February 27, 2009

2/27: Move Over, Reagan

The netroots are applauding Pres. Obama's ambitious budget, which includes major liberal priorities such as health care reform, a cap-and-trade system, and increased education spending. Matthew Yglesias sums up the views of many lefty bloggers when he writes: "It's not Obama's style to actually say this, but were this budget to be enacted it would be by far the most significant progressive step in over forty years." Liberal bloggers are particularly pleased that Obama is keeping his campaign promise to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, which some believe is necessary to "reverse income inequality in this country."

Conservative bloggers, of course, are criticizing Obama's plans to pay for his proposals by raising taxes on the affluent. Ed Morrissey warns that Obama's proposed tax increases will hurt U.S. businesses while John Hinderaker complains that "there are very few people who are actually rich, and those who are prosperous (what the Democrats mean by 'rich') are already overtaxed." Other righty bloggers are warning that Obama will discourage the wealthiest Americans from giving money to charity if he raises their taxes.

In non-budget news, conservative bloggers are pleased that the Senate voted 87-11 in favor of Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-SC) amendment to prohibit the FCC from reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." However, they're upset that the Senate also voted 57-41 in favor of Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) amendment, which they view as a backdoor method of regulating the airwaves.

OBAMA BUDGET: Audacity We Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers are applauding Obama's ambitious budget:

• Think Progress' Yglesias: "It's not Obama's style to actually say this, but were this budget to be enacted it would be by far the most significant progressive step in over forty years."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's probably fair to say that there's been some concern about whether President Obama would be as 'audacious' as Candidate Obama. He'd talk about bold and systemic change, but would he be limited by timidity? Would the president prefer slower, incremental change? The answer has become overwhelmingly clear over the last few days. [...T]he administration's budget outline...presents a sea change in the way the federal government would operate in the future. Looking for change you can believe in? I think we've found it."
• Ex-Treasury Sec. Robert Reich: "Finally, a progressive budget. President Obama's new budget is, well, audacious -- not just because it includes several big, audacious initiatives (universally affordable health care, and a cap-and-trade system for coping with global warming, for starters) but also because it represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years."
• Ezra Klein: "[T]he big surprise is the size and seriousness of the commitment to education. Health wonks expected their portion of the budget. The emphasis on energy isn't a surprise -- more a return to the priorities that Obama was naming in the campaign. But according to folks in the educational community, even they didn't anticipate such aggressive action on their issues."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Throughout the campaign, Obama said he was going to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans. That made John McCain and the rest of the Republicans apoplectic. They thought the tax increase on the rich would surely result in an Obama loss. But, Obama won -- and he's following through on his campaign promise. [...] Obama is returning the tax code to where it was under Bill Clinton. That worked for the economy then. You can't really say [George W.] Bush's tax policy did much for the economy. Most Americans were happy with their economic situation at the end of 2000. Not so true for the end of 2008."

Meanwhile, OMB dir. Peter Orszag discussed the budget with progressive bloggers in a conference call yesterday. Daily Kos' mcjoan, Firedoglake's Stirling Newberry, and MyDD's Jonathan Singer are among the bloggers who spoke with Orszag.

OBAMA BUDGET II: Spendzilla On The Loose

Conservative bloggers are condemning Obama's proposed budget:

• Michelle Malkin: "Look out! Spendzilla is on the loose."
• NRO's James C. Capretta: "Here's the bottom line on President Obama's budget: It's a massive spending increase when what the country desperately needs is a plan for fiscal discipline."

Obama's most faithful conservative fan, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, can't stomach the proposed budget: "We are being presented with what can only be described as a massive increase in government spending and power with the only fiscal balance being wringing much more money from the successful. The president predicted a tight budget and spending control in his non-SOTU, and he appealed to fiscal conservatives by promising a long-term attack on entitlement spending. I see nothing here yet that fulfills that promise."

