In two must-read posts (the first one here and the second one), Digby reminds us that not long ago, Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and White House. The rhetorically-gifted President had won with promise to put people first by enacting progressive change: Universal Health Coverage and progressive taxes based on energy that would conserve fuel and provide incentives to reduce greenhouse gases. No Republicans would vote for these ideas, but since Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, we should not have needed Republicans to enact what was right and in the national interest (though against the Republican Party’s interests).
But some Democrats thwarted the Democratic Agenda.
Just in case anyone’s forgotten or are too young to remember –the former Democratic senator from Oklahoma and current Unity 08 poobah, David Boren, is an egomaniac who stabbed Bill Clinton in the back repeatedly when he was trying to pass his economic plan in 1993. (As did Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn, among others.) After months of kissing Boren’s ass and treating him like the perfumed prince he believes he is, Boren went on “Face The Nation” and announced that he just couldn’t support his president.
He had already insisted on getting rid of the proposed BTU tax and wanted a “compromise” that would have dropped all the new taxes on the wealthy and make up the money by capping Medicare and Medicaid and getting rid of Clinton’s planned EITC for the poor. He, like Bob Kerrey and many others, were obsessed with “fixing” social security and other “entitlements” in order to cure the deficit.
But there was one thing he believed in more than anything else:
From The Agenda:
Gore asked, what did Boren want changed in the plan in order to secure his vote?
Like a little list? Boren asked.
Yeah, Gore said.
Boren said he didn’t have little list. Raising the gas tax a nickel or cutting it a nickel or anything like that wouldn’t do it, he said. He had given his list to Moynihan like everybody else in the Finance Committee. It was over and done with, and Boren likened himself to a free agent in baseball. “I have the luxury of standing back here and looking at this,” Boren said. His test would be simple: Would it work? If not, it didn’t serve the national interest.
Gore said he was optimistic for the first time.
Boren shot back. “There’s nothing you can do for me or to me that will influence my decision on this matter.” he added. “I’m going to make it on the basis of what I think is right or wrong.”
Nobody responded for a moment. Clinton then stepped in. Why didn’t Boren think it was in the national interest? he asked.
It wasn’t bipartisan, Boren answered. To be successful in this country it had been demonstrated over and over, an effort had to be bipartisan, Clinton had even said so himself, Boren pointed out. Even most optimists, Boren said, thought they were still not even halfway there.
No Republican voted for the plan. Clinton knew that he would never get any Republicans to vote for a plan to raise taxes on the wealthy after the handful who had done so in 1990 were burned at the stake by the conservative movement. But sure, they would have voted for a “compromise” that raised no taxes, dropped all investment in infrastructure, any help for the poor and capped spending on the sick to cure the deficit. That’s bipartisanship, village-style.
More Americans would have been much better off if Clinton could have enacted the agenda he campaigned on. (And back then Bill Kristol was telling the GOP if Universal Healthcare passed, the Democrats would have a lock on another generation of voters) But the progressive agenda was thwarted by Democrats who praised “bipartisanship.” Whichever Dem gets elected this 2008, they will need the votes of a handful of conservative Dem Senators and maybe even Joe Lieberman’s vote to get progressive legislation enacted. The next President can’t let these Democratic Senators defect, and by default freeze America in Republican policies for 4 more years.
ArchPundit of Illinois puts his finger on what leaves me uneasy about voting for Obama in the primary. One of Obama’s faults could leave us without actual results of change, if he’s President.
What are Obama’s faults?
…
I tend to disagree with the common narrative that [Obama] is too conciliatory-towards Republicans, but I think he does go out of his way to excuse bad Democratic votes. I think that’s why we haven’t heard enough out of him on issues like FISA–he has some sense of loyalty to the party that is overdone. I don’t worry about him being weak in front of Republicans–I think he’s much stronger than people realize when it comes to partisan warfare. Where I think he is weak is when he goes up against other Democrats and he doesn’t press them hard enough to do the right thing.
He may bring the Democratic Party more voters by talking about bipartisanship, and that’s fine. But when the national rhetoric of “bipartianship is a virtue” gets built up too much, “bipartisanship” becomes an easy figleaf for sticking America with Republican legislation & policies that most Americans didn’t want, but a few conservative Democratic Senators do want.
If Obama makes history by winning in 2008, I worry that he will repeat the history of 1993 and 1994, by not pushing Democratic Senators to do the right thing.
Voting present, instead of yes or no.
The Republicans are filibustering everything in sight, a clear indication that they’re far more interested in political points than in advancing programs in our national interest. Their 360-degree turn on filibusters doesn’t bother their conscience in the least.
<
p>Virtually to a man, they continue to back Bush on unpopular issues like Iraq and privatizing social security.
<
p>They’ve politicized everything in sight, from elections to requiring creationist books at the Grand Canyon while prohibiting rangers from correctly stating canyon’s age. Everything.
<
p>The level of corruption they tolerated within their ranks was unprecedented.
<
p>Moderate Republicans have largely been driven from the party.
<
p>We can negotiate with Iran, we can negotiate with Republicans. And I trust them about the same.
<
p>I hope Obama’s just kidding when he talks about bipartisanship.
Mike – these ‘unpopular’ ideas, like privitizing social security, are not liked on BMG – but MILLIONS of people DO think it’s a good idea.
<
p>I’m not getting into a list-posting thing again about corruption in parties (Anything you can do, I can do worser…) – there are unworthy people in both parties; always have been, always will be.
<
p>Bipartisan means compromise. If you cannot compromise, if your untainted ideal must be purer than fresh mountain air – then you’re right, we’ll always have deadlock.
<
p>Back in 2006, I caught heck for suggesting that your Victory Margins were razor thin, and you might not like some of your new pro-life, pro-gun Democrats much, and that you would NOT sweep all conservative ideas into the sea – and that has proven correct, nonetheless.
<
p>Not everyone in America wants progressive ideas on a silver platter. Never have, never will. That’s why we’ve done a 180 instead of a 360 on filibusters! :~)
I’ll donate $20 to the Republican Party.
You’ll donate $400 to the Democratic Party.
<
p>Okay, let’s compromise, and average it out. You donate $190 to the Democratic Party.
<
p>That’s the type of ‘bipartisan compromise’ that’s being offered. Anyone we could compromise with is no longer a Republican (Lincoln Chaffee, Mike Bloomberg, half the Kansas state government) or disgusted with the whole operation (Christine Todd Whitman).
It really bugs me when people defend the GOP with the “everyone does it” excuse. The Republican party has been far more corrupt and tolerated much more corruption within their ranks than the Democrats. Personally, I think this is because as a party, they dislike and disrespect government.
<
p>The last time I looked into this, the ratio of corrupt Republican officials to Democrats was 5:1.
http://richardhowe.com/?p=527
<
p>The solution isn’t to compromise with Republicans, the party that’s willing to tamper with elections and bury science (global warming, evolution, stem cell research) in order to advance their agenda. You just can’t sit down to play cards with people who cheat. The answer is to deal them out.
<
p>Though Republican officials are more easily corrupted, there’s also the problem of corporate Democrats and Republicans. We have to work aggressively to reduce the influence of money on our system.
<
p>Edwards gets this.
<
p>Joel, I don’t agree that’s a reasonable representation of what the average Bill Clinton backer thought she was voting for, if that’s what you mean.
<
p>The #1 message was “the economy stupid” (“don’t forget health care” was a throw-in, and it wasn’t universal, and it wasn’t specific).
<
p>And I don’t remember him running on “We need to raise gases on gas.” In fact, I think that’s how he tried to frame Tsongas. Maybe I recall wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
His goal, as I hear him, is not to compromise with the Bush administration and get played for a fool. Do you really think he and his supporters (like me, incidentally) are that naive. Go ahead and say so if you do, but explain to me how change can be accomplished with 5-15% of the electorate: the percentage of the general population that, based on poll results, supports, let us say, John Edwards.
<
p>Obama’s goal is to build a coalition that can change our dreadful status quo for the better. That is the only way change has ever happened in U.S. history — by coalition — with one exception that I am aware of: the period during and immediately after the Civil War when a huge chunk of the country was excluded from the Congress. That is not the situation we are in today.
But I do know that his language sounds very defeatist to me. It makes it sound like the Democrats are part of the partisan problem, when it’s the Republicans who aren’t willing to compromise or cross the island. The few that do are immediately scape-goated and/or condemned by the party. It ends up being a complete waste of time at best, or results in very, very bad legislation at worst (when Democrats cave).
<
p>
<
p>Have you missed the past 10-15 years? The Republicans have created “change” through the smallest of coalitions possible. Just because that change is change for the bad doesn’t mean it isn’t change.
<
p>Now, I’m not suggesting that the Democrats become a small-tent party. What I am saying is that if we demand a partisan strength and unity from Democrats, the populace will respond and we can grow a real, live, unified tent. Universal health care, policies that promote small d democracy or stop lobbyist influence and dozens of better bills for every day Americans is what we need to grow our tent, not defeatist democratic language that may get a President elected, but will do squat to either help our party in the long run or help foster the progressive movement.
If 5-15% of the electorate now supports Edwards, that’s because they legitimately have a half-dozen other choices (toting up Republican and Democratic candidates). Your implication is that, if elected, Edwards will begin his term in office with 85-95% against him. This is preposterous. if you figure half the country would be against him on 20 Jan 2009 just because he’s a Democrat, then you still have to account for the other 35-45%. The majority of these people will probably support whoever is in the White House as long as he/she is a Dem (what’s the alternative? McCain?), and I dare say some Republican moderates who care most about pocket-book issues would also like a President Edwards whose economic policies matched his campaign rhetoric.
<
p>Moreover, you and other Edwards-bashers keep talking about how his angry language will make him an effective leader if he’s elected. I have two responses to this:
<
p>1. It’s primary season. Everyone’s rhetoric is artificially overdone. For a savvy political observer such as yourself to ignore this truth just for the sake of badmouthing Edwards is disingenuous.
<
p>2. But I will grant that President Edwards is likely to be more fiery than President Obama or President Clinton, even adjusting for post-primary moderation. This is bad, it has been argued, because Americans are themselves optimists and will only stand for optimism. I think this argument completely ignores the fact that the president is a leader. I’m not saying the American populace is a tabula rasa on which its political leaders can write their own views and moods. But I do think the presidency is uniquely the sort of position from which somebody could actually change this purported insistence on optimism – specifically by uttering material truths about power and the economic relationships that underpin them, and by encouraging Americans to take stock of and challenge these relationships.
<
p>Anyway, building a coalition – which you say Obama wants to do – is a meaningless goal. It’s a non-goal, actually. It’s just one of many possible pathways to making policy. And if it is the pathway that history has tended to favor, I would submit that we are living through a fundamentally different era in politics than any before us – one defined not by an inclination or willingness to coalesce but rather by the entrenchment of political and economic power. This entrenchment is made safe by gerrymandering on the one hand and by the close relationship between money and politics*.
<
p>During the Bush 43 era, the most effective tool by far for loosening this entrenchment has been, of all things, criminal prosecution – of Lay, Skilling, Ebbers, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, et alia. This is not a state of affairs that I consider particularly healthy, but without the outing of these crimes we probably would have never seen Sarbanes-Oxley or The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (“Ethics Reform”). These are hallmarks not of negotiation but regulation – the government using its police powers – and they call into question the claims made by Obamaphiles that private interests have to be “at the table.” SOx has been weakened in recent years precisely because the SEC has returned under Chris Cox to a conciliatory, indeed an accommodationist, stance with business. Forced to decide between a conciliator and a regulator, I’ll choose the latter. Which means I choose Edwards.
<
p>*Bob, as the BMG editor who has endorsed Obama, can you please take some time to address substantially the questions that have been raised over the difference between what Obama says about lobbyists and campaign finance and what he actually practices? Your endorsement reads: “Obama has displayed a remarkable ability to weave the warp and weft of his fortune with the bright colors of victory.” What does that even mean?
<
p>Please. This issue has been reported on plenty – for your review I have helpfully included a link that summarizes the coverage, plus one more from today’s Chicago Sun-Times – and I think it deserves a thoughtful response from a prominent bully pulpit such as the BMG co-editorship.
Should read: “Moreover, you and other Edwards-bashers keep talking about how his angry language will make him an ineffective leader if he’s elected.”
Just a comment on SOX: Although the rationale behind SOX was to prevent Enron style accounting abuses, it really has created enormous problems for corporations and can reach levels of absurdity depending upon how implemented. It should probably be amended. I’m all for accountability, but it’s really pretty bad.
nor am I a corporate accountant, so I’ll defer to you on the content of SOx. My point was that the response to private-sector malfeasance wasn’t to play kissy-face with the malfeasors. It was to put them in their place.
so the government can put a malfeasor in his place, well, that’s just the price you pay.
you’re referring to?
that has to contend with the endless expense and red tape created by SOX.
<
p>The only ones who profit are big-firm corporate lawyers.
And we all suffer the needless expense of police, courts, and prisons because some people rob stores. What’s your point? We shouldn’t have laws or we shouldn’t enforce them?
<
p>I don’t know SOX in detail, but it was created in reaction to very real crimes which hurt a LOT of people. Greater transparency and audit-ability protects shareholders, and provides the confidence needed for a healthy market.
<
p>If companies could “opt-out” of SOX, or SEC regulations in general, how much money would you invest in them?
<
p>Billions
Cash would be better. I’ll send you the financials on a powerpoint slide when I get around to it, under our new relaxed reporting guidelines.
Billions of US cash flows directly to investment in China, and I’m pretty sure Sarbanes-Oxley nor SEC have much authority there.
the accounting firms profit mightily, even though it was their lax practices and incestuous “consulting” relationships that contributed to the Enron/WorldCom/etc problems in the first place.
is one of the best and most accurate comments I’ve read on BMG ever. SOX did very little to resolve the real problems and issues.
Were voted into office for that reason. If the people who elected them, the people, wanted progressive legislation, they would have voted for candidates who made that as their platform.
<
p>Instead of bitching about the legislators, why don’t you try to present your argument to the people and maybe change their minds? Don’t shoot the messenger. And they are messengers. Remember? THIS IS A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON BLAH BLAH BLAH nancy pelosi rambling.
not nationwide, and not in Florida in 2000. Conservatives used a dishonest SCOTUS decision and plenty of chicanery to get the legislation they wanted. You’re not convincing me, JoeTS, that there’s any virtue in keeping the basic policies of the Republicans in place.
Lets keep on pulling it…even after GWB won the popular and electoral vote in 2004. Going to have to try better than that, Joel.
and also giving them a 3 rating is low class in my opinion.
and I amend my rating.
Whether it’s phone jamming, targeted campaigns to disqualify legitimate voters, scare tactics, or simply discouraging voters by forcing long lines in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Republicans have systematically worked to keep non-Republicans from voting.
<
p>In the legislature, their tactics show contempt for representative government. They rushed through votes at odd hours, held the vote open for unprecedented periods when it suited them, put secret holds on legislation, offered financial aid for votes, threatened retaliation, and even added earmarks to bills AFTER they’d been passed. Oh yeah, they alternately hated filibusters or set new records using them.
<
p>They’ve worked systematically against an informed electorate, with tactics like gag orders on NASA and climate scientists, heavy alterations to studies and reports, huge delays on important intelligence on Iran, complete misrepresentation of intelligence on Iraq, funding for proven failures like abstinence only education, and distortions on certainty of evolution.
<
p>Republicans who didn’t go along were drummed out of the party. How many times have you heard “He’s not a real Republican?” Ask McCain supporters when he opposed torture, or Ron Paul supporters today.
<
p>Don’t sit down at the table with Republicans. Intellectually honest people who disagree with the Democratic platform have become independents. Current (remaining) Republicans view negotiation as weakness, and will negotiate dishonestly in order to exploit you.
People aren’t elected on the issues anymore. It’s all about message, support, money, IDs, GOTV… issues? No. People consistently want progressive legislation on national polls year in and year out, but unfortunately the average American can be easily swayed by message to vote against their best interests.
<
p>Luckily, the populace is quickly learning that the Republican message is a fraud, which is why the party will lose more seats this year, as well as the Presidency (in all likelihood).
If people got elected based on issues and policy rather than message and mindless blathering about hope and love, we probably wouldn’t have do-nothing Deval in office right now.
he was the first candidate to be unabashedly pro-Cape Wind. That’s clear policy, and our stances were aligned.
<
p>Is it built yet? Nope. Is that DP’s fault? Who knows. Did he get elected on just hope and love? Nope. I voted for him based on issues.
In part, you’re right. Deval Patrick has clearly shown that he’s not interested in being the governor he campaigned to be. While I never really was bought and sold on Obama (including when he had that ‘amazing’ DNC speach during Kerry’s election), I probably wouldn’t be as set against him if I didn’t feel so betrayed by Deval. Obama’s message is a lot like Deval’s, except not even delivered or sold as well.
<
p>That said, Deval’s message actually included a lot of policy. Cape Wind was probably what did it for me, as well.
is amazing. Betrayal is a very powerful word. The next time you come to d-town, send me a shout on facebook, I’ll buy you a drink.
Wow – great video of Kennedy. The only Dems talking fire (with vim and vigor) like that today are Gravel, Kucinich and the other guy, the one who came in second in Iowa, the one who earnestly gives a sh-t about all this, who is currently behind in the NH polls to Mr. RockStarHopePhenom and Ms. DayOneExperience.
Sure JFK opposed bipartisanship for its own sake, so do most people, but when the two choices are between compromising and getting something done or not changing any of your principles but losing I would rather get something accomplished.
<
p>I have argued this here before but there was widespread bipartisanship in WWII, during the Cold War, and before Vietnam became a mess on foreign policy. There was a bipartisan support of the New Deal before Ronald Reagan, the Republicans had ceded that issue to Democrats and actively supported it.
<
p>Kennedy and Johnson passed their Civil Rights Acts by in fact going over the wishes of the majority of their (predominately Southern) party and by getting most of their pro-civil rights votes from Republicans.
<
p>So JFK and LBJ played the bipartisan game and reaped great dividends for the nation, so did Truman and FDR. When the other side is unfair and has really god awful ideas definitely fight it and Obama is definitely saying he will fight when he has to in order to ensure what is right gets done. But Edwards would rather fight when he could instead compromise because he is a fighter first and foremost and is there to rally a left wing base to run the country, not unlike Bush and his base running the country, Obama wants to build a real governing coalition and that will in fact produce a sustainable and governing Democratic majority for years to come.
JFK didn’t pass much through Congress. LBJ got a lot through there, partly on the public opinion after JFK’s death, and partly through the popular movements such as the March on Washington.
<
p>The Republicans back then would split their votes. But since Gingrich took them over in 1993, the GOP has learned its greatest power lies in bloc voting. “Moderates” like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins or Gordon Smith (OR) or even Richard Lugar (IN) may talk moderately, but their votes always line up with the GOP when the chips are down. Disciplined voting ended their long held status as a Congressional minority. They’ve learned their lesson from history.
<
p>No matter which Democrat wins, the GOP will have only one road back to power: to make the Democrats look worthless. If many Republican voters switch to vote D this year, the only way the GOP can win them back is make Dem proposals fail. They know the press won’t publicize their obstructionism, because the press didn’t do it under Bill Clinton in 1993 and 1994, and in 2007, when the GOP broke the record for denying cloture, the press barely mentioned it.
<
p>The only course progressive will have to get the legislation they want is to pressure conservative Democrats to do the right thing. And Obama, according the Illinois equivalent of BMG is historically soft on that.
Don’t have time for a long post, but Johnson was a protege of Sam Rayburn.
<
p>As my grandmother proudly told me growing up “Speaker Rayburn knew where the bodies were buried and he gave Lyndon the map.”
<
p>I grew up across from the Johnson Space Center…
Do you think Coke Stevenson was not a tool of the oil bidness?
<
p>But to Lyndon Johnson’s credit, the more power LBJ got, the more liberal his actions became.
<
p>He made a ruinous mistake by puffing up nothing in the Gulf of Tonkin into a reason for war, but he did use his power to make sure that Federal law prohibited discrimination and Jim Crow, and to make sure that even the poorest kids in America could get a better education through our public schools. Food stamps helped assure that poor people could have somewhat decent nutrition. Lyndon Johnson helped more people rise out of the mire of poverty and prejudice than other presidents in recent decades.
at least anything that’s been remotely good for the American people?
<
p>I can think of a few examples of that bipartisanship…
<
p>The Iraq War resolution
<
p>The bankruptcy bill
<
p>The Patriot Act
<
p>Each and every bill to fund the war in Iraq
<
p>DOMA, DADT, blocking work place antidiscrimination bills, etc.
<
p>… all of these cases include Democrats crossing the isle to vote with Republicans. All of these cases have hurt average Americans, and in over 3,000 cases downright killing them. Your two choices are false choices because the kind of good bipartisanship that most everyone would want no longer exists. Currently-elected Republicans are completely incapable of such decency. The only ‘bipartisan’ legislation has resulted in is nefarious, crap laws that hurt everyday Americans every day.
<
p>Add to your list the bipartisan Medicare drug coverage and the original SCHIP bills. Both bipartisan, neither remotely good for the American people.
The drug coverage plan was a drug company and HMO giveaway that didn’t little to actually help the people who need it most (donut holes a mile wide). SCHIP was defeated because, guess what, Republicans – the same ones who view a willingness to compromise as a sign of weakness.
<
p>Thanks for making my point.
I think we have to clearly define what bi-partisanship is in order to have a fruitful discussion on the issues.
<
p>It cannot merely be having the other party vote with you or having your party vote with the other party.
<
p>So in my view the Iraq War was a Republican idea that was rubber stamped by scared Democrats. While waging that war many sensible Democrats and Republicans questioned the tactics and strategies used to win the peace, many of them questioned why the administration did not use the UN mandate, many of these reluctant warriors candidates Kerry, Dodd, Biden, and Clinton among them were ignored. That war while the vote was bipartisan was waged as a partisan affair on behalf of George Bush. Even now when bipartisan commissions like the Iraq Study Group and the Council of Foreign Relations have sensible policies to rid us of our roles as occupier in Iraq and end this senseless war they are ignored by a hyper partisan administration.
<
p>In my view bipartisanship is the antithesis of the Bush administration and clearly every Democrat who has worked with them has been thrown under the rail.
<
p>Now we have a choice this election, do we respond in kind and throw Republicans, even sensible ones, under the rail and ignore their advice when it occasionally is good merely because of the R next to their name, or do we work with them to produce change where we can.
<
p>I am not saying we and the GOP should become one party or even that we meet them in the middle, I am just saying that we should be far more willing to work with them where we can than they were willing to work with us these past 8 years because one of the reasons all of Bushs policies have failed domestically and abroad is because he went at it alone. Democrats cannot go it alone they need the whole country, including independents and Republicans.
Look at immigration, then. A few Republicans were willing to come a reasonable solution, with the majority of Democrats. Then, the Republican base goes in an uproar – the few Republicans willing to go along with it are demonized and get scared, run away from it. The Democrats then wasted their time on the hopes that Republicans could be trusted to be reasonable and bipartisan. Like I said, they can’t. Their party will quickly turn on anyone who’s somewhat reasonable, why else would the ‘moderate’ Republicans roll over on any tough vote? They’re kept in line!
<
p>The only way to get important legislation through is if we keep our DINOs in line on the most important issues, like health care, Iraq and hopefully a repeal of the bankruptcy bill, but that will only happen if we elect candidates who get that it’s not possible, with these Republicans, to be bipartisan. Otherwise, the Democratically elected President and party leaders will be mostly giving even the worst DINOs a largely free pass (hell, look at Joe Lieberman!).
My agreement wasn’t sarcasm. I was agreeing with you.
<
p>The drug/medicare giveaway is widely applauded by the elderly. Why not–it meant free prescriptions, even to those affected by the infamous donut hole. Even they are better off than before. I wasn’t a good Bill, because it was a giveaway from a program that was already in trouble.
<
p>RE: SCHIP. SCHIP wasn’t defeated. Recall my post i.e. the “original SCHIP” was passed with bipartisan efforts. Orin Hatch, et al. I’m surprised you don’t praise it.
Sorry for thinking you were being sarcastic. lol.
<
p>alleged “missile gap.” In fact both parties supported the Cold War (it was indeed bipartisan, because both parties agreed with the policy), but the “missile gap” didn’t exist.
<
p>Also, JFK was successful in brining down top marginal income tax ratss from 91% to 70% because virtually everyone agreed that the wartime (WWII) TMR of 91% was unfair.
<
p>Going up a bit, it appears that some commenter believes that the EITC (earned Income tax credit) was a BClinton idea. It was not. I was instituted in the early 1970s under a Republican administration (I forget whether it was still Nixon or Ford) to try to at least partially offset the first set of tremendous Social Security tax increases among the working poor. The EITC has been tinkered with ever since, but that was its origin.
My faith could be restored – I can’t fathom a reason why Hillary looks so solid so far tonight other than the fact that all the pundits were wrong and people identified with Hillary’s tears as I did: they were geniune and endearing.
<
p>Perhaps the public is ahead of the media yet again – this time on sexism. Whether she ends up winning or not, at least I’m glad to know that this country isn’t as sexist when it comes to the POTUS as I started to suspect.
i meant to post this on the open thread. oops.
… illustrated part of the problem in the introduction to his earlier book “The Great Unraveling”:
<
p>
<
p>I haven’t seen the GOP be “assuaged by limited concessions” since Reagan, unless “kicking and screaming bloody muder” counts as being “asuaged”.
<
p>I highly recommend reading the entire introduction.
… firefox’s spell checker didn’t kick in there. Oh well. Thats technology for ya.