This Just In! Americans Very Concerned About Corporate Tax Rate...

...If you believe National Review writer, and CNBC pundit, Larry Kudlow that is. In a post entitled 'Pro-Business McCain vs. Populist Hill-Bama' (eek, populism monster will eat our babies!1!), Kudlow says proudly that-

Senator John McCain essentially took the no-new-taxes pledge on the Stephanopoulos show Sunday morning. He also emphasized his corporate-tax-cut plan, which would drop the rate from 35 to 25 percent, and reiterated his pledge to keep the Bush tax rates in place.

No new taxes? I seem to remember Bush's father making that promise once... until economic realities forced him to trade ideology for practicality (his son has shown he is much better at ignoring reality to appease his base). I wonder which road McCain would take there. After all, he is a maverick.

As for the corporate tax rate, Kudlow really lays it on thick to make that seem oppressive. With most companies hitting record profits in the past several years-- thanks in part to massive layoffs and outsourcing (more on that in a bit)-- it hardly seems like they need a break here. Tax breaks should only be reserved to reward companies who do the right thing (fostering job growth, cutting pollution and waste, etc), not as free-cash giveaways.

As for the ridiculous pandering that every GOP candidate must pay homage to the Bush tax cuts-- and promise to continue this unprecedented practice during wartime-- I'll let Slate's Daniel Gross take that one. In an article examining the President's tax lies in his recent State of the Union, Gross writes-

He told Congress that making the tax cuts, due to expire in 2010, permanent today would go a long way toward soothing frayed economic nerves. "With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: Make the tax relief permanent." This is, of course, a fantasy confined to a dwindling number of office suites in the White House, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and certain time slots on CNBC. On the long and growing list of factors weighing on the economy—stagnant job growth, the housing mess, problems with bond insurers, the self-inflicted wounds of the financial sector, a debased currency—the prospect that tax rates are going to revert to 1990s levels in three years is pretty far down.

Ding ding ding! I demand that every Democrat be equally concise in their discussion of this.

Kudlow continues-

Incidentally, an interesting story in USA Today by Dan Nowicki of the Arizona Republic says that Sen. McCain has often talked about getting top U.S. business leaders into his administration. Several times on the campaign trail, McCain has mentioned Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer, Cisco’s John Chambers, and FedEx CEO Fred Smith as possible cabinet members.

Yes, that is what we need to get fair, hard-nosed economic advice in this administration... stack the presidential cabinet full of CEOs. I can't see a problem with that, nope.

Mr. Kudlow then goes on a rant about the populist rhetoric of the vile "Hill-Bama" monster (including Obama's-- gasp-- questioning how successful our free-trade agreements have been!). He assures us that "Sen. McCain will hold them accountable for their primary-season populist rhetoric during the general election." What does that even mean? That the GOP is finally cutting out the 'we're looking out for the little guy' routine and just admitting they're the party of the rich? If so, I am all for it.

He concludes-

There are a lot of reasons why the anti-business message doesn’t work. One important reason is that 138 million Americans work for these corporations. Their livelihoods depend on businesses. 138 million is a big number. Think of it.

Yes, 138 million Americans work for these corporations... and they couldn't give a shit that conservatives think the corporate tax rate is too high. Why? Because-- unlike what Kudlow's wording implies-- they don't pay that rate, only their billionaire bosses do. Considering that most of these 138 million have been working more and longer for a lower standing of living than their parent's generation (and under the constant fear of layoffs, loss of health-care, etc), I'm not sure that the corporate tax rate is their most important concern. That these companies choose to punish their employees-- rather than their own, personal massive profits-- when forced to pay their fair share is the fault of greed, not populism.

Big businesses have behaved immorally in this past decade-- and the economy is now (again) paying the price for their excess-- and people like Kudlow want to reward them for it. "The real supply-side 'bang for the buck' comes at the top-end" of the economy, he insisted in another recent piece. He went on to state that idea of focusing economic relief on "the so-called middle class" was "futile" and "bad politics". This is modern economic conservatism in a nutshell. And if that's the message that the GOP will be running with this year, they are in for a rude awakening.

Conservabot Says... More Tax Cuts, Bleep Blorp.

