ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Doug Feith reads his book.

book.JPGAnd Spencer Ackerman is live-blogging it. Feith is conducting a book reading of War and Decision at Georgetown University tonight, and Attackerman is on the scene. Check out Spencer’s dispatches here.

UPDATE: Spencer writes, “Outside are 14 students — one in a Dead Kennedys t-shirt! — chanting ‘torture is not a Jesuit position.’”

UPDATE II: More: “…Oooh a student asks why Feith’s not being rehired when his two-year appointment comes to a close. Innnnteresting. … He’s not going to touch on why he’s not been rehired.”

Economy

Earmark Accounting Leaves Two Thirds Of McCain Tax Proposal Unfunded

Our guest blogger is Scott Lilly, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Alright, so maybe a candidate for President of the United States doesn’t need to know the first thing about the Federal Budget. That’s a job for staff—right? But what if a candidate for President doesn’t know anything about the budget and can’t hire someone who does?

That appears to be the situation that John McCain is in, based on the background provided today by his “Director of Economic Policy” Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters recently:

We have $60 billion in discretionary spending that was sourced to earmarks.

Holtz-Eakin says that money could be used to fix the repeal the alternative minimum tax. The problem is that virtually no one can find even a third that much money in the annual spending bills in earmarks.

The most credible effort at earmark accounting in recent years was completed recently by the Taxpayers for Common Sense. They did an exhaustive review of the 2008 spending bills and reported $18.3 billion in earmarks. The White House Office of Management and Budget scrubbed the twelve 2008 appropriation bills and came up with only $16.9 billion. Where does McCain’s other $41.7 billion come from?

There is virtually no explanation. Did Congress spend money in other areas that McCain is counting but neither Taxpayers for Common Sense for the White House counts? That seems to be a hard argument to make. For 2008, the President’s request totals $932.8 billion (not counting the pending supplemental.) The Congressional Budget Office scores the action taken by the Congress on the 2008 appropriation bills at $932.8 billion—exactly the amount requested.

There were some areas that Congress spent more than the President requested and other areas where Congress spent less than the request. But McCain would find it difficult in most instances to object to the judgments made by Congress, for instance the $3.8 billion to improve the quality of health care for returning veterans which was included in the final Military Construction—Veterans bill but not contained in the President’s request.

It is even difficult to imagine that McCain would want to get rid of all of the earmarks. $1.2 billion of which was for better housing and facilities for servicemen and their families at military installations around the world.

The disturbing point here, however, is that even by the loose rules of budget discipline used in Washington in recent years this accounting is completely off the wall. Revenue cuts that are offset by phony spending reductions simply add to the deficit and the nation’s long term debt burden. Senator McCain needs to detail his figures in a manner similar to the materials provided by OMB and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Culture

Bushing It

Gilbert Arenas explains the Wizards game plan against Cleveland:

It’s funny, those two don’t play the same position, but DeShawn told Caron that he’ll guard LeBron (sounds like a children’s nursery school rhyme) so that Caron can rest his legs. DeShawn was like, “I’ll run him around and play D on him and get the fouls so you can just go off on the other end.” So we have our own little gimmicks we’re brewing. With a team like the Cavaliers and a player like LeBron, all you need is distractions. We got to be Bush. We got to be Bush-league. We’re having everybody talking about the war, when we just want to get the oil. We’re Bushing it. That’s all we’re doing. We’re trying distract LeBron over here while we try to get some wins over there. That’s all we’re doing.

Of course if the war had gotten us some oil, it would have at least gotten us something. But last I checked, oil costs more than ever.

UPDATE: Perhaps if Agent Zero bought Heads in the Sand he’d be in a position to offer a more nuanced critique of the Bush foreign policy. Matt Berman says it’s “highly readable and filled with great insights.”

Politics

McCain’s Plan To Cut Earmarks Would Eliminate Aid To Israel

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has long portrayed himself as a staunch supporter of Israel. “Obvioiusly,” McCain has said, “I have been a very strong proponent to the State of Israel.” He recently told the Jewish Journal that if elected president, he would “hit the ground running” and immediately get involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

It is astounding then that McCain has essentially vowed to eliminate U.S. funding assistance for Israel. In a speech yesterday on the economy, McCain said that as president, he will eliminate pork barrel spending, otherwise known as “earmarks”:

If that authority is entrusted to me, I will use the veto as needed, and as the Founders intended. I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all.

Today on MSNBC, McCain cited “$65 billion” in earmarks “that’s already on the books” that he would cut. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/mccainisrael.320.240.flv]

McCain does not identify the $65 billion in earmarks. In a conference call with reporters yesterday, McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that McCain’s plan to eliminate earmarks uses the Congressional Research Service’s (CRS) definition of the term. According to an analysis by Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly, that CRS report identifies $52 billion per year which qualifies as earmark spending (Read the analysis here).

The problem is that the CRS — the group Holtz-Eakin cited as the basis for McCain’s earmark elimination plan — says that U.S. aid to Israel is considered an earmark:

Several special characteristics of the practice of earmarking in Foreign Operations bills are worth noting. Some observers define earmarks in a more limited way, identifying only provisions that direct spending for items not requested by the Administration or in excess of levels proposed for activities or countries. Although many Foreign Operations earmarks fall within this more narrow definition, congressional directives specifying spending amounts that are the same as shown in the Administration’s illustrative listing for country distributions also are regarded as earmarks. Annual earmarks for economic and military aid to Israel and Egypt are examples of such directives.

So is McCain’s plan to cut earmarks a pledge to eliminate all aid to Israel?

Digg it!

Update

Scott Lilly has more at the Wonk Room.


Update

,The McCain campaign has responded here.

Economy

Norquist: McCain Can ‘Say Anything He Wants’ About CEO Pay ‘As Long As He’s Not Talking About Legislation’

During an interview on the Fox Business Channel yesterday, right-wing anti-tax activist Grover Norquist revealed that John McCain’s promise to fight corporate greed is simply empty talk. Norquist essentially stated that McCain has embraced an all-rhetoric, do-nothing attitude with regard to executive compensation:

CAVUTO: So when he [McCain] talks about CEO salaries that are out of wack, that is one thing you think he should stay out of?

NORQUIST: Well first of all, it doesn’t do any harm, the president can say anything he wants, I guess…As long as he’s not talking about legislation, let him talk!

CAVUTO: Alright, so the windfall profit tax-type stuff that we see out of Democrats on the hill, you do not see him subscribing to that?

NORQUIST: No, and that’s a very big difference…You can complain about something, but when you ask the government to come in…that’s slightly different.

In a separate interview on CNN’s Glenn Beck Show, Norquist told guest host Michael Smerconish that McCain’s tax plan is a greater version of the Bush tax cuts. “[McCain] has recognized and stated that [Bush's] tax cuts are what turned the economy around, that they’re necessary to keep the economy growing and that he wants them continued. He’s gone beyond that, to call for full expensing for business investment, taking the corporate rate from 35% down to 25%… ”

Watch it:

Norquist hasn’t always been McCain’s biggest fan. In 2005, he called McCain was a “tax-increasing Bolshevik.” But now that McCain has outsourced his economic agenda to Grover Norquist, Norquist is singing a different tune.

Politics

Perspective

I’m with Stoller nothing I’ve seen or heard from the 2008 primary compares with this from 2004:

Under the circumstances, it seems wrong to call this “the most bitter and negative Democratic primary in the last forty years.” The difference is just that the 2004 primary, though extremely negative at its height, also had a very short duration in terms of peak negativity before quickly morphing into the odd dynamic where Edwards refused to seriously attack Kerry and got rewarded with the VP slot.

Politics

McCain Admits His Economic Plan ‘Disagrees With The Experts’

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) presented an economic plan that offers a $1.7 trillion tax cut for corporations, “more than twice as much as McCain gives families with his child deduction,” as The Wonk Room’s James Kvaal and Robert Gordon noted.

Today on MSNBC, McCain was asked if he is understating the costs of his tax cuts. “Independent experts say your tax cuts would cost at least $100 billion more than you say and that the savings would not materialize,” Andrea Mitchell said. McCain retorted:

I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I disagree. I disagree. I disagree with the experts. I have experts of my own. I have many experts of my own who say that this will stimulate the economy, will create jobs, and increase revenues over time.

McCain said Ronald Reagan also reduced taxes in 1981. But when Mitchell noted that Reagan did “bust the deficit,” McCain tried to dodge: “Not early on it did — I am a deficit hawk.”

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/04/McCainExpertsExperts.320.240.flv]

McCain said he has his “own experts.” But even they have disagreed with him. Kevin Hassett of AEI, a McCain adviser, claimed McCain’s tax cut plan would grow the economy, but added, “It is beyond the reach of economic science to explain precisely why that happens, but it does.”

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, his chief economic advisor, has also concluded that huge tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. As CBO director in 2005, he conducted a study into whether a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes could pay for itself by spurring economic activity. The study concluded:

Under various assumptions, the supply-side economic effects of the tax cut are estimated to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of that revenue loss over the first five years and add as much as 5 percent to that loss or offset as much as 32 percent of it over the second five years (see Table 3). According to models that account for both supply-side and demand-side effects, those effects might offset somewhat less than 15 percent of the revenue loss over the first five years.

McClatchy explained that Holtz-Eakin’s conclusion essentially means: “lower tax rates wouldn’t come close to paying for themselves.”

Yglesias

Now With Substance

shadesguy.jpg

For a more substantive take on today’s edition of Michael O’Hanlon’s “prominent newspapers can’t stop letting me write op-eds” gravy train, read Ilan Goldenberg’s detailed effort at a rebuttal. To sum up Ilan’s points, however, I would just note that it’s hard to rebut an argument that doesn’t feature a real argument. O’Hanlon lists six things that it would be good to see happen in Iraq, and then proclaims those six things to be a good reason to keep 140,000 American troops in Iraq at a cost of billions per week for the next 90 weeks or so, but he doesn’t explain why doing this will actually help resolve any of those problems.

This, though, has been the time-honored debating ploy of the Iraq forever crowd for years. I recall in 2005 when the troops needed to stay or else there would be ethnic cleansing. So the troops stayed and guess what happened in 2006? Ethnic cleansing. Then when the ethnic cleansing ended, that proved our deployment was working and had to be continued.

U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. William Greer

Politics

Limbaugh: ‘Islamofascists’ are campaigning for Democrats.

Media Matters notes that yesterday, right wing radio talker Rush Limbaugh claimed that “liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces, not Islamofascism.” Limbaugh added that the “Islamofascists” are “campaigning” for Democrats this cycle:

[I]f the liberals dominate and win, and are in power for four, eight years or more, they don’t take Islamofascism as a threat. And we know this because the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats. Islamofascists from Ahmadinejad to al-Zawahiri, Oba — Osama bin Laden, whoever, are constantly issuing Democrat talking points.

Limbaugh’s rhetoric mirrors the conservative strategy around the 2006 elections. At the time, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Dick Cheney, and the White House all suggested al Qaeda was hoping for a Democratic Congress.

Update

Echoing Limbaugh, on the conservative Hugh Hewitt radio show yesterday, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin said Iran “will do what they can to hurt John McCain ahead of the election.”

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up