Arlen being Arlen
The new Democratic contrarian
Arlen being Arlen
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked yesterday to comment on Arlen Specter's decision to quit the GOP and become the 59th Democratic senator, she told CNN: "Very exciting, very exciting for the American people, because now we can get things done."
Not so fast. Pelosi and other triumphalist Democrats are conveniently forgetting a very important fact: Specter by nature is a slick operator who is bound to frustrate and confound his new best friends, just as he did the friends who have now become his foes.
I take Specter at his word when he says, "I have taken each issue one at a time...I'm going to vote the way I see it." Anyone who assumes that the Obama domestic agenda will now sail through the Senate, just because Specter has switched sides, is surely dreaming.
It's probably true that, in his votes on some issues, Specter will tilt Democratic more often than in the past - especially if he feels threatened from the left in a 2010 Senate Democratic primary, and especially if he needs Obama, Joe Biden, and Ed Rendell to clear the field for him. (I suspect, for instance, that despite Specter's stated opposition to the big labor bill that would make it easier for unions to organize, he will ultimately find a way, perhaps in compromise language, to ensure that Pennsylvania labor is on his side in '10.)
But, as the saying goes, character is destiny. Specter has always been a complicated contrarian, and that's not likely to change. To best assess the new Democratic Specter, check out the old Republican Specter. Several examples:
Back in 1999, when the Republican Senate had to determine whether it was a good idea to eject Bill Clinton from office because he'd lied under oath about sex, the basic choice was to vote "guilty" or "not guilty." Most Republicans chose the former, while Democrats chose the latter. But Specter came up with his own solution: he said he was voting for "not proven," a middle-way option not available under Senate rules, but one that Specter had plucked...from the legal code of Scotland. I kid you not. (A Specter spokesman insisted that Specter's stance was based on deep convictions, not political calculations.)
Now fast forward to 2006, when the Republican Senate was pondering a bill, sought by the Bush White House, to loosen up the rules governing the prosecution of terror suspects in front of military tribunals. Specter was vocally upset about the Bush proposals, which included the use of evidence seized in this country without a search warrant, the use of evidence obtained via cruel and inhuman treatment, and limited options for suspects to challenge their own detention. Specter went public, declaring: "What this bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years," referring to Magna Carta, which indeed established the right of a suspect to contest his jailing.
Then Specter turned around and voted Yes on the bill.
Hey, this is what many moderates do. They prize nuance over party loyalty. They give a bit to both sides, without quite satisfying either. And, with respect to Specter, here's a fresh example:
During his press conference yesterday, Specter took a moment to plug his latest literary contribution. He said, "I have an article in The New York Review of Books, on executive power. I haven't found anyone yet who has read it."
Well, I've read it.
The headline on the piece, in the latest issue of the magazine, reads: "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs." Presumably, he brought up his article yesterday because he believes it conveys his strong unshakable convictions on that issue. But one particular passage, deep in the piece, gives me a far different impression.
He writes about how important it is that citizens have the right to sue in court for any privacy invasions they may have suffered from Bush's warrantless wiretap program. Indeed, he writes, during the Senate proceedings in the spring of 2008 "my chief concern was to keep the way to the courts open, as a means to check executive excesses."
At the time, the Senate was debating a Bush "reform" bill that was essentially designed to loosen the rules for future surveillance programs - making it easier (as I mentioned the other day) for the executive to snoop on Americans at home. Specter, in his article, lists all the tough amendments that he offered, with the aim of ensuring that citizens would still be able to sue the telecommunications companies for any wrongs suffered during the initial Bush snooping.
Then he writes: "Despite my fight to keep the courts open, in the end all my amendments were defeated. Nevertheless, as I said I would, I ultimately voted for the reform bill."
So there it is again: A little yes, a little no, a dollop of principle, a bit of straddle.
To rephrase what Red Sox fans used to say about Manny Ramirez, this is just Arlen being Arlen. Now the Democrats can reap the rewards - and the headaches.