The other day, I called the modern conservative movement "a Mad Libs movement, [lazily] using the same outline, just filling in the blanks with new words to keep up with the times." The debate showed this again.

And one of my favorite Mad Libs books is The National Review's blog, The Corner(*)... home of daily Iran news round-ups, abortion fretting, and Battlestar Galactica discussion.

(*Also, did you know Greta Van Susteren and Geraldo Rivera are 'liberal Dems'? To Cornerites they are!)

Today I stumbled across a post by CNBC host Larry Kudlow entitled... 'It’s Time for Tax Cuts'. Isn't it always, Larry? Isn't it always?

Let's review this dogma... Economy doing good? Tax cuts! Economy doing bad? Tax cuts! Deficits? Tax cuts! Surplus? Tax cuts! Morning, noon, night? Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts!

In this post, Kudlow praises a Wall Street Journal column "on the threat of an economic downturn and the relevance of tax cuts to reignite the economy". He goes on to discuss how this magic pill will solve our economic woes... without directly acknowledging in his post the numerous circumstances and trends that have caused those woes. And he boasts cheerfully that "The real supply-side 'bang for the buck' comes at the top-end" of the economy (but of cour$e!), while conceding to throw the middle class a bone or two.

The latter part, apart from being such a cliche, ignores that the issues threatening said economic downturn-- the housing crisis, depressed wages, high home heating costs, etc etc-- are a strictly middle/lower-middle class problem, and those at the "top-end" of the economy don't need any help. They're the only ones who've seen their situation improve in recent years. But again, we're not having a real discussion, we're just filling in blanks on a pre-written script.

As for the other side of this debate, Kudlow is dismissive. "Democrats also will try and make the case that taxes should be cut for the so-called middle class, and raised on upper-income earners," he writes, "This is futile." As is resistance. Tax Cut Borg will assimilate you all.

I personally am praying for economic recovery. I'm sure Larry will be there then to insist on more tax cuts.

John McCain: Economic Genius

Steve Benen has written some great posts on McCain's economic policies, from his fiscal irresponsibility to his unconvincing faux-concern for the poor to his 'plan' to fix health care. Good stuff, which needs to be nailed home over and over as November approaches.

And when questioned on this nonsense, the campaign's continued response is... we'll get back to you later.

Says former McCain defender Andrew Sullivan, "My biggest disappointment with McCain, so far, has been the moronic gas tax holiday and his support for a massive new increase in the debt in order to suck up to Larry Kudlow's crew. Sigh." Don't get the Kudlow reference? Check out some of the man's greatest hits. Sigh indeed.

More Fun With The National Review

There seems to be a game at the National Review where each post must out-crazy the last. And if you liked Kudlow's corporate apologist post, you'll love this one. In a post entitled 'Obama's Political Origins', Lisa Schiffren, former speechwriter for VP Quayle and Sen. Santorum, writes-

"Obama and I are roughly the same age. I grew up in liberal circles in New York City — a place to which people who wished to rebel against their upbringings had gravitated for generations. And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics. (During the Clinton Administration we were all introduced to then U. of Pennsylvania Professor Lani Guinier — also a half black/half Jewish, red diaper baby.)...

...Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family’s background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much."

You heard her, liberal media... get to work! Is Obama's mother a communist Jew? Are we close to electing a "red diaper baby" for President? Is Sen. Obama planning to, as she later wonders, "stir up discontent among American blacks, with an eye toward using them as the leading edge of the revolution"? The fate of our nation rests in the answers to these questions!

Regarding the relationship of Obama's parents, she asks of its origins-

"Love? Sure, why not? But what else was going on around them that made it feasible?"

Holy cow. This is a woman who was not definitely not hugged enough as a child.

Defending herself and her queries, she writes that-

"Political correctness was invented precisely to prevent the mainstream liberal media from persuing [these] questions"

Well thank Christ then, Lisa, that you have the courage to be paranoid enough to ask them.

John McCain Acknowledges Climate Change; Right-Wing Flips Out

John McCain chose this week to tackle the important issue of climate change, with a speech and a new TV ad. I think that while it's nice to see that he agrees on the seriousness of the problem, his proposed solutions are standard conservative fare (regulation = evil!, more nuclear power!).

Sen. Obama hit back, noting the hypocrisy of McCain's rhetoric versus his action. "It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy... In stark contrast, I've called for a national standard to ensure that we're using more renewable energy, an expansion of our green energy sector that would create millions of green jobs, and a bipartisan plan to double our fuel efficiency standards. That is why the American people will have a clear choice in November when I am the nominee - between a candidate who opposes real solutions to our energy crisis, and leadership that will solve it once and for all," he said.

But that is tiddlywinks compared to the vitriol McCain received from conservatives. By discussing the issue at all (ignoring, again, that his 'solutions' were all GOP-approved), he committed a major sin of base conservatism... thou shalt not acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change.

Here's some of the reactions-

Corporate apologist extraordinare Larry Kudlow writes "I’ve got to bone up and really learn the details about all this. But I truly have to ask: Is this candle worth the game? O my gosh!" Michelle Malkin protege Allah Pundit opines, "Why on earth is he campaigning on this issue in the first place? His ad budget’s going to be tighter than Obama’s, needless to say, and this isn’t something voters care enough about vis-a-vis the economy and Iraq to warrant the expense. If anything, it’s going to lose him votes by alienating the base." World-renowned scientist Rush Limbaugh snarks "It doesn't matter who you vote for President. You're going to get a liberal Democratic approach to something that doesn't exist." The National Review's Roy Spencer calls McCain "Another Al Gore" (eek!). And his colleague Mark Levin huffs that "Do the McCain Team eco-friendly polo shirts carry the union label? They wouldn't want to leave out too many of the lib constituencies."

oMg climate change libs treehug algore lolz!!1!

Let's face it...the Fox News-ification of American political debate continues to ensure that we will never, ever solve this crisis. Because the minority on this issue is very good at attempting to blur the lines, and ensure that we'll be "debating" it forever, rather than working together to find common purpose and solutions.

Prove me wrong Earth, prove me wrong!

The Invisible Hand

A followup thought on the whole Bear Sterns/Federal Reserve/JP Morgan Chase story... allowing these companies to go under would hurt Wall Street-- which is happening anyway-- but would technically be allowing the risk factor of capitalism to take its natural course. Isn't capitalism supposed to be darwinistic and unfair, as we've been told so often? But Republicans don't actually believe in capitalism; they believe in corporatism. To them, these businesses are more important than people, the latter of whom are told simply to suck it up. It's a mentality that privatizes the gains of a working economy, and socializes the costs when things go bust.

It's very amusing to me to watch these conservatives freak out over liberal ideas big (universal health care) to small (regulation) to very small (a minimum wage hike) as if the economy itself will crumble at the mere discussion of such things, but then defend a government which is working overtime to keep failing Fortune 500 companies afloat with unprecedented market tinkering. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have to make do with a $600 stimulus check that the government believes will actually help, because apparently it's 1960 and that money means more than it does.

Weak dollar, low job growth, outsourcing, cost of living increases that are impossible to catch up... these are things that the President will not acknowledge, and-- maybe with the exception of the first one-- are not things that most conservatives believe to be a problem at all.

CNBC's Larry Kudlow (who's been playing the role of official corporate apologist for months now) said Sunday night in a post at the National Review insists that "Bush was right to put on an optimistic face on Friday" and that Democrats are the ones who are "emulating" Herbert Hoover here by... urging a renegotiation of NAFTA (which has what to do with all this anyway)? Not the quality spin I expect from a guy who wrote the foreword to the book, "The Bush Boom: How A 'Misunderestimated' President Fixed Our Broken Economy".

It's understandable why-- like every other disaster of this presidency-- they'd try to blame the other side for causing it with their evil thoughts, but this is the hubris of conservative economics meeting its end. It's the savings and loan debacle, it's Enron. The religion of deregulation and laissez-faire capitalism, the creation of a housing bubble that everyone knew would collapse but not before President Bush could brag about an "ownership society" at the 2004 convention, the idea that in free-market capitalism the only people who ever have to suffer the consequences of failure are the average Joes... all these policies (which, yes, did begin in the latter half of the '90s, then went on steroids when the Bushies came in) have helped make this possible.

As for those weenies in 'Old Europe'? Guess what... they're #1. God bless America.