Several angry conservatives are taking matters into their own hands:

• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "It's not that I don't want government to do nice things for deserving people in certain circumstances. It's not necessarily that I'm hostile to this group of beneficiaries or that (though I am in fact hostile to some). It's that I think most of Obama's ideas will not work, will be a waste of money and will hurt the economy. And, flatly, I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to break the law. I don't want pull a [Timothy] Geithner or a [Tom] Daschle or anything like that. But I don't want to pay for it. I will look for every means within the boundaries of the law to minimize what I pay in taxes and I make no apologies for that whatsoever."
• NRO's Steve Hayward: "Amen, brother Jonah. I don't want to pay for this stuff either. [...] I've started buying municipal bonds, which I never thought I'd do until...well, never, actually. Good ones right now are an attractive buy on the merits, but the added bonus of sealing off the income from Obama makes it all the nicer. But my bigger idea is to go all Randian and literally go on strike [...] I'm going to start converting income opportunities into more leisure by deliberately reducing my income."

OBAMA BUDGET III: Soaking The Rich

Conservative are criticizing Obama's plans to pay for his proposals by increasing taxes on the affluent, as The New York Times describes:

"Individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year and families who make more than $250,000 would also lose the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, meaning their top income tax rate would rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent, their investment income would be taxed at 20 percent rather than 15 percent and their deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and charitable contributions would be reduced."

• Power Line's Hinderaker: "Barack Obama ran for President on a 'spread the wealth around' platform, and we're now seeing that this was no empty campaign promise. The Obama administration proposes to expand the wealth and power of the federal government beyond anything heretofore imagined. When he asked how he will finance his grandiose plans, Obama's only non-magical answer is that he will increase taxes on 'the rich.' This is a common Democratic Party mantra, of course. In truth, however, there are very few people who are actually rich, and those who are prosperous (what the Democrats mean by 'rich') are already overtaxed."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "[T]he hike from 15% to 20% on capital-gains taxes assumes that people will invest and cash out in the same manner they do at 15%. They won't. The fact of increasing the tax will discourage investors and encourage them to shift money out before the hike. Not only will the extra revenue vanish, but investment levels will drop, leading to job losses and less opportunity for American businesses."

Many righty bloggers are arguing that Obama will discourage charitable giving by reducing tax deductions for Americans in the top income tax brackets:

• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "The attack on the mortgage interest rate deduction and the charitable deduction are simply hidden ways to increase the top rate beyond that of the Clinton years, but by using the deception, the Obama plan would devastate churches and charities that depend on the generosity of their highest income donors while also slamming the value of homes by reducing their value to borrowers. [...] Democrats who vote for this scheme are voting against every church in the land and against the equity every American has in their home. Radical plans like this one make academics happy and voters angry. Very angry."
• The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini: "Obama's massive $315 billion tax increase that violates a basic fairness principle in our tax code: that no matter who you are, we don't count a dollar of income for taxable purposes once deductions for things like charitable donations and mortgage interest are taken into account. [...] The White House proposal would reach into these deductions and effectively levy an additional tax of 7% on charitable contributions and mortgage interest (and up to 11.6% if Obama's tax increases go into effect) for those in the highest tax bracket -- in other words, those with the most ability to support America's charities. I smell overreach."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "[C]hurches, faith based out reach groups, and think tanks -- the bulk of all three tend to be conservative -- depend on charitable giving. Historically, as taxes have increased, charitable giving has decreased. By raising taxes on the $250,000.00 and over crowd, a segment of the population between $250K and $1 million that is filled with small business owners innovating us out of recession, Obama will significantly impact conservative organizations in a way that won't affect most liberal advocacy groups."

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: The Battle's Not Over

Conservative bloggers are pleased that the Senate voted 87-11 in favor of Sen. DeMint's amendment to prohibit the FCC from reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." However, they're upset that the Senate also voted 57-41 in favor of Sen. Durbin's amendment, which seeks "to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest." Righty bloggers view Durbin's amendment as a backdoor method of regulating the airwaves:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "We already know Barack Obama sure doesn't like the likes of talk radio titans like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Yet, he's always been careful to say he opposes the Fairness Doctrine. He'd rather go about it in a different way. And, get his old homestate senator, Dick Durbin, to do his bidding."
• Malkin: "The Duct Tape Brigade is out there in full force. Eternal vigilance is required."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Like I said in last week's post about this, when they reestablish Fairness it won't be called Fairness. It'll be done in the guise of 'localism' or piecemeal by incremental legislative changes. Forcing the Democrats to vote up or down on the old doctrine is useful insofar as it puts them on the record, but practically speaking, it doesn't achieve a lot. [...] Here are the rolls for DeMint's and Durbin's bills; the latter, unsurprisingly, was party-line. Durbin himself voted for DeMint's amendment, as did [MI Sen.] Debbie Stabenow -- who, you'll recall, was calling for hearings on bringing back Fairness as recently as three weeks ago. They're not taking DeMint's bill seriously, in other words, partly because of its expected fate in the House and partly because they're willing to sacrifice the label 'Fairness Doctrine' if they can bring back the substance of it later. Like the boss says, the fight's not over."
• CBN's David Brody: "[T]he fight goes on. Don't think for a minute some within the Democratic Party wouldn't love to see the Fairness Doctrine take shape in some sort of way. That's no secret. Senators like Tom Harkin [D-IA], Debbie Stabenow and others have said so. I think it's fair to say that The Fairness Doctrine in its purest state is history for now but conservatives won't sleep well at night until they are in the majority."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The GOP And The Middle Class

Yesterday we posted Patrick Ruffini's complaint about "the Joe-the-Plumberization of the GOP," in which he made the following appeal to conservatives:

"We need to be confident, like the left is, that we are the natural governing party because our ideas are in alignment with basic American principles, and quit treating middle class, working class, or rural Americans like an interest group to be mollified by symbolic, substance-free BS."

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison responds:

"...Would that the GOP actually treated these people like interest groups by paying attention to their interests! It seems to me that conservatives and Republicans have assumed the GOP is the natural governing party, at least regarding the Presidency and to some extent as it relates to Congress since '94, which is why so many have continued to insist that America is a 'center-right nation' in face of mounting evidence that it is not and hasn't been for a while. Symbolic gimmickry does stem in part from a lack of confidence, but it is more the product of a movement and party that have ceased to understand, much less address, most of the pressing concerns of working- and middle-class Americans. The party assumes that all it needs to do is show up, push the right pseudo-populist buttons and reap the rewards, and for the most part the movement cheers. See Palin, Sarah.

The GOP settles for offering 'symbolic, substance-free BS' because enough conservatives are already persuaded that Republican policies obviously benefit the middle class, so there is no pressure to make Republican policy actually serve the interests of Republican constituents. It is taken for granted that this is already happening, but voters have been showing for several cycles that many of them do not believe this. Politically Democrats have been gaining ground in such unlikely places as Ohio and Indiana, which would be inexplicable if the GOP obviously and reliably represented working- and middle-class Americans. Of course, lately these voters don't see it that way, but instead see the right's pseudo-populists denounce workers for being overpaid, reject measures that would direct some spending to American industries that their free trade zeal has helped gut and even talk about a spending freeze in the middle of a severe recession."

LEST WE FORGET: Distinguished Officials For Proper Ebonics

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates has had enough:

• [RNC Chair] Michael Steele's message to America: 'We know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad.'
• [MN Rep.] Michele Bachman, professional fool, on Michael Steele: 'Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man.'

This. Must. Stop. I'm here to announce the formation of DOPE (Distinguished Officials for Proper Ebonics) whose sole mission will be to prevent such abominable phrases as 'You be da man.' We have sat quietly by, during the era 'Oh no she din't' and 'Women, be shopping.' We have endured the apostasy of Stuart Scott. ('Holla at a player if you see him in the streets!'). We can no longer be silent. The war is on.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at February 27, 2009 12:30 PM