Michael Tomasky's Blog, page 35

Manchin...I had a feeling | Michael Tomasky

I expressed my doubts the other day, as you may recall, that Joe Manchin, my fellow West Virginian and the Senate's newest member, would support don't ask don't tell repeal. And sure enough yesterday he did not. He was the only Democrat to vote against repeal.

He explains:

"I do not support its repeal at this time," he said in the statement. "I would like to make clear that my concern is not with the idea of repealing DADT, but rather an issue of timing."...

..."My concerns, as highlighted in the recent defense survey and through the testimony of the service chiefs, are with the effect implementation of the repeal would have on our front line combat troops at this time," he said.

Manchin said he is "very sympathetic to those who passionately support the repeal," but added that he needs more time "to visit and hear the full range of viewpoints from the citizens of West Virginia."

Remember, he has to run again in 2012. And remember, senators don't care that the national polling on repeal is two-to-one for. All that matters to each senator is, what's the polling in my state? I don't know, but it ain't two-to-one for.

A Senate aide suggests what I expected, which is that Manchin knew it wasn't going to get 60 and so didn't have to stick his neck out and take the risky vote. Some experienced member sat him down and explained him all this.

But what if this new Lieberman-Collins effort somehow gets through in the next 10 days and they vote again and Manchin is the potential 60th vote? If he, as a Democrat, singlehandedly blocks repeal of this policy, he will be (to Democrats anyway) the most infamous coward in Washington. Some people think he wouldn't do that. But the language above kinda suggests that he would, doesn't it? When he said "at this time," does that mean he's going to see some massive difference between this week and next week?

Just remember, folks: John Raese was a neanderthal. Even so, it would be shameful if Manchin had the power to help repeal this and didn't. There's going to be a lot of legislative water under the bridge between now and 2012, and many chances for him to cast conservative votes.

Now I have to go run some errands. I'll be back mid-afternoon.

US militaryUS CongressMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Video | Tomasky Talk: The Obama tax deal, the Start treaty and Jim Morrison's pardon

From congressional battles on Capitol Hill to Elizabeth Edwards' views on the afterlife and the Lizard King's exoneration, Michael Tomasky reviews the week's big political stories

Michael Tomasky

The long game on taxes | Michael Tomasky

I had meant yesterday to post praise and link to this excellent piece from TNR by Bill Galston, who argued that the only way for Obama to win in 2012 is to:

...seize the initiative by moving comprehensive tax reform to the center of his agenda. He could argue—correctly, in my view—that the current tax code is far too complex, treats millions of average families unfairly, and constitutes an impediment to economic growth. Building on an emerging bipartisan consensus, he could go on to advocate a plan that broadens the base of the system while reducing rates—a formula that applies to both individual and corporate taxes. And he could challenge both parties to join with him to make a reformed code the law of the land during the 112th Congress.

So conceived and framed, tax reform serves both of the long-term goals—economic growth and fiscal restraint—that Obama must promote as the heart of his domestic agenda. Embracing it would enable him to move back on offense and to become the transformative leader he clearly wants to be. And if he places himself at the head of an initiative with substantial appeal across party lines, he could also begin to redeem the promise of a more cooperative, less confrontational politics that first brought him to national notice and helped him become president.

I'd been thinking the same thing. And now, lo and behold, I am pleased as punch to report that so has Barack H. Obama. From his exclusive interview with NPR this morning:

If the tax cut deal is eventually approved, the president said he would use the two-year window to push for a broader overhaul of the tax code, as several deficit reduction panels have recommended.

"Simplifying the system, hopefully lowering rates, broadening the base — that's something that I think most economists think would help us propel economic growth," Obama said. "But it's a very complicated conversation."

This is most encouraging thing I've heard out of the president in months. First, the simple fact that they're thinking this way, so that two years from now (assuming this current deal passes, which still seems likely I guess), we won't be having another debate about the Bush tax cuts. We'll be debating the Obama Comprehensive Tax Reform Package.

I, as my regulars know, would hope to see a top marginal rate on really high income ($3 million or more) of, oh, 60% to start; run it up the flagpole and bargain it down from there. But if you're lowering rates on everyone up to something like $200,000, i.e. 97% of taxpayers, you might be able to return to high top marginal rate on Bill Gates, LeBron James and the ex-junkie radio entertainer.

The arbitrary $250,000 level no longer has to be relevant. The administration can design the rates and levels it wants.

