I don't normally comment on newspaper editorials, but there's
one in the D&C today that is full of muddy thinking. The main point of the editorial is that the Democrats need to drop their current Iraq strategy and try to compromise with the President on the war. The writers at Rochesterturning
dissect this editorial
pretty completely, but I want to focus on one additional point. The D&C says:
The goal is, or at least should be, to begin moving in a direction that
will allow greater control by the Iraqi government and people. Engaging
in power struggles over funding, especially symbolic ones, for the
remainder of Bush's presidency will be time wasted.
The first sentence is the most important one in the whole editorial, and it's a key point that's missed by those who tout the military progress being made in Iraq. To date, military progress hasn't led to any appreciable political progress. The political apparatus that we've installed there hasn't been able to assert "greater control", because they're unwilling to make the compromises and deals necessary to form a viable central government. This was true last year when violence was higher in Iraq, and it's true this Fall when violence has lessened.
Since our military efforts aren't yielding political progress, what does it matter that Congress is embroiled in a power struggle over funding? Whatever Congress does is clearly irrelevant, because if one thing is true about the whole Iraq mess, it's that the mis-application, over-application, under-application, or even Petraeus-perfect application of military force doesn't get us anywhere in enabling a government there. When everyone's ready to acknowledge that, then maybe we'll get somewhere.
Update: The lede of Thursday's
front-page Washington Post story on the war says it all:
Senior military commanders here now portray the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaeda terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.
Comments
Yawn. Not many comments on your postings lately... could it be that people are tired of this "race" before it even begins? Massa's #1 issue, the war, is hardly an issue that resonates with voters right now, the Democrats have proven incredibly crass with their S-CHIP "strategy" to use it as a wedge issue and refuse to negotiate even though there are Republicans like Kuhl and others trying to find a compromise, and the decidely anti-tax constituency in the district is extremely unimpressed with Democrat Chairman Charlie Rangel's "Mother of All Tax Hikes" proposal... hmmmm, where is it that we've heard that name recently? Rangel... Rangel... THAT'S RIGHT! He's hosting fundraisers for Eric Massa! Interesting.
Well, Erik, when things get dull, you're always there to liven things up around here. I think there's a lot of wishful thinking in your comment.
On S-CHIP, I frankly don't know how well it's playing, but if it is making an impression, it's got to be a negative one for Republicans. S-CHIP was touted as a major achievement by Pataki. Kuhl's support of Bush's veto puts him on the wrong side of an issue that used to be popular for Republicans. And, by the way, a lot of very conservative Republicans do support the bill, notably Hatch and Grassley.
And trying to shop Rangel's AMT cut, coupled with a tax increase for hedge fund managers, as the "mother of all tax increases" is tough sledding. The AMT touches a large segment of the Republican constituency in the 29th. And I don't think there's a large group of hedge fund managers in Steuben County.
As for Charlie Rangel running fundraisers, as Barack Obama says, money is the original sin of politics, and both candidates have to spend a lot of time soliciting donations. Massa's brand of fundraising draws individuals. Kuhl's flavor appeals to corporations. Pick your poison, but I'd rather have a candidate beholden to Charlie Rangel than Philip Morris.
Au contraire, mon frere... according to The Hill, the Democrats have said that rather than negotiate with Republicans like Kuhl (who is in negotiations with Democratic leaders and the Republican Senators your mentioned according to The Hill and Roll Call) they would rather sit on the same old bill and just send it back to the President to veto next October before the election ... and they try to say that Republicans don't care about kids! That's crap. If they really wanted to get things done they'd negotiate on the illegal immigrants and adults and children of the semi-wealthy -- the issues that keep the bill from passing with a veto-proof majority.
As for Kuhl and cigarettes and being "beholden to Philip Morris," I think that's disingenuous. Philip Morris produces jobs too but Kuhl has an anti-smoking record. He himself doesn't smoke. In Albany, he voted for the ban on smoking in New York, voted to increase state taxes on cigarettes, and in Washington signed on to a bill to allow the FDA to regulate the industry. Like all of us he has had personal friends and family who have had lung cancer. I don't care about cigarette taxes and neither do most Americans who don't smoke. In fact, the biggest and most incredible tax increase I care about and most people don't realize is the $3 per cigar tax in the S-CHIP bill that will suck (or increases taxes on those who want to suck a cigar, like Arnold Schwarzeneggar).
And the "mother of all tax hikes" will not just touch hedge fund managers... it will hit everyone, on every income level, except the very poor who don't pay taxes in the first place... it's a disaster waiting to happen.
I agree that the Dems' strategy at the moment is to send back the same bill. Two points on that.
First, like making sausage, political compromise can be an ugly process that produces a decent result. Maybe the Dems current hard line will result in some concessions from the Republicans. I'll wait for the end result to decide on that.
Second, as I noted above, the current bill was supported by some very conservative Republicans. So either Grassley and Hatch want S-CHIP money to go to illegal immigrants and the wealthy, or perhaps the talking points on the bill are exaggerated. I'm guessing the latter is true, and that Republicans are exaggerating to justify Bush's veto.
On money, two points. First, Kuhl issued a press release decrying the tax increase on cigarettes. Despite his previous votes and cosponsorships, his current position is that it's unacceptable to finance children's health care in part from an increase in taxes on tobacco. Second, even if we set aside the Philip Morris example, the fact remains that 75% of Kuhl's money last quarter came from corporate donors. Massa's comes from individuals and Union PACS. Pick your poison.
Finally, there's a difference between the overall Rangel proposal, and the AMT cut that just passed the House. Despite your rhetoric, the major tax increase in the bill that passed disallows counting carried interest as capital gain, and includes deferred comp in current comp. I think most residents of the 29th aren't using those two loopholes, but a lot of them will appreciate a cut in the AMT. As for the overall proposal, that's what it is -- a proposal. When legislation comes from it, let's take a closer look.
As for the $3 tax increase on cigars -- I guess you've got more carry-around cash that I do, because that's more that I pay for my cigars. I doubt I'll be hit that hard, but if I am, my family will be happy to see me give up the habit.
Funding a bill for children's health on smoking taxes is a bit ridiculous, especially when the Democrats' own Congressional Budget Office estimates that an additional 22 million kids would have to start smoking just to pay for it... you'd need that many more smokers paying the taxes for the rest of their lives just to fund it... so of course that's not going to happen. Instead, they're pushing off the pain to a future Congress to RAISE TAXES.
All of these dumb votes meant to try to get them a few good sound bites on the news and to allow moveon.org to run ridiculous ads yet no effort to actually get things done. Pelosi's Congress was called the "do one thing Congress" because all they did was pass Iraq votes. Now it's the "do nothing Congress" because they gotten nothing done.
The $3 tax on cigars is on all cigars, and it's $3 each... so the new base price of a cigar will now be $3 that will to right to the government. So maybe we'll both have to give it up, or just take a few trips to Cuba to stock up.
PAC's aren't corporate money. They're contributions by employees or Members of a Union or organization to a Political Action Committee, and then that PAC gives to candidates. Massa may not take money from corporate PAC's, but he takes money from lobbyists who represent those corporations and executives from corporations such as Lockheed Martin and others... so there's more than one way to skin a cat. I don't find your same level of comfort of someone being in the pocket of labor unions...
I don't see why taxing tobacco to pay for health care is ridiculous. Tobacco is a huge contributor to health care costs. Perhaps the increase in tobacco taxes won't pay for the whole S-CHIP increase, but at least there's an effort to fund it. The Republicans want to have a smaller, completely unfunded increase. Is that better?
I didn't know that about cigars. I guess I'll have to find another vice.
As I said before on money, pick your poison.