Comments (85)
Arlen like many politicians have forgotten who they represent. Arlen recently has claimed he worked for the RNC, now, it will be the DNC. Today, he claims he will not always side with the Democrats when it comes time for voting: say what? Clearly he is still prostituting himself to special interest and not the people. When will citizens wake up and throw these idiots out of office? Will they wait until the country goes bankrupt and foreign countries begin to move in for payment? Come on people, next year, start voting these clowns out of office and replace them with people who will 'strictly' represent the people and not some party, not some big business and not some special interest group who only intent is to line their pocket with your sweat!— pvtguy- I wish I still lived in PA. I would do my utmost to see that Specter never made it out of the primary. He's a self-serving political opportunist and I'm a Democrat!— AHiredGun
- This story ought to be about in their zeal for ideological purity the GOP will postpone their possible resurgance for at least another election cycle or 2. A moderate call them as he sees them Senator ??? A good pickup for the Democrats I'd say. Toomey against ANYONE will be a replay of the recent race in 2006 which retired zealot Senator Santorum. How many ways to the GOP want to lose to promote purity ???— ModerateMarge
- Dems like Marge are foolish; a wise dem (oxymoron)is nervous about all of this. Do you really thing Benedict Arlen is going to win in 2010? Toomey will not be running in 2010, as Benedict Arlen leaving has cleared the way for true party repub bigwigs to run and now they will not be stabbing the party in the back by running against Arlen when he was a Repub. Dems, Say hello to Pat Meehan, Tom Ridge and, Scranton. Dems chance are more sour than they think because Benedict Arlen does not have any support in the GOP now, and he has fractured support in the dem party. You forget that outside of Philly, Pa. Dems are very conservative. Many upstate and out west dems do not like Spector to begin with because he is too socially liberal and because he is from Philly. The Joke is on you Marge. Gloat if you want, because the reality is not as clear as you think.— CD75
- The GOP should put in their next platform 'term limits' for all these knuckleheads! I think America would listen to a party that was willing to personally sacrifice (by throwing themselves out of office too) for the good of the country! 12 years (2 Senate/6 house terms) then it is time to go home and make a living the old fashioned way, earn it!— NEPhilly
- Back in reaility on the Messiah's 100th Day: The economy tanked 6.1% in the 1Q. Meanwhile, North Korea states that it will now conduct "a nuclear test and intercontinental ballistic missile tests." Great job Obama! I see that Obamnomics and the "let's be pals"- European style diplomacy is working.— CD75
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Whetner Specter wins in 2010 or not as a Dem is irrelevant. What this whole episode points out is that the Republican party has fallen woefully out of touch with ordinary Americans. By striving for purity, the R's consign themselves to irrelativity. I for one would rather see a vibrant Republican party that can act as a check on the Democratic party. But until the Republican's stop taking their marching orders from Roger Ailes, Karl Rove, and Rush, this won't happen.
- "So there it is again: A little yes, a little no, a dollop of principle, a bit of straddle." I'm certain some will take this as a condemnation of Specter. I take it as a compliment, especially as it seems to describe my thinking on a lot of issues. I'm glad I won't have to switch parties to vote for Specter in the primary now.— Phrossty
- I do think OUR President has done a great job. All you naysayers forget that he had a mess handed to him in repairing the messes left by the miserable presidency of George W. Bush. He is handling the mess with grace, and our economy should be bouncing back nicely in time for the next elections !!! And speaking of Deficits / Tea Parties - how do you think the effort to decimate Social Security and Medicare is going ????— ModerateMarge
- phrossty, welcome back! I'm glad you can stay a democrat:) SS is going to be decimated by the baby boomers unless someone does something (GWB tried)! Medicare has been made stronger by GWB, not weaker, much to conse'rep chagrin! If our economy is not going to bounce back until 2011 then Pres. Obama will be in big trouble, IMHO. My estimate is it will bounce back late this year, early next year at the latest. Unless that is, the Pres. and congress spend, tax and borrow us into a deeper, longer lasting recession!— NEPhilly
- Well, NEPhilly, aren't we lucky that Bush failed in his attempt to privatize Social Security, especially given what's happened to the stock market?— The Other George W.
- I stand by the comment I made back in March (I believe) when Mr. Polman last wrote about Mr. Specter at length: long story short, his reputation for independence is way overstated, and he only bucked his party when the Democrats give him a lot of cover. Sen. Santorum said yesterday that he hopes Mr. Specter will be as independent a Democrat as he was a Republican. If he is, then he'll be a pretty reliable vote for the Democratic leadership.
