No Country For Old Men--A Reprise

Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chair of the Catfood Commission, complained about attacks from conservatives that he raised taxes while in the Senate under Ronald Reagan. While he denied it, Bruce Bartlett came to the critics' rescue by pointing out that the Big Ron did raise dozens of taxes.



John McCain looked like an old stumblebum prize-fighter in his debate with Democratic challenger Rodney Glassman and the Green and Libertarian candidates in Arizona. Actually the Libertarian got in the best shots declaring the immigration problem would not be so violent if we declared an end to the war on drugs, which he called a monumental failure, and that building the "danged" fence was futile because people were now coming in by plane and by sea. McCain kept saying he had a 10 point plan but never elaborated. McCain said it was urgent to pass the Bush tax cuts urgently as well as corporate tax breaks. He said he knew how to make America great again, something he failed to reveal when he ran for President. A couple of whoppers. McCain, who has benefited from a lifetime of government-provided health services, declared he would cut $500 billion from Medicare Advantage. (I have no idea over what time frame.) When asked what he thought his legacy would be to Arizona, McCain was speechless and started mumbling, saying fighting earmarks and his influence on security issues. It was a big bomb. Rodney Glassman scored about the need for a rational immigration policy like the one McCain used to support, a larger stimulus package for the economy and better care for veterans, Glassman failed to score off McCain with any questions about the price of tax cuts for the wealthy. But McCain looked old and beaten up--which, of course, he is.



A Quinnipiac poll was released today that shows that 2/3rds of those making $250,000 or above favor paying more taxes if it helps the government.



David Stockman, Reagan's former OMB person, is getting his revenge late in life. On NPR, he said that the Republican pledge was nonsense. He pointed out that the Bush tax cuts were paid for, two wars were not paid for, the stimulus package was not paid for and that extending these tax cuts was insane. He also pointed out that the Pledge made no sense if Medicare, Social Security and Defense are off limits, then Republicans can only cut from $500 billion and they can not possibly fulfill their pledge of a balanced budget.



Garret Gruener's LA Times op-ed caught the attention of the Wall Street Journal. Gruener is an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist who founded Alta partners. So in the words of the Wall Street Journal,"he's got street cred." He made two basic points. 1. Tax rates don't make or break the success of an entrepreneur--or the jobs he creates. He says he's paying the lowest rates of his working life. "..if you want the simple, honest truth, from my perspective as an entrepreneur, the fluctuation didn't affect what I did with my money. None of my investments has ever been motivated by the rate at which I would have to pay personal income tax."



The second point Gruener raises --which is appropriate to my last few posts--an economy built only on the rich--who account for the lion's share of income and spending--is unsustainable. "What American businesspeople know, and have known since Henry Ford insisted his employees be able to afford to buy the cars they made, is that a thriving economy doesn't just need investors; it needs people who can buy the goods and services businesses create."

Gruener says that tax hikes for the rich should be invested by the government in infrastructure and research. "What will change my investment decisions is if I see an economy doing better, one in which there is demand for the goods and services my investments produce. I am far more likely to invest if I see a country laying the foundation for future growth."

Follow that up with Paul Krugman's columm today entitled "Structure of Excuses". Krugman is on fire, if someone so phlegmatic can ever be on fire. Krugman attacks directly the growing convention wisdom that we are entering a period of "structural unemployment". He quotes various Presidents of FED Banks claiming that there is work out there but workers are either in the wrong place or lack the necessary skills. Even Bill Clinton said this. Krugman sets up the circumstances where that would actually exist but none do. There are only three states, with the combined population of Brooklyn that have unemployment rates below 5%. The National Federation of Independent Business surveys small businesses about their problems and citing problems with labor quality is now at an all-time low.

Krugman asks why are such claims so popular. Part of the reason is that during period of high unemployment pundits talking about these problems as deeply rooted makes them sound profound. Also he detects that powerful forces ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy offer these reasons so as to ensure we do nothing about the mass unemployment crippling the economy. As Krugman notes that is important that everyone know that there is no evidence whatsoever that backs these claims. "We aren't suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we're suffering from a lack of policy reasolve."

A nice bit in his column is his review of what Very Serious People said during the Great Depression. He notes that one 1935 analysis said that unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly because the work force" is unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industries may offer." A few years later , a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy's needs and industry was eager to employ those "unadaptable and untrained "workers.

Nice column.

And, of course, part of the reason job-creating programs are not being created is the Senate filibuster. Electoral politics.com had a nice piece on the prospects of filibuster reform. The 111th Senate had over 100 filibusters. From the years 1917-1960, there were 27, about 1 per year. During the entire 19th century, which saw the abolitionist struggle, a civil war and the rise of industrial capitalism, there were only 20 filibusters. The Republicans in this Senate have managed to hold enough filibusters in one year to equal in nearly double the number all American history combined. Stunning. The Democrats should really make this a talking point and dramatize it.

Electoral politics.com has a small entry which may have enormous implications for the mid-terms. Non-partisan polls are in on 45 contested House races. The Republicans would pick up 10 of these. In the wildest scenarios, there are 100 seats ,which people say are competitive tis year. That would mean the Republicans would pick up 22 seats. Remember they need 44 to take the House, given losses in 5. Maybe the GOP has over-reached again.

For Sarah Palin, this could be bad news. Scientific studies show that Mama Grizzlies, the name she calls her tea party women, form same-sex partnerships at a fairly significant rate. The Mama Grizzlies actually search out each other and serve as joint parents for the cubs. This won't go down with the anti-same sex mariage crowd.

Ann Coulter spoke at the Homocon meeting with wealthy gay Republicans, where she did her stand-up schtick and criticized gay marriage by reminding the audience they weren't black. Judy Garland she's not but it's clear she performed her duties, providing moments of Camp for the crowd. The audience apparently were offended by her racist remarks more than anything.

California polls are showing that there really is a Latino backlash against Republicans. Democrats are polling higher than usual with the Latino community, which now composes 21% of the electorate. This is showing up in states with growing Latino populations--Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.

Normally Republicans would be thrilled Texas will gain 4 new congressional seats with the 2010 Census. But with the rise of the Latino vote there and the GOP's efforts to alienate anyone who speaks Spanish, look to Texas to become the mother of all swing states by 2012.

Republicans are looking to turn several of Ohio's congressional seats this year. As of two weeks ago, it looked like they might pick up 5 here. But recent polls are showing that the race between Governor Strickland and John Kasich is narrowing. Kasich was running some 10 points ahead but the University of Cincinnati Ohio poll has it a four point race. And this is a very well-respected state poll.

A New Survey USA poll mirrors the recent Public Policy Poll by showing that Rand Paul is only running two points up against Jack Conway (49-47%).

I'm surprised how little support Democrats are giving Scott McAdams in Alaska. McAdams, the mayor of Sitka, is running against a true looney-toon. McAdams is worried about Murkowski's write-in campaign because "it divides the rational vote." Good choice of words. Put together, that vote tops Miller.

Mike Castle is doing a little polling for a write-in campaign in Delaware and it's showing he would have a real chance--being favored among independents over Coons. And among Republicans , he would draw roughly the same as he did in the primary.

While the GOP is funding Green candidates in Texas, Illinois, maybe Arizona and elsewhere, the Democrats are apparently doing the same with so-called Tea Party candidates. Turn about is fair play.