"You say we're headed to war. I don't know why you say that."

That's what President Bush told reporters on December 31, 2002... as the unstoppable march to war grew.

What are we playing at with Iran? That's been a big question on a lot of people's minds since the President's speech Wednesday night, in which he engaged in much more specific saber-rattling toward Iran and Syria than usual. One liberal blogger thinks it's a bluff. Conservative bloggers, natch, are loving the war talk; Larry Kudlow at National Review Online called him "President Backbone". Yea, Larry, starting even more wars is pretty brave stuff.

This analysis from former CIA and Bush administration National Security Council senior official Flynt Leverett seems to me closer to my thoughts when I heard the President's remarks-

According to the President, the Iranians are providing "material support” to attacks on U.S. forces. That is a casus belli... In sum, the administration is laying the rhetorical and operational foundations for implementing a presidential decision to initiate military operations against Iran.

By itself, all this worry could be dismissed. But this is not occurring in a vaccuum. We've known since early 2002 that the Bush/Cheney administration wanted a war with Iran... not only was it mentioned #2 in the infamous 'axis of evil' speech, but taking down Tehran has long been a desired prize of the neoconservatives (who, as we learned Wednesday, are still very much in control of the Bush presidency), as has been heavily documented.

Not only did the Bush crew create their own Vietnam, now they want their Cambodia too.

Of course, it must be said now-- because the war supporters will seek to obscure it-- that the first calls for war with Iran predate the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the nuclear program, the Iraq war, and all the other reasons that have been cited by warmongers for why this country deserves to be invaded/blown up. But, as with the 2002/2003 case for the Iraq war, this will quickly be forgotten.

By framing any actions we might take against Iran as connected to the violence in Iraq, it would seem the administration is doing an endrun around the Congress. They know Congress would never authorize military action against Iran. But if Bush sidles into a conflict with Iran slowly, with limited action based around the Iraq war, he can say it's authorized by the Iraq force resolution and leave it at that. And if Iran retaliates, well then he can claim self-defense.

Such a move is in character for a White House that planned similar things before Iraq.

Luckily for us, it's not 2002 and the media is no longer afraid to ask questions and the Congress no longer has its head up its own ass. For instance, MSNBC's Chris Matthews confronted White House press secretary Tony Snow on this point-

MATTHEWS: My concern is we‘re going to see a ginning-up situation whereby we follow in hot pursuit any efforts by the Iranians to interfere with Iraq. We take a couple shots at them, they react. Then we bomb the hell out of them and hit their nuclear installations without any action by Congress. That‘s the scenario I fear, an extra-constitutional war is what I‘m worried about.

SNOW: Well, you‘ve been watching too, too many old movies featuring your old friend Slim Pickens is what you‘re doing now, come on.

MATTHEWS: No, I‘ve been watching the war in Iraq is what I‘ve been watching. As long as you say to me before we leave tonight that the president has to get approval from Congress before making war on Iran.

Notice that Tony Snow never really addressed the issue. He just dismissed the mere idea as silly. But, as the title of this blog indicates, they did the same thing before we invaded Iraq.

Senators are concerned as well, with Sen. Biden using his Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearings yesterday to deliver a warning to Condoleeza Rice, stating that an attack on Iran would "generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate, I predict to you." And freshmen Senator Webb said the following-

Sen. Webb: And this is a question that can be answered either very briefly or through written testimony, but my question is: Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take
unilateral action against Iran in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval?

Secy. Rice: Senator, I'm really loathe to get into questions of the president's authorities without a rather more clear understanding of what we are actually talking about. So let me answer you, in fact, in writing. I think that would be the best thing to do.

Sen. Webb: I would appreciate that.

Another dodge. Sen. Webb shouldn't expect that response anytime soon.

And then there was this news yesterday-

U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.

The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats...

Whether or not this was an official consulate is being heavily debated. Ominous either way.

Whatever is going on, I hope these latest developments remind the Congress of what kind of President we are dealing with... one who is out of control, and is quickly becoming as great a danger to our security as those he seeks to eradicate. What are they willing to do about it? That remains to be seen.

[UPDATE (1/13): New info shows President Bush personally authorized that raid.]