- If the Republican Party hadn't gone off to the Santorum wing of the asylum, he'd still be a Republican, but then again so would 200,000 other folks who have abandoned the Grumpy Old Party in the last year. The Limburger Lemmings are headed for the cliff, if we wind up with a one party state it will be their fault— Ed_Tilton
- Philly, I wouldn't brag much about W's attack on and attempted privitization of social security, or his expensive give-away to the drug companies in the Medicare bill. It just reminds us that the GOP can't do anything right.— PA_Dutch
- otherw, you are right if you are old enough to get back what you paid in)! As for the youngsters, they may never see a nickel of the SS money they paid out (as the baby boomers swamp the system) and probably would opt for GWB's plan! As a traditional 401k the money would be yours to keep (not a promise from the govt.) and as you get closer to retirement you put more and more into bonds and sell the stocks! Too complicated for the average schmoe citizen to undertake or understand, but a better idea than SS, you betcha :)— NEPhilly
- Philly, social security was never designed so that you get back everything you paid in to it. I have faith in Obama and the Dems that they will fix social security and the boomers, even though all of them won't get back what they paid into it, will at least know it will be there if they need it. I'm willing to pay more into it. It's worth it.— PA_Dutch
- There are three ways to fix social security: higher taxes, reduced benefits or delayed benefits. I say we make the retirement a variable age equal to the life expectancy of a person.— jwad56
- pa, God bless you for your faith in the Dems and Pres. Obama:) Will it be there when it is needed by the post-boomers? I'm not as sure as you are about that. What do you think they will come up with to fix SS? It is not even being mentioned as a priority!— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly, I believe their priority should be getting the economy moving and with more people working more will be paying into it. Jwad is right and my guess is the solution will probably be a combination of the three things he mentions. The tax part will probably be progressive as I don't believe the ceiling has been raised for a long time.— PA_Dutch
- It's going to be a rude awakening for a lot of people when they realize government isn't free.— jwad56
- pa, you are correct of course, getting the economy moving forward again would be a good start (jwads ideas are the only ones worth doing)! But raising taxes, raising govt. spending & borrowing to pay for it all is not the way to get the economy moving again, IMHO!— NEPhilly
- Government spending will get the economy to start to move for at least a little while. Then as the cost to borrow becomes prohibitive the only chance the economy will have is for the private sector to start fueling growth again. Hopefully the government doesn't suck all the capital out of the system to pay for their spending. To fund a government worker you need to collect taxes. A privately employed worker does not need to be publicly funded and in fact generates income for the government. A simple fact lost on most liberals around here. Obama is going to try and fuel this spending by implementing a large tax on energy. Hopefully not too many people freeze to death next winter because they can't afford gas, oil or electricity to heat their homes.— jwad56
- ModerateMarge: Over 50 people were killed in 4 hours today in Iraq by bombers. Iraq is deteriating. When Bush left office, Iraq was peacefull. Obama is not destroying Iraq. Of course, you will find a way to blame Bush for Obama's failures. It is what people like you do.— CD75
- Back to the subject, I like how the Democrats pretend that their superior politics have made them a permanent majority and that everyone agrees with their socialist agendas. In reality, all of this is Bush's fault. Bush spent too much money and got us embroiled in an unnecessary overseas contingency operation. That is what got the Democrats elected.— jwad56
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- The dems are so arrogant in their drunken orgy of liberalism that Obama is now asking Congress to lower sentances for cocaine users (wasn't he one?) Anyway, I think the old saying "pigs get fat, while hogs get slaughtered" applies. Let's enjoy the ride.— CD75
- Arlen Specter has been an embarrassment ever since his role in the single-bullet theory of JFK's assassination. Tragically, that is the MOST sense Arlen has ever made in his political career. Hope some ultra-liberal Dem takes him to the cleaners in the primary. Or the vengeance of the Right in the general finally finishes his sorry political "career."— ppasq
a house divided against itself can not stand - the two party system is over-rated - it's what we are used to so we think if it goes away something terrible will happen - to the contrary - if the Repubs go small and that is their right maybe the greens and libertarians will be able to elbow their way in - maybe the debates will open up, more points of view and open discussions are healthier and less incestuous to our democracy and economy. Hey I can dream - a return to the League of Women Voters is where the debates belong and congress should make that a law. If they are going to do public financing - they should consider that as well. I'd rather see a multiparty system, more robust - two parties doom us to he said she said and a pattern of obstructionism when the lesser party is out of power. It would be nice to return to actual governing instead of brinkmanship. And to those of you on the repub side trying to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility - that horse left the barn years ago - Regan was the king of deficit spending - and despite being handed a surplus by the outgoing Clinton administration - Bushy for eight years binged like a gangster at a coke party - sorry allegedly clear eyed conservatives - you're frauds and your greedy, religious poser representatives are as well. What's with the green ties - Repubs suddenly root for the environment - "drill baby drill" and blasting wolves from helicopters is your true identity stick with blood red - you're not fooling anyone - except those inclined to cults, speaking in tongues and defrauding the faithful out of their meager wages...all in the name of Jesus - despicable.