It is indeed possible to lower most peoples' rates and collect as much or more revenue. A high top marginal rate helps. But the real issue here is what we call "tax expenditures," which are losses to the treasury from granting exemptions and deductions and so on.

These are, notably, the home mortgage interest deduction and the deductibility of employer-sponsored health coverage. But they're a hundred other things too, including much of what we call corporate welfare. So this would be an opportunity to go after that, too: Obama always says he wants to take on the special interests. Well, this will be his chance. The bargaining chip here is overall corporate tax rates, which are comparatively high in the US and can and should be lowered.

This would be a helluva fight. But it's also his chance, as Galston writes, to really be the transformative president he dreams of being. I'm glad to see they're fast on the uptake on this. Next he needs to lay down some markers in the State of the Union address next month. But let's hope this is a sign they're getting some game back.

Obama administrationUS economyMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Friday quiz: shop til you drop | Michael Tomasky

I think it must be because I finally have a kid that I'm in a more Christmasy mood than in recent years, so I've been sitting around thinking about how to make the quizzes seasonal. I hope this doesn't offend those who don't celebrate, but as you'll see today and in succeeding weeks, we're going to keep everything pretty secular, or if we delve into religious aspects, it will happen through the prism of history.

So today I attempt to pull off an arguably tough category: the history of retail commerce. Here, I don't mean the spice trade and so on, going way back, but what we think of as the modern world of broad retail trade in goods, which arrived with the advent of the railroad, the factory, the department store, advertising and so forth. As I'm sure you know, if you lived in Ohio in the 1820s, or Lancashire, the odds were that you owned very few possessions that weren't made in Ohio or Lancashire. The process of change from that reality to one in which it's all made in China is pretty weird and fascinating.

By the way, don't you sometimes wonder what the *#@&! those poor people in China are thinking as they're assembling these utterly disposable goods for us profligate Westerners? I was strolling through the Christmas section at a department store the other day. Every ornament, tree skirt, angel, advent candle, you name it was made in China. Marx would have had a lot to say about this (and don't sneer – many of his observations were reasonably solid, he just came up rather short on the prescription front).

So let's do this. I've worked to divide it pretty evenly between American and British subject matter. And remember, 14 shopping days til Christmas.

1. Matthew Boulton's Soho Manufactory, which produced buttons and buckles and many types of metal products, is considered by many historians to be the world's first factory. Where was it located?
a. London
b. Birmingham
c. Manchester

2. Henry Ford is the man most of us associate with the assembly line, but in fact it was this car maker who patented the first assembly line:
a. Henry Royce
b. Karl Benz
c. Ransom Olds

3. This man's emporium burned to the ground in 1883; he nevertheless managed to fulfill all his orders to his customers in time for Christmas, and subsequently rebuilt the famous building shoppers from across the world know today:
a. Charles Harrod
b. Lyman Bloomingdale
c. Marshall Field

4. This now-defunct American department store started out as a catalogue business; it played a crucial role in permitting Americans to own goods not produced locally, and giving farmers the option of purchasing seed from producers rather than expensive local dry-goods purveyors, which led in some cases to public burnings of its catalogues.
a. J.C. Penney
b. Montgomery Ward
c. Sanborn's

5. One last department store question (and America-focused; apologies). In America, everyone knew Macy's and Gimbel's, but most major cities of the industrial age had their own local stores, owned by local magnates. Match the defunct department store to the city in which it originated.
Kaufmann's
Garfinckel's
Dayton's
Hudson's

Detroit
Pittsburgh
Washington, DC
Minneapolis

6. This bespoke tailoring shop in London made the red coats British soldiers wore during what we call the Revolutionary War; other customers have included Admiral Nelson, Churchill, Charlie Chaplin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but apparently not The Beatles, even though they were based for a time right next door:
a. Gieves & Hawkes
b. Henry Poole
c. Faversham & Sons

7. In America, women's clothing sizes were made standard in these years, as a result of a lengthy and meticulous study undertaken by this group, in which 15,000 American women agreed to have 59 different measurements taken of their bodies:
a. 1922-24, Fashion Institute of America
b. 1928-30, US Chamber of Commerce
c. 1939-41, US Department of Agriculture

8. During World War II, the British Secret Service had the English manufacturer of this popular board game produce a version for prisoners of war held by the Germans, inside which were maps, compasses, real money and other objects useful for plotting escape:
a. Monopoly
b. Risk
c. Candy Land

9. She debuted in March 1959; her vital statistics have been estimated at 36 inches at breast, 18 inches at waist and 33 inches at hips; a Helsinki research hospital has concluded that she would lack the 17-22% body fat needed by women to menstruate.
a. Jasmin Bratz
b. Barbie
c. Brenda Starr

