Death, Taxes, and Republican Thuggishness

The last two years have taught us that Republican intransigence is just as inevitable as death or taxes. The dilema over the extension of the temporary tax cuts that Bush rammed through the Senate in 2001 tells a nice 10 year story on the subject. Republicans are claiming that raising taxes now would have a disastrous effect on the economy and extension of the tax cuts would magically make the budget deficit better. To anybody with a memory of 2001 or the campaign of 2000, that's precisely the opposite reason initially given for the tax cuts. Per CBS News:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 he faced a $300 billion deficit. He cut government spending by $247 billion and raised taxes on top earners. That move, and later tax cuts, resulted in a budget surplus in 1998.

The tax cuts were supposed to give the surplus back to the American people. The government wasn't using it to provide services or pay down the debt, so they shouldn't be taking it out of the pockets of American workers. This in and of itself is an interesting myth, but one which was amply noted at the time. Bush quickly turned a government surplus into a crushing deficit, making it necessary to take money out of social security to pay for current operations. The social security crisis you keep hearing about was manufactured by Bush's OMB when they shoveled $3 trillion out the door, disproportionately into the pockets of the wealthy.

Who else thinks nuclear security is prudent?

Lots of people think that preventing the destruction of a nuclear detonation is a really good idea. Russia thinks so, the International Atomic Energy Association thinks so, NATO thinks so, the United States military thinks so, and so does the President. That's why they have been vocally supporting the ratification of the New START treaty, which recommits the United States and Russia to reigning in their cold war-era nuclear stockpiles, securing nuclear weapons and weapons-grade material, and closely supervising each countries' nuclear arsenal. Of course, Senate Republicans seemed to have decided that they want no part in nuclear security, holding out in favor of grand standing on tax cuts for the wealthy.

In time to assuage our fears that Republicans are the only people in the world against the START treaty and the principles it stands for, North Korea unveiled a new nuclear weapons facility. I'm not a big foreign policy blogger, but I'm sure there's a bunch of people who will tell you that it would be easier to compel the North Koreans to wind down their weapons programs if Russia and the United States presented a united front and if there were a binding legal model for controlling nuclear arms programs in operation. The Anti Defamation League and the National Jewish Democratic Council support New START because it will be an important tool in addressing Iranian nuclear ambitions.

What Can a President Do?

As ever, the economy looms large ahead of next week's elections. Forecasters are expecting incumbents to get tossed from their seats across the country, and voters say that the weak economy is the reason (A Newsweek poll actually puts the share of voters for whom the economy is the top issue about 20 points higher, but it's a pdf.)

The New York Times' David Leonhardt reminds us that when voters judge incumbents, policy positions take a backseat to perceptions of effectiveness. The early Spring Democratic strategy of complaining that Republicans were the "Party of No" highlighted the Democrats' inability to advance a centrist agenda over the objections of the minority party. Of course, the fact is that the Democrats achieved a large number of legislative goals in the 111th Congress. Compared to an average of 12 "major accomplishments" as picked by Wikipedia for a Congress since 1958, the 111th Congress has so far passed 22 major bills. That puts it as the second most productive Congress in the last 62 years, and the most productive under a Democratic president. However, the media narrative, driven by the "Party of No" strategy on the Democratic side never fixed on that data. The Republican contention that the Obama agenda has represented an unparalleled expansion of federal government power and spending implies efficacy of the Democratic majorities of Congress, but for some reason has not created a consensus that the 111th Congress has achieved much of anything. Only a third of Democrats think that this Congress has been more productive than recent ones, and that number goes down to one fifth of all American adults.

More All Power to the States

Steve Bennen over at the Washington Monthly takes Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's plan to continue obstruction in the next Congress for a stroll. The minority leader has dedicated his caucus to refusing to compromise in the least part with Democrats in congress. So far, Republicans have voted no on Republican ideas so they could reap the benefits of a depressed economy, high joblessness, and a housing crisis by blaming the majority. McConnell in a National Journal interview has doubled down on the strategy of the last two years, promising to do the same for the next two.

"[W]e need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, 'Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.' [...]

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.... Our single biggest political goal is to give our nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."

Apparently "successful" means to have as few policy overlaps as possible with President Obama. That means that the Republican leadership will be attempting to hold together solid "No" blocks on every single major policy put forth in the next two years at the federal level. If McConnell gets his way, and he might, there will be very little that gets done in the 112th Congress. Some Republicans have already started foreshadowing a 1994 redux government shutdown While Benen implicitly is making the 'that's why you elect Democrats--or at least less partisan Republicans' argument, I think McConnell may be playing a deeper game here.