- Any way the wind blows ... Is-a fine with me ... Any way the wind blows ... It don't matter to me ... 'Cause I'm thru with-a fussin' ... And-a fightin' with-a you ... I went out and found a [party] ... [That] is gonna be true ... She makes me oh so happy now ... I'm never ever blue ... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows .... She is my heart and soul ... And she loves me tenderly ... Now my story can be told ... Just how good she is to me ... Yes, she treats me like she loves me ... And she never makes me cry ... I'm gonna stick with her ... 'Til the day I die ... She's not like you, baby ... She would never ever lie ... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows .... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows ... Now that I am free ... From the troubles of the past ... Took me much too long to see ... That our romance couldn't last ... I'm gonna go away ... And leave you standing at the door ... I'll tell you, pretty baby, ... I won't be back no more ... 'Cause you don't even know ... What love is for ... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows ... Any way the wind blows ...— Packard Goose
- "The dems are so arrogant in their drunken orgy of liberalism that Obama is now asking Congress to lower sentances for cocaine users" So you are all for paying 100,000.00 dollars a year in taxes for each inmate in jail for using cocaine? You may be in the minority here, even amongst true conservatives. In fact, I'm sure you are.— pagoda
- A lot of conservatives base their views heavily on a massive misunderstanding of economics rather than ideology as such. A case in point is jwad 2:32. There's almost no way to refute this posting since it makes no sense at all.— liberal
- I, like Arlen, reserve my right to vote the way I want. I am aware of the support he will receive from the Dem. machine, however, if he pulls a lieberman, I would support a Democratic open primary for his senate seat and would not vote for this independent contrarian. For now, watchful waiting to see if he isn't a full blown cancer.— tiredoftheBS
- ***Under the Democratic plan, the federal government will run an anticipated deficit of $1.2 trillion in the next fiscal year. Their plan promises to cut the deficit by more than half by 2012.*** Only in Wash DC can you call running up the deficit to $1.2 Tril then paring it back to $600 Bil a 'deficit cut' when both numbers are the largest deficit in American history!— NEPhilly
- CD75 so theres no such thing as a wise dem? way to sterotype an entire demographic of the country. Show some respect to people who just so happen to have a different opinion of you. Stay classy right wingers. And i believe N Korea has been building missles since before Bush and during Bush. If Bush would have taken care of it Obamah wouldnt even have to deal with it. And the economy began its tanking while Bush was still holding office and continued into Obamas term. Where are all the sane moderates!?!?— MdeanL
- I don't think anybody has mentioned that Specter can "Arlen" his position on card-check for union organizing: he can assure its passage by voting for cloture, then vote against the bill if it has a majority. That way he sticks to his announced positions on both issues--allowing votes up or down, and opposing card-check. And JourneyHome--don't start getting sentimental about a multiparty system until you look at the experience of countries with multiparty systems--eg France. The only way to make the government work in that situation is to have a very strong executive, like Charles De Gaulle and his 5th republic. Do we need a president with more power?— liberal
- lib, only in Wash DC can you vote for something, but be against it too :) ***The House of Representatives passed a $3.44 trillion budget resolution for fiscal year 2010 Wednesday, approving most of President Obama's key spending priorities and setting the federal government in a new direction with major increases for energy, education and health care programs. The resolution, which was approved by a vote of 233 to 193, passed in a virtual party-line vote. All but 17 House Democrats supported it, and no House Republicans voted in favor.*** Even 17 Dems know this is a bad budget with too much spending, taxing and borrowing!— NEPhilly
- lib, only in Wash DC can you vote for something, but be against it too :) ***The House of Representatives passed a $3.44 trillion budget resolution for fiscal year 2010 Wednesday, approving most of President Obama's key spending priorities and setting the federal government in a new direction with major increases for energy, education and health care programs. The resolution, which was approved by a vote of 233 to 193, passed in a virtual party-line vote. All but 17 House Democrats supported it, and no House Republicans voted in favor.*** Even 17 Dems know this is a bad budget with too much spending, taxing and borrowing!— NEPhilly
- to the liberal knucklehead - Please elaborate on my misunderstanding. Also refrain from calling me a conservative.— jwad56
- Only the GOP leaders like Limbaugh et al could be so stupid as to call the loss of Specter a win for the Republicans ! Arlen is a loss for them in so many ways and insures yet another election for the GOP where they don't know which way is up ! Are you sure you want a replay of 2006 when Sen Santorum was retired ????— ModerateMarge
- Modmarge-careful what you wish for there Marge. With total control comes all the blame.