10. The Imperial Hamper from this gourmet purveyor can be purchased this year for £5,000 and includes a bottle of Cristal champagne, two bottles of Chateau Mouton Rothschild, white truffle-infused olive oil, brie with truffles, goose foie gras with truffles, Cropwell Bishop organic Baby Stilton and gobs of other things:
a. Balducci's
b. Fortnum & Mason
c. Le Bon Marche

11. According to the web site Labour Behind the Label, this company receives a 0 rating with regard to its treatment of workers who make its products because it "takes no responsibility for living wages as it believes that responsibility lies with the market and with governments to set and enforce decent wage levels. It fails to recognise that companies have a role to play in setting market rates and prices. Its business model encourages governments to keep wages low and places suppliers and countries in competition." (The company disputes these allegations.)
a. Levi Strauss & Co.
b. The Gap
c. Marks & Spencer

12. Most recent available figures show that the three leading gaming consoles have the same popularity in the US and the UK (that is, they rank one-two-three in sales in both countries). Name the correct order in which Xbox, Playstation and Wii sell in both nations.

I liked this quiz a lot and learned many interesting things researching it (question 8?!?). Let's look at the answers.

Answers: 1-b; 2-c; 3-a; 4-b; 5: Kaufmann's = Pittsburgh, Garfinckel's = Washington, Dayton's = Minneapolis, Hudson's = Detroit; 6-a; 7-c; 8-a; 9-b; 10-b; 11-a; 12: Wii, Xbox, Playstation.

Notes:
1. Didn't know this. I wonder if this is more or less common knowledge in England?
2. Olds (as in Oldsmobile) is the only American listed here, and you should have been able to reckon that the assembly line was an American invention.
3. Might have been a hard one.
4. Penney's was always retail stores and didn't even publish a catalogue until much later, and Sanborn's is, interestingly, the major chain of department stores in Mexico. Ward's great competitor was Sears, Roebuck, which still survives. Sears and Penney's are pretty much my favorite stores, and I'm not being ironic.
5. I used to go to Kaufmann's with dear Mom, and haunted a Garfinckel's or two. The famous Fallingwater house was built by Frank Lloyd Wright for the Kaufmann family scion. These days, nearly everything is a Macy's. By the way, Mark Dayton, Democratic governor-election of Minnesota? Yep, from the same family.
6. I own two Gieves & Hawkes suits. Should I admit this? I assure you they were off the rack, if that helps.
7. Read the fascinating story here.
8. Amazing! So the Nazis let prisoners have these games, I guess? That almost has the makings of a musical comedy.
9. Gimme, but funny, so couldn't resist.
10. Americans should have gotten this, too, as they flock to F & M by the thousands these days.
11. Had to throw in one class-consciousness question.
12. Makes sense when you think about it since Wii is marketed to adults as well.

So let's hear your scores; your thoughts on the history of retail trade; your most beloved toys when you were young; the shopping experiences you enjoy most. Here in Washington, it's not like New York, where you check out all the department store windows (Lord & Taylor is most famous, while Barney's has cornered the market on the ironic, post-traditional display). I most enjoy Friendship Heights at Christmas time. Whatever the case, I like the ritual of it, even though now I do most of my shopping online (another good topic: do you now do most online?).

United StatesMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Democrats spurn Obama's tax deal | Michael Tomasky

I'll say this about Republicans: they don't wash their dirty linen in public the way congressional Democrats do

So, the House Democrats rejected the deal, as you may have heard. It was a non-binding vote, so it doesn't have any official meaning, and most observers are still thinking that the deal will probably pass the House of Representatives, with most Republicans voting for it and enough Democrats joining them. But it's a mess.

Of course, liberal Democrats have substantive concerns, most notably the estate tax provisions. Maybe they want that changed. But if it's changed, how many Republicans bail?

The issue here is probably not really so much the substance as the emotional texture of how it all happened, and bruised egos and so on. House Democrats say they felt sandbagged by the White House because they were left out of the negotiations.

But lo, here comes Dick Durbin to say that the opposite is the case, according to this report from Mother Jones magazine's Suzy Khimm:

"He insisted, moreover, that Obama had not excluded congressional Democrats from the negotiating process, noting that the president had brought leaders from both sides together only two weeks earlier to discuss the issue. Durbin, moreover, told reporters off the Senate floor that Democrats themselves had invited the president to intervene:

"Many leaders in Congress said to the president, 'You reach an agreement, find out what you can do, then come to us.' It isn't as if [Obama] didn't make an offer to be inclusive. They basically said, 'you need to lead,' and he did."

