July 08, 2008

7/8: It Just Doesn't Add Up!

John McCain is taking serious heat from liberal bloggers for his economic plan, which includes a pledge to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term through a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts. Liberal bloggers believe that McCain's goal of balancing the budget in four years while simultaneously extending the Bush tax cuts is hopelessly unrealistic (and many economists seem to agree). The netroots are particularly scornful of McCain's pledge to "reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit" -- an idea that they're describing as "delusional" and "fantasy economics." Josh Marshall wonders: "If [McCain's] four-year balanced budget promise is premised on rapid victory in both [Iraq and Afghanistan], isn't that sort of arbitrary timelines on steroids?"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are (once again) accusing the national political press of not devoting sufficient scrutiny to McCain's proposals. The press coverage of McCain's economic plan seems to be focusing on the tensions between the supply-siders and deficit hawks within McCain's campaign, whereas the netroots want journalists to ask more questions about McCain's actual budget numbers.

MCCAIN: Magic Ponies Will Solve Our Budget Problems!

Liberal bloggers are harshly criticizing McCain's economic plan (summarized by The Politico's Mike Allen here), which explains McCain's intention to "balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security." Liberal bloggers are portraying McCain's plan as hopelessly unrealistic:

• The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen: "I sometimes get the sense someone dared John McCain to run for president while spouting nothing but nonsense, just to see what he could get away with. Today is just such an occasion. [...] It's hard to imagine even gullible conservatives falling for such a transparently ridiculous pitch. McCain thinks he can make permanent [George W.] Bush's tax cuts, and add some new tax cuts of his own, and eliminate the AMT, and keep the wars going indefinitely, and increase the Pentagon's budget, and eliminate a $410 billion deficit in four years. It's pure fantasy. Meet John McCain, the candidate who bases his policies on magic ponies, and his rhetoric on the hopes that voters are idiots."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Keep in mind that McCain is promising to do all this while also promising to extend the Bush tax cuts AND ramping up military spending all during a bleak economic setting with current deficit projections hovering near 400 billion annually. Oh, and did I mention the aging population and rising health care costs, and the shrinking dollar, and our energy crisis? There really is nothing else to say other than John McCain is just making shit up."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "So far, I have argued as though I thought McCain was actually serious about balancing the budget. I was taking him at his word, and giving him the benefit of the doubt. But I do not see how it's possible to even begin to work through his various proposals and think that he is. I suspect that he doesn't fully understand many of his proposals, and so might well be unaware of exactly how big a hole he's planning to blow in the deficit, ad how unlikely it is that he will be able to plug it by the means he's specified. But I don't think that even he can actually believe that he can make up $695 billion by cutting earmarks and 'reforming' Social Security."

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum offers a theory about why McCain's economic plan is vague: "What's a Republican to do these days? They're supposed to be fiscal conservatives, which means they have to pretend to love balanced budgets. So McCain does. Raising taxes is, however, verboten by party fiat, which leaves an aspiring GOP president only two choices: (a) reducing spending and (b) magic. Unfortunately for our hero, proposing actual, concrete budget cuts of any substance is political suicide and he knows it. This leaves magic as the only alternative."

MCCAIN II: His Mouth's Writing Checks That His Body Can't Cash

Liberal bloggers are ridiculing the following passage in McCain's economic plan:

"The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction."

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "How does McCain plan to balance the budget? Why, by winning the Fight Against Terror, of course! [...] McCain will waive his magic wand, you see, and win the war against 'Islamic extremists' peacefully. Then he'll use that leftover money to balance the budget. McCain might even end with a surplus! And then he'll take the money from that surplus, and he'll spend it to cure cancer."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "So, McCain is saying he expects to quickly 'win' the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, withdraw the troops and save hundreds of billions as a result? Does anyone believe this? Would it speak worse of McCain if he really believed that he'll win within a year or two and is thus delusional, or would it be better if he knows he's bullshitting us?"
• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Does it get any loonier than this? [...] Set aside for a moment the fantasy economics involved (just because I stop charging on my credit card doesn't mean I'm suddenly making income to pay off the debt I've run up, does it?). It appears that Bush's third term is going to be even more delusional than his first two, if the cornerstone of John McCain's deficit reduction plan is the blithe assumption of 'victory' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kind of reminds you of candy and flowers and being greeted as liberators, doesn't it? And promises of billions of dollars of oil guaranteed to pay for Iraqi reconstruction? Slam dunks and cakewalks are undoubtedly just around the corner."
• dday: "Victory is the answer! Never mind that McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, or anything. And that garrisoning troops, providing food and shelter and training and arms, and giving them the role of engaging in police actions that they're already doing right now, you know, costs a lot of money. John Sidney McCain III knows that when you win a war, you get the $644 billion dollar prize behind door #2!"
• TPM's Marshall: "This has to be one of the better examples of McCain's penchant for policy by slogan seeping out from the campaign trail into actual policy proposals. McCain's people do realize that there is no budget mark down for 'victory'. Whatever victory's other merits, it is only reductions in expenditures directed (in the broadest sense) toward the war zones that get you actual budget savings. Is McCain saying that both wars will be over by the end of his first term? And if so, is that victory with all or most of the troops staying on post-victory, as he's implied? Or will they all have left by then? Remember, Adm. [Mike] Mullen says we need more troops in Afghanistan to deal with spiraling situation developing there. But we don't have any more because of our commitments in Iraq. And if his four-year balanced budget promise is premised on rapid victory in both theaters, isn't that sort of arbitrary timelines on steroids?"

MCCAIN III: Why Isn't The Media Calling Him Out On This?

Liberal bloggers are upset that the national political press isn't being more critical of McCain's economic proposals:

• Marshall: "I think we may have come to that moment, that quick turn of events, that encapsulates the fact that there is apparently no limit to the howlers and nonsense that John McCain can throw out and still not generate collective guffaws or even scrutiny from the national political press. [...] The simple truth is that given his foreign policy promises in Iraq and tax cut promises at home there's really no way McCain could come up with even a fuzzy plan to balance the budget in his first term. So he's decided instead just promise it. Included in his white paper is just the standard hocum about cutting waste, fraud and abuse in government and making sure we have 'reasonable economic growth.' Remember, this is the guy who's riding on his reputation for 'straight talk'. And he's just promised that he'll balance the budget in his first term. For any serious reporter covering this campaign that should immediately lead to a request for actual numbers to back up how he's going to accomplish that."
• Mark Kleiman: "In 2000, the Republican candidate for President, in the face of a federal budget in temporary surplus, proposed huge tax cuts and promised to keep the budget balanced with imaginary spending reductions. It was obvious at the time that his arithmetic didn't add up, but the press simply reported the question whether 2 + 2 = 22 as a 'controversy' rather than as a case of flat-out lying. $3 trillion in debt later, and in the face of a huge deficit even before the recession hits and not even counting the 'emergency' $100 billion per year for Iraq, the Republican candidate for President proposes to extend those tax cuts, add a bunch of new tax cuts, increase the size of the military, and fill a $695 billion annual budget gap with $20 billion in savings, most of them from imaginary spending reductions. Have reporters learned their lesson? No."
• J. Bradford DeLong: "To John McCain's promises to (a) wage more wars abroad and (b) cut taxes for the rich while (c) limiting domestic spending cuts to waste, fraud, and abuse he has now added a promise to balance the budget by 2013 -- a promise that his substantive policy advisorrs had been trying to keep him from making all winter and spring. [...] How does America's press react? Well, in a way that makes me say: 'Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?'"
• Benen: "Here we are, just four months from Election Day, and McCain is presenting a bizarre economic plan, which doesn't make any sense on its face, and which also lacks any and all support from the campaign itself. Knowing we might look at the numbers to see if they add up, the McCain campaign decided not to include any numbers. There's a $410 billion budget deficit, which McCain will eliminate in his first term. How? He just will. He wants to cut taxes by about a trillion dollars. How can we afford it? We just can. McCain realizes the value of the dollar is down, and he's committed to reversing this. How? He just will. I've seen more details from candidates running for student government. [...] If reporters weren't in the tank for this guy, today would be the beginning of the end of McCain's chances of winning the White House. He's not even trying to be a credible presidential candidate anymore, and this 'economic plan' (I use the phrase loosely) could very well be the subject of ridicule for the foreseeable future."
• Ezra Klein: "Even though John McCain says he's going to balance the budget by 2013, literally nothing he's proposed suggests that that's even remotely plausible. The fact that McCain is either consciously misleading voters as to his agenda or is a political naif will, however, not be a very big story. Certainly not as big as the fact that Barack Obama said he'd take into account the opinions of generals on the ground when implementing his withdrawal plan. That Obama's comment demonstrates a responsible approach to public policy while McCain's suggests a disinterested, opportunistic approach is, of course, irrelevant to the amount of coverage they receive."

OBAMA: Embracing The Surge?

As we noted yesterday, conservative bloggers are portraying Obama's recent comments about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in a series of stark policy reversals:

• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Obama seems to be feigning incredulity that anyone would be paying attention to how a presidential candidate 'refines' his signature issue. 'I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement,' he told the Associated Press. 'I am absolutely committed to ending the war.' However, those paying close attention will note that Obama has significantly moderated his original antiwar and foreign-policy positions in recent months. Democrats and Obama supporters will be loathe to admit it, but Obama stands poised to adopt the three major elements of the Bush-administration foreign policy -- staying the course in Iraq, endorsing the doctrine of preventative war and the strategic expansion of executive power to fight the war on terror."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "When [Obama] finally comes right out and says we've made progress in Iraq, we need to see this through, and its important not to give away the gains we've made, will he acknowledge that his eighteen-month opposition to the surge was wrong? [...] Judging by his not-too-fancy footwork for almost a week now (trying to avoid admitting that he is even changing policy), it seems highly unlikely that he is going to admit he was wrong to have advocated a plan to 'immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq.'"
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Attempts to come to terms with, and to defend, Barack Obama's sudden attempt to walk back the centerpiece of his presidential campaign -- unwavering opposition to the effort in Iraq, regardless of facts on the ground or of new information -- have abounded over the last few days, with each falling well short of anything even remotely resembling intellectual honesty or seriousness."
• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "Barack Obama's campaign grows more 'refined' by the day. On issue after high profile issue -- Iraq, abortion, gun control, Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright -- Obama changes positions the way most people change clothes. [...] The more Obama fudges, the more he confirms his status as the true heir to Bill Clinton. [...] Clinton ran, and Obama is running, a substantial risk. Whatever may be true in academia, the general public still doesn't like slick talkers and it certainly doesn't like slick talkers who sound like lawyers. The MSM may be able, up to a point, to obscure the specifics of this or that flip-flop, but it can't obscure the fact that a presidential candidate is slick. This helps explain why, pre-[Monica] Lewinsky, Clinton failed twice to capture a majority when running for president. If Obama fails in 2008, a year tailor made for a Democratic victory, it will likely be because of the same kind of slickness born of the same kind of outsider's self-confidence."

OBAMA II: How To Beat Him

NRO's Rich Lowry thinks portraying Obama as a flip-flopper "has to be an element of [McCain's] case against him": "'A liberal we can't trust'. It would have to be a dressier phrase, but it seems to me that's how the McCain campaign should go after Obama. If it can't win running against him merely as a flip-flopper, it has to be an element of the case against him -- that he can't be trusted as both a naked opportunist who will say anything to win and as a vacillator not ready for the responsibilities of the office."

Lowry's colleague Ramesh Ponnuru isn't sure that portraying Obama as a flip-flopper will work: "The obvious risk of McCain's gambit is that it will remind people of his own flip-flops. He used to oppose extending the Bush tax cuts, but now favors it. He used to oppose offshore drilling, but changed his mind. His list of reversals, like Obama's, goes on. There are subtler risks as well. Earlier this year, Republicans seemed to have settled on the view that Obama was a committed left-winger. [...] But Republicans cannot make the case that Obama is a dangerous radical at the same time they claim that he believes in nothing except getting elected. Obama knows which charge he fears more. His moves suggest that he would rather be called a flip-flopper than a leftist. [...] All year, polls have shown that the public would strongly prefer to elect a Democratic president in November. But Obama has been running only slightly ahead of McCain. Being a typical Democratic politician would not be a step down for Obama -- it would be a step up for him. The public knows that politicians are what they are, and that their rhetoric will not fill their bank accounts. They will see through Obama, and they will see through McCain, and in a Democratic year that will leave Obama ahead."