- Polman's article is a bunch of hooyey. Arlen is going to to do what will get Arlen re-elected. Why is it that there are guys in the late 70's,80's, and 90's in our Senate? It should be two terms and out. If they are there too long they become beholden to special interests payoffs, kickbacks and all sort of slimy things.
- Mikey, you are correct that with total control comes total responsibility. You assume there will be failure and blame - but if there is success, there will be only praise and gratitude. And endless reminders that the Republicans voted against everything that worked. Oops, maybe obstruction isn't a responsible form of participatory governance after all?— yoda
- Mikey that was your best post ever! I agree 1000%— PA_Dutch
- CD75: good call. I'm sure the current Republican party would LOVE for the pro-choice Ridge to be in the race in 2010. He's a RINO, remember?— still_independent
- swedesboromike : give Specter credit for one thing; I can't remember any ethical accusations against him. He may drive you crazy, but no scandals there. Quite remarkable for how long he's been in the House and Senate.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Yoda- Even before Spector switched back to his original party there was nothing Republicans could obstruct. Obama has had a defacto supermajority in the Senate since innauguration. I agree with you that if things go well then Obama and the Democrats will get all the credit. You've had control of Congress since Jan of 2007 and the economy has been in a downward spiral ever since. The economy contracted 6.1% in March alone so I am not holding out much hope these horrific policies will improve anything.
- Mike - What I want from the GOP is them having an alternate plan - NOT BS soundbites. You find the deficit so objectionable (why now after the Bush budgets ?) JUST WHAT WILL YOU CUT ????? Unless and until that is answered it's a nonstarter.— ModerateMarge
- The prime time press conference tonight was a total waste. Lots of stuttering and stammering from the Telpromptor in Chief. One reported asked Obama " what is the most enchanting thing about the White House? " They ask tougher questions of the contestants in the Miss America pageant.
- Marge- There is an alternative plan but you won't listen. You're too busy regurgitating Rahm Emanuel talking points. Cut the pork, stop sending billions in foreign aid, lower taxes. Your plan is to destroy the 50% of us who actually pay taxes in some perverse hope of elevating those who do not pay federal taxes
- Marge- conservatives were not happy with Bush's deficits. Bush should not have promoted and signed prescription drug care or sent billions to other countries. Under Bush the federal debt was 5 trillion. Under Obama even the kindest of projections show the debt growing to 13 trillion. When you are that deep in debt the government should be cutting services not adding services. Perhaps you can explain how we will get out of debt.