"Durbin's words lie in stark contrast to those of both liberal and rank-and-file Democrats who have accused the president of caving to Republican priorities and ignoring liberal voices in the negotiating process.

Bear in mind that Durbin, a liberal senator from Obama's home state and a kind of a mentor to the president, is likely to represent the White House's point of view here. In any case, the real point of all this is not which side is telling the truth, which is probably somewhere in the foggy middle. It's that you just don't see this kind of Keystone Kops monkey business when the Republicans are in charge.

Mind you, that is not necessarily to their credit. Rock-ribbed conservatives voted to a person in November 2003 for the biggest expansion of Medicare in decades, and an unfunded mandate at that – the sort of thing they normally rail against – just because it was introduced by a Republican president. At least, the liberals are defending some principles. But party discipline is not their strong suit. Stop the presses on that one, eh?

Meanwhile, you may not have noticed that also this week, Republicans blocked a healthcare bill for 9/11 workers that will cost a "mere" $7.4bn (compared to the $70bn they're spending to underwrite millionaire taxpayers) on the grounds that it's too expensive and not paid for (just like the 2003 Medicare bill, but never mind). In addition, they blocked a $250 one-time bump for social security recipients, who are not getting a cost-of-living increase this year because the formula used to calculate increases said one was not called for.

Yep, these are the same people who screamed about Medicare cuts during the healthcare debate and said the Democrats wanted to kill grandma.

US CongressUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansObama administrationUnited StatesMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Obama and the left, 2012 version | Michael Tomasky

There's a lot of huffing and puffing right now in the liberal blogosphere about a primary challenge to Obama in 2012. Daily Kos had a poll, even:

So who should challenge our so-called "Party Leader"? I have a few ideas... none of them are great so feel free to comment and add your own:

Howard Dean - He's inspired many of us. We love him even when the inevitable gaffes come. He lands on the correct side of most of these policy debates with only a couple of notable exceptions. On the flip side his likelihood of winning a general election might be a little low.

Al Gore - His credibility has gone way up since "An Inconvenient Truth". I think he has the chops to win an election and also be a great president. The only downside is a sex scandal in Portland that would come to heavy scrutiny were he to challenge Obama.

Russ Feingold- Wouldn't it be amazing to have someone like Russ Feingold as our president? He supports the progressive agenda, he's fiscally responsible, a seasoned and thoughtful politician. I believe he has however already publicly stated he won't challenge Obama in 2012.

George Clooney - A great progressive and a decent actor, with the speaking skills and presidential air to win. Downside is he has no experience and would get hammered to hell for it. Maybe he needs to be a Governor somewhere before jumping in this ring... unless the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin. I'll lay down money on Clooney in that match up!

Mercifully (and take note, those of you who think the Kos site is full of loonies), "I don't want a primary challenger to Obama" was winning when I cast my vote. This whole talk is deeply silly.

According to Politico, Dean and Feingold have taken themselves out of contention already. They were the only plausible choices. Although don't laugh at Clooney - he'd probably be the most persuasive of the above four, though I can't imagine he'd do it.

I guess there's someone like Van Jones, whom people on the left adore. But Jones to my eye has been telling people to stick with Obama.

The nearest historical analogy here is to 1992. George HW Bush raised taxes and got a primary challenge as the incumbent president from Pat Buchanan. "Pitchfork Pat" won a couple of primaries, put the fear of God into Bush and gave the speech at the GOP convention in Houston that Molly Ivins imperishably described as having been better in the original German.

It's impossible of course to correlate directly what numerical impact Buchanan's challenge had on Bush's loss. Certainly the parlous state of the economy had a lot more to do with it. But Buchanan did roil GOP waters, and that convention went down as one of the loopiest in convention history (it'd probably seem civil today). The whole episode contributed something to Bush looking weak and beatable.

Then Buchanan voters got eight years of Bill Clinton. I'm sure that worked out very well for them.

By the way, thinking of Buchanan and 2000, when he ran again, reminds me of his line at the 1999 GOP straw poll in Ames, Iowa; the funniest line I've ever heard from a politician, even though I disagree with it. Lamar Alexander had opened his speech with this trope about what he would say to Bill Clinton up there at the podium on inauguration day, and it was some molassesy hooey about how he'd let down the country, etc.

Pat spoke next. This obviously wasn't in his prepared remarks, but he was playing off Alexander and began his speech by saying that he'd take the oath of office, turn around and fix his glare on Clinton and bark: "Sir, you have the right to remain silent!"

Anyway, there don't seem to be any Buchanans on the Democratic side. Unless...might Keith Olbermann give it a whirl? It just occurs to me. He's a reasonably precise analogue.

But the whole thing is nonsense. Most people will see that in time.

Barack ObamaUS elections 2012Michael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Dream Act and views of human nature | Michael Tomasky

The Dream Act, which would allow minors who are in the country illegally to become citizens by graduating from college or serving in the military, passed the House last night by 216-198. It has a number of Republican supporters in the Senate, but some Democratic opponents, and as of right now appears to be a vote or two or three shy of the magic 60.

TPM reported the following:

In a statement, Obama said, "This vote is not only the right thing to do for a group of talented young people who seek to serve a country they know as their own by continuing their education or serving in the military, but it is the right thing for the United States of America.

The bill is opposed by Republicans who slammed it as a "nightmare act."

"It is nothing more than mass amnesty that will undoubtedly encourage millions more to illegally immigrate into our country," Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher told the House.

Those two statements contain the usual political cliche, but they actually both reveal a great deal about liberal and conservative views of human nature, which seems to me what this debate is really about.

Conservatives have a darker view of human nature and are more likely to assume that people are corrupt and just want to scam the rest of us. So at the core of Rohrabacher's quote is an assumption that loads of families or young people are going to come here illegally just to take advantage of this provision.

Liberals have a more forgiving view of human nature, or I might say less suspicious. I, for example, doubt very much that millions of young illegals are going to come to America to join the army or go to college.

People do things for many reasons. It's like when house prices go down, if you're ready to buy a house, you buy a house. If you're not, you probably don't change your behavior because of a large economic trend. Some people do, enough to shift national statistics to some extent. But if you're happy in your house, you're happy in your house.

Conservatives like to say liberals have a trusting and naive view of the world, and in selected cases I'd grant that that is so. But as a liberal, naturally I don't think we're in the main naive. Rather, I think it's this, so permit me to refine the argument herewith. I think conservatives tend to look for one reason for something, and often, that one reason reflects a somewhat dark view of human nature. "They hate us for our freedoms" kind of thing.

Liberals tend to look for many explanations rather than one, and those explanations will likely reflect a less suspicious view of human motivation. The one/many dichotomy is at least as important as the suspicious/trusting one.

I think that to join the army or go to college, you have to want to...join the army or go to college. Then the circumstances have to be right. The recruitment office has to be conveniently located. The college quad has to be pleasing to your eye. You have to like the recruitment officer or admissions officer. And so on and so on.

There will be a small percentage of people who'll run scams to get into college and get their green cards. This is inevitable because a small percentage of humans are scam artists. And Fox News will find them, Lord knows, and make them seem representative. In a cynical age, a darker view of human nature will tend to have the upper hand. And the nature of the media will also tend to affirm the darker view, since the media (especially electronic) look for simple stories that shock people.

US CongressUS immigrationMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal back on track | Michael Tomasky

Wouldn't it be ironic, given liberal Democrats' fury at Obama's tax cuts deal, if the president now delivered DADT repeal?

It now appears, lo and behold, that DADT repeal might really be happening, starting tonight. According to this TPM report, there are 59 votes to end debate – all 58 Democrats and Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown. All eyes are now turned to Maine's Susan Collins, who is said to be close to being the 60th vote, which would be enough to break a filibuster.

The vote could happen tonight. If it passes, remember, it's just a vote that ends debate. But in Senate-speak, "ends debate" really means "starts the clock ticking on the last however-many-hours of debate". The bill to which DADT repeal would be attached is a broader Pentagon spending bill, which will be subject to debate and amendments. The final vote may not come until Sunday, but if the motion to end debate succeeds tonight, the vote on Sunday will require only a simple majority of 51 for passage, not 60.

It would be pretty amazingly comical if, while lefties are howling at the moon about Bush tax cuts betrayal and what a sellout Barack Obama is, he and the Senate deliver DADT repeal. Presumably, they and the liberal Democrats in Congress will start feeling a little better. And Republicans will start feeling a little worse. And the tax deal debate will become more traditionally partisan. What does Mitch McConnell, who has promised that most GOPers will support it, do then? Interesting.

I find it impressive and, frankly, surprising that there are apparently no Democratic defections on DADT. Not Ben Nelson. Not Joe Manchin, the newest senator, from a state not widely known for its gay community (West Virginia). I'll believe those votes when I see them, but evidently, they're in place.

And if, by the weekend, Obama is the guy who passed healthcare reform and "don't ask, don't tell" repeal in one session of Congress, during a two-year period that saw the rise of arguably this country's largest-ever grassroots rightwing movement, liberals who complain really ought to think twice.

Gay rightsUS CongressUS politicsUnited StatesDemocratsRepublicansBarack ObamaUS militaryMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Republicans' opposition | Michael Tomasky

As you may have seen, Jim DeMint and the ever-reliable Club for Growth have come out against the deal from the right. CFG's Chris Chocola says:

"This is bad policy, bad politics, and a bad deal for the American people," said Club President Chris Chocola in a statement. "The plan would resurrect the Death Tax, grow government, blow a hole in the deficit with unpaid-for spending, and do so without providing the permanent relief and security our economy needs to finally start hiring and growing again."

It's just amazing to me, this business about the estate tax. It's also the first thing DeMint mentioned.

Some background here. I think I may have misstated the situation yesterday in my haste. Here's the story. In 2001, estates were taxed starting at $1 million and at 55%. That's when Congress started raising the amounts. Then, the Republicans got their wet dream: there was no inheritance tax at all in 2010. Remember that this fact got attention when George Steinbrenner died, and there was a lot commentary (I think from me) about how his heirs and assigns would pay no federal tax.

But the estate-tax repeal was passed under the same kind of rules the Bush tax cuts were, meaning they were not permanent. And so, if Congress didn't do anything by the end of this year, rates were set to revert next Jan. 1 to the old $1 million and 55%.

Maybe some liberals support that figure. I don't. $1 million isn't that much these days for a middle-class couple that lived into their 80s and owned their home and saved with a decent degree of probity and suffered no catastrophic illness that wiped them out. Just as I think the $250K per household figure is a little low, I think $1 million is too.

So letting it revert to $1 million would not have been good policy in my view. So it was reasonable to do something. But not this something. Now, taxation doesn't start until $5 million, and it begins at 35%. Nancy Pelosi says this would leave only the richest 39,000 families in the US paying an estate tax. I'm trying to find out where that number came from. Assuming it's true, it's just incredible.

DeMint, CFG, Jon Kyl and others wanted the 2010 no-tax condition to become permanent. So think about that. One of their great priorities - they banged on about it all year - was to come to the aid of America's 39,000 richest families. This is their honest idea of what the government exists to do. It's really staggering to me.

It's worth remembering, even as we focus on Obama's lecture to the left, that he had some pretty rough words for the GOP yesterday too. The language about how getting tax cuts for the rich seemed to be their "holy grail" and their central economic doctrine, and about being hostage-takers, was pretty stern stuff. It'd be nice if he said it over and over during the next two years.

Even after this deal is resolved, the Republicans ought to be extremely vulnerable on the estate tax question. Few things show what whores for the uberrich they are the way this one does. But again, the Democrats have been terrible cowardly little ninnies on this one too, and the problem long predates the arrival on the scene of Obama.

Obama administrationRepublicansMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The Democrats' opposition | Michael Tomasky

Am I the only one just gobsmacked by comments like this one?:

"The wealthiest few in the country come out like gangbusters," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), a Blue Dog who said he would oppose the deal. Many other Blue Dogs, Pomeroy said, would also vote down the package, on the grounds that it adds heavily to the debt.

Earl Pomeroy? The Blue Dogs?? Are they kidding??? They're the reason the House never voted on the tax cuts before the election. Now, suddenly, they're concerned about the debt?! Please.

For all these congressional Democrats - especially the Blue Dogs, but all of them - to be attacking Obama now for a deal that they had the power to stop before it even happened just boggles my mind. It's like Neville Chamberlain being mad at the Polish army.

If they kill this deal, they will have liberated Obama to pay them no attention for the next two years. They should understand that that will be politically good for him. It may provoke a challenge to Obama from the left, and that could be a problematic thing for him, depending on what such a challenge looks like. So in spite of the congressional Democrats' petulance here, Obama and his people ought to try to appease them to whatever extent they plausibly can.

But this is just incredible. If I have to hear a series of Blue Dogs take to the floor of the House over the next week complaining, in most cases for the first and only and last time in their fricking careers, about wealthy people making out like gangbusters, I'm going to Elvis my television. And send Pomeroy the bill. Unbelievable.

Obama administrationDemocratsUS CongressMichael Tomasky
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds