Yesterday, several major news outlets reported that Obama is planning to devote about 40% of the upcoming stimulus package to tax cuts for businesses and middle-class Americans. The vast majority of reporting on this news has focused on this move as an effort to increase bipartisan support for the plan.
Also, reaction to Richardson's announcement that he will not be Commerce Secretary. So, who is the replacement? One columnist is pushing John Kerry.
And, Tim Kaine at the DNC has prompted hardly any reaction at all. Did everyone see this coming?
More details are emerging about Obama's stimulus plans, even though we now know that a package will most likely not pass through Congress by the time of the Inauguration:
President-elect Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan will propose business and middle class tax cuts of about $310 billion dollars, or 40 percent of the package, a senior Democratic aide said on Sunday.
Reading through the morning headlines, I was struck by how many are focusing on the tax cuts as a means to win Republican support.
From the Wall Street Journal:
President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are crafting a plan to offer about $300 billion of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, a move aimed at attracting Republican support for an economic-stimulus package and prodding companies to create jobs.
From Bloomberg News:
Making tax cuts such a large part of the stimulus may help win support from congressional Republicans.
From Reuters:
President-elect Barack Obama, seeking to drum up support from both political parties, plans to propose up to $310 billion in tax cuts for businesses and the middle class as part of his massive economic stimulus package, senior Democratic aides said on Sunday.
From the New York Times:
Although some tax cuts were always expected to be included in Mr. Obama’s economic package, his team disclosed the scope and some details of the plans on Sunday at a time when Republicans have begun voicing criticism of what they describe as an open-checkbook approach to spending.
Frankly, I don't want a stimulus plan that appeals to Republicans. I think their economic philosophy has been pretty well discredited over the last eight years and was repudiated in the last election, in which voters were overwhelmingly concerned about the economy.
My question is this: is Obama devoting 40% of the stimulus plan to tax cuts because it is the best thing to do for the economy or because he wants bipartisan support for this proposal? I'm not implying that Obama would not do what is in the best interests of the economy, but how many concessions are we willing to make to get a few more Republicans on board?
Obama strategists tell Politico that they are focusing on what works:
Obama strategists say he wants to get 80 or more votes in the 100-member Senate, and the emphasis on tax cuts is a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support.
But officials say the tax cuts will be based on historical and empirical evidence of what works, not ideology. Rather, the targeted tax cuts will be designed to stimulate job growth in the private sector and help middle class families, the officials said.
80 votes, huh?
::::::
Josh Marshall is also wondering why there is such a focus on Republican support:
I'm going to dig more into the details on this tomorrow. But this is starting to sound like a pretty big chunk of the stimulus bill is aimed at garnering GOP support.
Edward Glaeser, a columnist for the Boston Globe, thinks that tax cuts should be directed towards lower-income Americans, in the form of payroll tax cuts. The part that concerns me is the potential business tax cuts. Republicans and business leaders are encouraged about the tax cuts, which is enough of a red flag for me.
::::::
I thought it was pretty unlikely that a package would be approved by Congress by January 20th, but not impossible. The most important task is to design a stimulus program that will work, not just put something out there for the sake of doing something. Of course, at the same time, Congress can't ignore that this is a rather urgent situation. Paul Krugman has another one of his completely depressing op-eds in the New York Times this morning:
The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.
Krugman's nightmare involves a plan that is watered-down to get it through Congress and is not big or bold enough to help the economy. Republicans aren't likely to support the bold plan that is needed:
More broadly, after decades of declaring that government is the problem, not the solution, not to mention reviling both Keynesian economics and the New Deal, most Republicans aren’t going to accept the need for a big-spending, F.D.R.-type solution to the economic crisis.
::::::
With Bill Richardson out of the running for Commerce Secretary, Barb Shelley at the Kansas City Star wonders if maybe John Kerry will be next in line:
You'd think Obama owes Kerry something, since it was Kerry's selection of Obama to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that vaulted Obama onto the national stage.
And, the chances of the Democrats losing a Senate seat from Massachusetts are almost nil.
Kerry for commerce. It seems like a natural.
Reuters speculates that the open position could be filled by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sibelius, Scott Harris, managing partner of the Washington DC law firm Harris, Wiltshire and Grannis, or Leo Hindery. I still don't understand why a high-profile politician, like Richardson or Sibelius, would even want to be Commerce Secretary in the first place. It is not a high-level Cabinet position and seems like kind of a political dead end. Most cabinet positions do, in my opinion, except maybe State and Defense.
::::::
Steve Benen at Washington Monthly says the Richardson announcement is all much ado about nothing:
I suppose the RNC and Fox News will try to raise a fuss, but in general, I suspect most of the political world won't care much at all. It's no doubt annoying to the transition office -- some vetters will get a stern talking to -- but in the bigger picture, Richardson's withdrawal seems like little more than a speedbump.
Chris Cillizza points out that each of the last three Presidents have also had at least one cabinet appointee step aside before being confirmed, including George W. Bush, Clinton and George H.W. Bush. So what's the big deal?
::::::
"Sources" are telling Politico and ABC News that Richardson may not have been as forthcoming as the transition team would have liked:
Sources tell ABC News that officials on the Obama Transition Team feel that before he was formally offered the job of commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was not forthcoming with them about the federal investigation that is looking into whether the governor steered a state contract towards a major financial contributor.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post editorial board thinks Richardson made the right decision, even though it is an unpleasant - but not unusual - embarrassment.
::::::
Nate Silver wonders why there is so little reaction to the news that Tim Kaine will be taking over as chairman of the DNC. His reaction:
My first reaction is that this is all very ... predictable. Kaine was facing a very challenging set of circumstances if he wanted to continue to hold elected office: Virginia has an unusual law that prevents governors from serving consecutive terms (although Kaine could, theoretically, run again in 2013), and meanwhile, both of Virginia's Senate seats are now filled by Democrats, and relatively young ones at that.
Nate also mentions that he thinks Kaine is a "pretty good fit" for the job at the DNC. I am also wondering why there is such muted reaction to this. Did everyone see it coming? Too much other news with Richardson, Burris, Blagojevich, Gaza, etc? What is Howard Dean going to do now?
::::::
The Los Angeles Times looks at a new law in California that may undermine public access programming:
For decades, public access programming on cable television has provided a virtually free forum for community activists and aspiring entertainers, for preening star wannabes as well as serious-minded political watchdogs.
But in Los Angeles and across California that forum began crumbling last week, a development that advocates say will strip ordinary citizens of a valuable 1st Amendment platform.
A provision of a law passed by the Legislature in 2006, which took effect Thursday, allows cable television providers the option of dropping their long-standing obligation of providing free studios, equipment and training to the public. In return, providers must pay a substantial annual fee and continue to provide a minimal number of public education and government channels.
Time Warner has already closed 12 studios that provided space and equipment to 11 community channels in Los Angeles. The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA) was originally passed in order to make it easier for the phone companies to enter the cable television market. Some 20 other states have passed similar legislation.
::::::
Finally, has anyone picked up the new book, Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating? It was just released last week, but looks like it may be similar to Michael Pollan. Laura Miller at Salon has a review.