- Even the best projections see the federal debt doubling in the next 10 years. Below is a link to our historical debt. Take your political hats off for a second and ask yourself how this is sustainable? http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
- Mike - It's all the shell game to right wing wackos. This BS is to go after Social Security and Medicare. There is NO other way ro get the budget in check. Did you hear the comment by Jamie Dimon the GOP banker JP Morgan who blamed the way George Bush financed his Iraq excursion for this severe downturn ????— ModerateMarge
- Marge....both NE Philly (who answered it twice) and I gave items to cut....you never responded to either. Also, the Republicans do have a plan and it was proposed, but in this era of bi-partisanship it was never debated, publicized in the media, or even discussed on a talk show. So, this is now the Democrats ball, bat, glove and stadium. Obama did not inherit this current fiscal year budget deficit, he voted for each and every item in it, even wholeheartedly supported the TARP bailouts. And during the debate he stated often that the spending and deficits of the Bush years were unsustainable...and his answer is more spending and higher deficits. Tonight he insulted the government of Pakistan, said we could have gotten information from the detainees on which were used the harsh techniques by other methods but never said what those other methods were based on his years of experience, and said receiving that information and possibly saving lives did not make us more, but less safe. And this after only 100 days....and how about the Dems putting through the budget blueprint with health care able to be passed with no cloture votes (all it takes is 51 votes with 20 hours of debate). So, a $1 trillion program voted on after only (possibly) 20 hours of debate with nobody saying how they will pay for it.— tom - wilmington, de
- I heard an interesting point of fact on television a couple mornings ago. More Americans believe in ghosts and flying saucers than identify themselves as Republicans these days. Is that a hoot or what? The Grand Old Party is in the process of imploding. It is now almost exclusively identified with reactionary, white southern males. It would seem that Weeda Peeple are starting to wake up to some seriously nasty little realities. One of those realities is the fact that these hideously foolish people have done more damage to this once-great nation than Osama bin Laden could have ever hoped to do. Once upon a time it was cool (at least to some minds anyway) to be a Republican. Today it is down right embarrassing. They have become the political equivalent of the powder-blue, polyester leisure suit. Arlen Specter's defection from that dreadful party is but another nail in the slowly closing coffin of the GOP's political fortunes. Tom Degan Goshen, NY www.tomdegan.blogspot.com— TomDegan
- While it is true that Obama did inherit the federal debt he should also be reminded that he is the President. Has been for over 3 months now. My question is what is he doing about the debt? Appears as though he's doubling the debt in fairly short order. So what will the next president inherit? What will our kids and grandchildren inherit. Obama can complain all he wants about what he inherited but if what he inherited is bad then why is doubling down the bad spending policies?
- Modmarge- take your political hat off for a second. How is this debt sustainable? Where is the money going to come from to finance all these programs? The government is an entity that already wins every powerball lottery, gets 40% of every NFL signing bonus, 40% of every motion picture deal that Angelie Jolie signs etc. You name it and they collect it but we are running deficits so huge that our 10 trillion dollar debt will be 20 trillion in 10 years. Please tell me how you are going to pay for all of this?
- Tom Degan- What is your point? You've controlled Congress since Jan of 2007 and the economy has been in a downward spiral ever since. The economy contracted 6.1% in March alone. Proclaiming more nails in the GOP coffin seems like quite a distraction from the economy, the debt, unemployment, and the Taliban trying to take over Pakistan.
- "...seems like quite a distraction from the economy, the debt, unemployment, and the Taliban trying to take over Pakistan." These concerns are legitimate, just trying to remember if you and your friends were writing about them a year ago when they were just as valid.— pagoda
- swedesboromike: what "government" gets 40%? Is there a new federal tax bracket? Are you using assumed 2010 rates? .. I do agree that none of this is sustainable, though. However, we must be realistic. No amount of cuts in "discretionary, non-defense" spending will close the budget gap. Unless someone attacks the Social Security/Medicare issues, we'll still scr**ed in the future. The scary thing is that right now, Social Security runs a surplus (which artificially lowers the budget deficit). As that surplus decreases over the next few years, the deficit will go up, even if we kept everything else in check.— still_independent
- still_independent...if you included payroll taxes on a W-2 basis for a single taxpayer, the effective federal rate is over 36%. When you add on state taxes, sales taxes, an all the rest (which liberals on this site did constantly to rationalize Obama's $400 tax credit for those with no federal tax liability), the rate is well over 40%. Now, for married filing jointly, the federal effective rate is still over 36%. So maybe swede was counting state, payroll and all the other taxes paid.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: I discounted payroll tax due to the examples he used (Jolie, lottery) since the percentage of their income subject to the payroll tax is miniscule. And I don't want to get into the whole AGI argument. Or a capital gains discussion. And states vary too widely. I just don't like people throwing out numbers for numbers sake.— still_independent
