid "heard" some story that Romney hadn't paid any income tax one year? Oh, that's probably another politically convenient fabrication.

• I'm feeling sick. Stop this ride. Yes, stop the lies and hypocrisy.

Image: flickr.com

Update 2/20/13. The ride is still spinning. The inadvertent source of the rumor has been self-identified. He emailed a question to an unnamed "Republican aide" and less than 24 hours later it morphed into a headline at Breitbart.com. Ben Shapiro at Breitbart continues to practice "do what I say, not what I do" by claiming that [HORRORS!!!] the source, reporter Dan Friedman, knew he was wrong before he published his piece claiming to be the unwitting source. Shapiro, are you saying that's wrong? My heavens, I never would have known that from your example.  Just to say it again, the conservative media can gripe all it wants about the MSM, but until it follows more of the same rules of good journalistic practice, it won't gain credibility. As this case illustrates, again...