Liberal bloggers are also debating the effectiveness of portraying Obama as a flip-flopper:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I have grave doubts that a 'flip-flop' charge is actually effective in a political campaign, especially in an Obama vs. McCain campaign. Consider the following: (1.) If Obama is [John] Kerry, then McCain is Bush. [...] Right now, being tied to Bush is a lot worse than being tied to Kerry. (2.) Doesn't contradict Obama's image. Obama, unlike Kerry, has been running on his willingness to engage in bi-partisan compromise for over a year. So, it isn't clear how the 'flip-flop' charge even goes against Obama's longstanding campaign promises. He has told everyone repeatedly that he will compromise, so it is unclear how attacking him for doing so will hurt him. [...] (3.) Do people even dislike flip-floppers? A January 2007 poll from Pew showed that 75% of voters like candidates who 'are willing to compromise.' That was slightly higher than the 67% of voters who like politicians who stick to their principles. (4.) Has anyone flip-flopped more than McCain? There are few politicians in the last twenty years who have flip-flopped more than McCain. E. J. Dionne covers some in his column today -- taxes, offshore drilling -- and a classic video by Brave New Films covers several more."
• Atrios: "Like Chris [Bowers], I don't think the 'Obama is a flip-flopper' will be an especially useful line of attack for the McCain campaign, but it makes sense that they're using it. The script is already written, making it easier for the barely literate cable newsers to run with it."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "To me, the 'it probably won't hurt him' line of defense misses the point. Explain to me instead, how the flip flops HELP Obama? Because, wrap it up in pretty packaging all you want, but Obama DID flip flop on FISA capitulation. Obama did change his position on public financing (I see all the upside to this one BTW, I just think he should have done it earlier), Obama has given strange and contradictory statements on choice. Given these mistakes, it was inevitable it seems to me to see the Media take Obama's use of 'refine' on Iraq and make up a story -- that Obama changed his position on Iraq withdrawal too. That one was flat out false, but the others were not. Obama created the opening, for no good reason. That is the point. It may not be potent, but it should not even exist."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Jesse Helms' Legacy

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat argues that the late NC Sen. Jesse Helms "has no business in the right-wing pantheon":

"[Helms] simply was an awful bigot, and worse he was an awful bigot who never expressed a shred of remorse, so far as I know, for his toxic approach to issues ranging from civil rights to HIV to foreign affairs. Far from being the sort of politicians who conservatives ought to defend, out of a sense of issue-by-issue solidarity, he's the sort of politician conservatives ought to carefully distance themselves from, because his political style brought (and continues to bring) intellectual disrepute to almost every cause with which he was associated. Inherent to conservatism is the responsibility to stand up and say to bien-pensant opinion: Just because a bigot opposes something doesn't mean it's a good idea. But the necessity (and difficulty) of making that case, whether the issue is affirmative action or 'comprehensive' immigration reform or the NEA and Piss Christ, is all the more reason for conservatives to keep their distance from actual bigots, even (or especially) when they're representing the great state of North Carolina in the U.S. Senate. Jonathan Rauch had it right in 2002: If Ronald Reagan and Helms had similar positions on countless issues, that doesn't prove that Helms was good for conservatism; it only suggests that conservatives should look for more Reagans, and fewer Jesse Helms. I'm happy to defend Helms' views on a variety of issues, but the man himself has no business in the right-wing pantheon, and the conservatives who have used his death as an occasion to argue that he does are doing their movement a grave disservice."

LEST WE FORGET: A Copy Editor At A Business Journal Reflects On A Breakup

McSweeney's Allison Morrow:

"First-quarter reports released this week show that Allison's reading activity more than doubled, to 47 percent of daily life, spurred by significant losses in the spooning and kissing sectors. Meanwhile, sexual activity plunged 98 percent, falling from record highs during the previous quarter's thriving joint venture.

Market participants say they suspected the partnership would sour after New Year's, but that the initial merger seemed an ideal prospect. A housemate familiar with the dissolution said both sides are expected to bounce back, but hopes the recovery speeds up so he can reclaim the couch and the TV remote.

'I just think taking a class or picking up a new hobby would help shore up some dignity at this point,' said Rick, an analyst on the second floor."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at July 8, 2008 01:31 PM