- We have never had a yearly budget deficit of over $500 Bil in the history of the US! Even putting the GWB off budget wars into the mix and you can't get to $500 Bil. Now this Pres. proposes a budget that has a $1.2 Tril deficits yearly for as far as the eye can see and we are going to 'fast track' or 'reconcile' the legislation? We can't have an honest debate out in the open and follow the rules currently in place to pass the President's agenda! If it is such a good plan, can't it stand on its own merits and be passed. Why the congressional trickery? Then to speak of 'cutting' the deficit to $600 Bil in the out years of the budget, like that is some great feat, is kind of insulting to the people who are really paying attention and not just to the sound bites! Both $1.2 Tril and $600 Bil are record deficits and the President spoke out against them during the campaign! Amazing! And even though the President is someone I would have a beer with and seems like a nice guy as his poll numbers show, his policy's are less popular than he is, much less!— NEPhilly
- Ah the age of Obama. The Department of Homeland Security has denied a request by Border Agents to wear the protective masks while dealing with illegal immigrants or patrolling the border crossings. I can see why, we would not want to upset anybody crossing the border for the sake of protecting our border agents. Meanwhile, Biden this morning said he would not get on an airplane or any confined space such as a subway. Good thing the government is not sparking a panic.— tom - wilmington, de
- S-mike makes a good point with the high wage earners. The city and state get chunks of the salary of ballplayers at Citizen's and Lincoln Field and the Feds get big bites from everyone and yet all the givernment entities are crying. We need to rework the culture that says everyone can work for the city and hopefully the economy will get the shot of adrenalin and grow out of the deficit.— JimR
- ***While this year's deficit (talking about 2004) represents about 2.9 percent of the GDP, it is only a small fraction of the total owed by the government, the national debt, which is approximately $7.26 trillion as of July 9 (2004). Since the national debt is currently 63 percent of the GDP, a more accurate analogy would involve someone who earns $500,000 being $315,000 in debt -- and only managing to pay down a fraction of the annual interest.*** http://mediamatters.org/items/200407130001 This is from 2004 when the Dems were yelling about GWB's deficits! After Pres. Obama's 1st term, it will be like someone who earns $500,000 owing $500,000! Rush talks about growing out of the deficit (jimr's response had me google it) and his taken to task in this media matters article! Where is Media Matters now? Probably singing the praises of deficit spending :)— NEPhilly
- Tom--the effective federal income tax rate on the very highest earners in 2007 (the latest year available) was 17%, according to figures provided by the Bush Administration's IRS. Because of the 15% tax rate on dividends and capital gains, and the ability to time income inclusion so it can be netted against losses, the richest people don't pay at anything like the highest bracket. Only working stiffs like you and me pay taxes at that rate. Rich folks have good propaganda, and most upper-middle income ($200,000) republicans seem to suck it up. Almost all state and local tax systems also favor the rich. I'm one of those strange people who've been reading the Internal Revenue Code as recreation for decades, so any time you want to talk tax facts, as opposed to fat-cat talking points, let me know.— liberal
- NE--I share your discomfort with the national debt; it feels good only when I'm mad at my kids. However, I don't know if we should worry about it so much that we put off things that really need doing, like getting the country off its oil jones. What happened to the huge national debt we incurred in World War II? In a way, it's still there, but about the time of the Carter administration it dropped to such a low % of GNP that nobody even noticed it. Incidentally, it was your hero Reagan who started that % of GNP going up again. If this country's economy can't start growing again, enough to reduce the significance of the debt we're currently incurring to save the country (I realize this point is arguable) then we're really in trouble.— liberal
- lib, I love the kid line, LOL! You are sounding like GWB in 2004 when you talk about growing ourselves out of the debt:) You know we can't keep incurring yearly trillion dollar a year deficits and hope to grow out of it, no matter how nice a guy the President is and no matter how rosey the predictions! Everyone knows the way to lose weight is to eat less and the only way to stop incurring deficits is to cut govt. spending, not increase it. Also, why the 'fast track' or 'reconciliation' on the 2010 budget? With 59 senators and the house in his back pocket, the President should try to pass his budget on its merits and not through congressional trickery! Lets have the debate out in the open and in front of the American people and stop all the nonsense and have the vote! The reason IMHO, as I said before is the Presidents personal popularity hides the fact that his policies are not as popular by a long shot. And don't insult my intelligence Mr. President by calling cutting your deficit from $1.2 Tril to $600 bil in the out years a deficit cut! Please!— NEPhilly
- liberal....why so sensitive. If you had read my post accurately, I was simply responding to another post wondering with SWMike might have gotten his 40% figure. I was using "earned" income only, such as off of a W-2, and I also (like so many when arguing in defense of tax cuts for those who have no federal income tax liability) including payroll, state and sales taxes. I have also been reading the tax code for leisure for the past 26 years, so I know about dividends and cap gains being treated differently. I am surprised you did not bring any AMT language into your posts. Mine was not a "fat cat talking point" as you so sarcastically put....but geeze, lighten up for once.— tom - wilmington, de
- NEPhilly...the real beauty of Obama's deficit being cut in half is that it projects spending only $50 Billion a year on Iraq/Afghanistan, no disaster relief, and such rosy growth predictions as to border on the unreal. I am amazed that Obama is not being called out on his tax cut promises. First, his "make work pay" tax cut expires in 2010 and the Democrats left it out of the budget. Second, he campaigned on eliminating income taxes for senior citizens who have less than $50K in income...that is now nowhere to be found. Third, he campaigned promising to eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses....and where is that in his budget. Clearly his personal popularity (about the same approval as GW Bush after 100 days) is carrying him right now. When will the public (the media will never do it) wake up and smell the coffee.— tom - wilmington, de
- tom: even you must acknowledge that the economic situation is far different now then during the campaign. While I strongly disagree w/ Obama on spending, should he continue on a course laid out during the campaign irrespective of a changing reality? We tried that for 8 years and it got us into this mess.— still_independent
- still, he actually is keeping to his plan laid out in the campaign and not changing it due to reality on the ground! Healthcare for everyone, cap n trade energy reform & increases in spending and taxes across the board for our govt., all while the economy tanks & tax revenues fall! tom, he campaigned as a moderate and threw those tax cut promises in there to keep up the charade just to get elected! We now know he is the most liberal president since Carter by his actions (mom always said actions speak louder than words)!— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: correction - most liberal since Bush— still_independent
- still, point taken!— NEPhilly
- still, even you would have to admit that GWB changed his philosophy on govt. after 9/11 :)— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: actually I don't. I just think others (Feith, Armitage, Cheney, etc) got more influence over POLICY. I think GW's basic philosophy stayed the same.— still_independent
- still, GWB campaigned in 2000 to not nation build (citing Somalia I believe) and after 9/11 that is exactly what he undertook in Afghanistan and Iraq:) In other ways he stayed the same, by being a much maligned compassionate conservative, offering up No Child Left Behind, Madicare drug program and Aids releif in Africa all for naught! He never got the credit he deserved from the left because of an Iraq War that all the dem leaders voted to undertake and the American people wanted as well!— NEPhilly
- I meant Medicare not Madicare, freudian slip? I guess Mr. Polman is taking the day off?— NEPhilly
- If you think that Bush got "liberal" after 9/11, or that Jimmy Carter was a liberal, the word liberal has just about lost any meaning whatever for you.— liberal
- NE--It's a fact that the country can grow out of a debt, just like a family can grow out of a mortgage. At the time when my mortgage was paid off, it was just $300 per month, no longer a burden. And the country grew out of the Civil War and WWII debts--they were never actually retired. This country's economy has grown steadily since 1789 and why would it stop now? (If it does, we're f---ed, and the national debt will be the least of our problems.) George Bush's sin was that he had no good reason to add to the debt--it was simply to provide a big tax cut to his billionaire Texas backers, as he had promised them. The government can't abuse this, of course, but by any reasonable standard we're in enough of a crisis to use debt financing. Conservatives seem to believe that Obama's stimulus program and ongoing programs for education, energy and healthcare are just typical Democratic giveaways; this is dangerously wrong. These are real crises. Do you have qualms about giving Hugo Chavez $10 every time you gas up your car (note: you can't avoid this by avoiding Cities Sevice.) Have you recently tried to put your kids through college? Have you lost your health insurance? Then you'd know what's involved. These things are not just events of personal pain and struggle at this point; they're serious restraints on our ability to grow the economy and continue as a player in the 21st century.— liberal
- Spector's move was brilliant from a republican stand point. There is no way he would have won re-election running as a Republican. If he runs as a democrat, who will challenge him in a primary? No one. He has the money and the people know him. He has the edge no matter who it is. The repubs know he won't vote lock step with the dems. So they don't really lose out. If he loses the election to a republican then the repubs still win. If I was chairman of hte democratic party I would not allow this move. It is all for show and spector is a chump. He is pandering to the popular party and hopefully in the primary's everyone else see through it.— Zues
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: