Obama and McCain both compare their plans to the current tax rates, i.e. if we don't allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. From that perspective, so I've been led to believe, Obama's plan increases revenue, while McCain's decreases it, but not by as much.

You might think that analysis is bullshit, and honestly I kind of agree, but it's not so much a lie as a misleading interpretation. All sides have told much bigger lies than that by now.

OTOH, Goulsbee and Furman say "Overall, Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP", so maybe I'm full of crap here.

Posted at August 15, 2008 5:41 PM in response to Contradicting independent expert analysis, Obama campaign claims he will reduce the budget deficit

I thought about this some more, and I suddenly realized how we're all getting this exactly wrong.

Barack Obama's heritage and story is something he should be proud of. It's inspired millions of Americans, black and white. But the Obama campaign has allowed Obama to be put into a defensive crouch--it's internalized the racism, and let the enemy turn his asset into a liability.

Worst of all, by internalizing what the worst of Americans think of him, he's betraying a lack of faith in the rest of us. Sure, America isn't perfect--but we're not all just cartoon caricatures clinging to guns and xenophobia. I think if he ran commercials on the healing the trans-Atlantic divide, and he started, say, telling stories about his childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia, Americans might respond more positively than a lot of us are giving them credit for.

Moreover, deep down, Obama the person knows this. He sees thronging crowds of white people in the midwest all the time. But somehow his campaign keeps acting like he's got something to hide.

His campaign needs to be more, well, audacious. It needs to actually spell out that, yes, we need to raise taxes because we have important national priorities. And he needs to come out and say--loudly, repeatedly, unashamedly--that his dad was from Kenya and he grew up in Indonesia. Maybe even make some visits to both those countries.

The really courageous act in the face of a cultural bully like McCain is not retaliation and defensiveness, but love and confidence. It's not easy. Obama may very well win the election without pulling this off, and no one should begrudge him that. But I really miss the pride and love of the 2004 convention speech, and I really doubt I'm the only one.

Posted at August 2, 2008 10:24 PM in response to Bad News Folks: The Uppity Negro Charge Is Winning It for McCain

Yeah, seriously. This is a no brainer. Just present the essential policy tradeoff. McCain wants to cut taxes for the rich. That means higher deficits, crumbling infrastructure, crappy schools, insecure health care, and less research on alternative fuels.

It's not like McCain is hiding this--he's constantly emphasizing that he wants to cut taxes/shrink revenue. Obama should just remind people what less revenue means.

Posted at August 2, 2008 7:12 PM in response to Bad News Folks: The Uppity Negro Charge Is Winning It for McCain

Something doesn't have to be unconstitutional for it to allow violations of the Constitution. A presidential pardon or amnesty can be for any reason at all, for example.

Posted at July 3, 2008 3:35 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

By choosing to make a big deal about this one issue and collecting Obama's statements (which will undoubtedly get picked up and amplified by the MSM, just like the FISA group on mybarackobama.com did), you certainly aren't HELPING Obama get elected, which is presumably what we all want. (If you don't, why are you here?)

I'd like Barack Obama to win, but I'd like him to know there's a price to selling out the Constitution. I'll still vote for him today. If he pulls something like this again, no way. Emphasizing the centrist parts of his persona like welfare reform or faith-based initiatives is one thing, but baldly flipping on an issue where he could have made a difference (if he had made clear to Pelosi and Reid that he wasn't going to let this issue go away quietly, they wouldn't have scheduled votes as they did) is unacceptable.

Look, you folks need to understand how the game works now. Obama is now positioning himself as the arbitrator, the grand conciliator between right and left. If the left declares that they will stand by him no matter what, he will always go right. I will support him for now, conditionally. Anyone not wanting to get screwed more than necessary better be similarly conditional about this.

If you just want to discuss the issue, you can start by answering this fellow TPMCafe denizen's question.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/serious-question-really-why-is.php

The comments to the question do a pretty good job of answering it, actually.

Posted at July 3, 2008 3:30 PM in response to A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA

Do I want a perfect Fourth Amendment? Of course. But I have to ask you -- and this is from as avowed a liberal as you're ever going to find -- are there any ways you can put forward that can help us avoid terrorist attacks?

So it was okay to wiretap MLK Jr. because there wasn't any other way to bring down the Iron Curtain?

The first step is realizing that this entire frame is bullshit--the threats we face today are radically smaller than those we faced in earlier times.

As others mention, the problem is not the intelligence agencies lack of information, but a lack of capacity to connect the dots. Glutting the agencies with more data will just make the problem worse.

We could end torture and respect the civil rights of Muslims so that they might be willing to cooperate with us in finding bad actors. If Sunni Iraqis of all people are willing to cooperate with us in fighting AQI after we removed a Sunni leader from power, that demonstrates that Muslims can be worked with, that the worst actors can be isolated.

We could build educational and employment opportunities for unemployed youths around the world, and deprive radicalism of its source of labor, or at least demonstrate the sincerity of our intentions.

We could end plans to build permanent bases in oil producing Mid East states and deprive the terrorists of a valuable propaganda tool.

And most of all we should stand for the principles of freedom at all times, not just when it's convenient and safe--not just when the person claiming the rights is a white Christian. There are aspects of our sexualized culture that offend them, but which we insist we must tolerate because of the First Amendment. But if we now toss aside the Fourth Amendment because Muslims are scary, what lesson is there for Muslims to learn but that the Constitution and the liberal freedoms of the Englightenment are nothing but a hypocritical sham--in full force when a Christian claims them, but tossed aside when a Muslim claims them. If you expect Muslims to respect our supposed land of freedom and liberty, then you'd better act like you respect those principles.

We could win the national security argument, but we'd have to actually try to win it. Obama promised to do that. I hope he comes to his senses.

Posted at June 29, 2008 12:30 PM in response to Obama Social Networking Group Seeks to Apply Pressur on FISA

Oh, great news, the Fourth Amendment isn't violated by warantless wiretapping. Fantastic. I guess we don't need to pass retroactive immunity, then. Oops, they still want retroactive immunity? Well, I guess that indicates people denying that this violates the Fourth Amendment don't know what they're talking about.

It's pretty simple what's happening here. Pelosi, Reid, et. al. want to cave on this because they think it means the issue will go away. If Obama, the nominee, indicated that he wasn't going to let this go away, then they would have no reason to go along with the compromise.

Obama's cave on FISA is disgusting for exactly the same reason McCain's cave on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was disgusting--because the realities of political pressure and signaling massively inflated their power on a specific issue, but they chose to trade that for political convenience.

At least McCain's sell out actually worked--it was the only way he could win the GOP nomination. Obama's sell out is not only a flat out flip flop of his earlier promise to support filibuster any bill containing retroactive immunity, but most of the public opposes warrantless wiretapping and this just makes him look Kerry-esque. It demonstrates not just a lack of resolve but a lack of political strategy. He's not just a sell-out, he's a stupid sell out.

Just because you choose to sell out doesn't mean anyone's buying.

Posted at June 29, 2008 12:11 PM in response to Obama Social Networking Group Seeks to Apply Pressur on FISA

You can criticize Obama for not being black enough and threatening the black narrative, if you like, but a much larger defeat for the black narrative would be someone if Bill Clinton were rewarded for implying that the voices of South Carolina do not matter because Jesse Jackson won there twice. If that's not removing megaphones for the Jesse Jacksons of the world, I don't know what possibly could be. You can complain about Obama's treatment of Wright and the far more radical (be honest!) Farrakhan, but Hillary Clinton's remarks on those two figures have been far harsher than Obama's. You can get angry about Obama's praise of Ronald Reagan, but that praise is obviously intended as rebuke not of progressivism but of Bill Clinton's "End of Big Government" triangulation. (THAT is what the mandate shrillness is about--that any progressive dare have the gall to suggest that the Clintons underdelivered on their promises in the 1990s.)

In other words, I understand how someone who wrote this piece can get mad at Obama, but there is no possible way to consistently believe the things written here and vote for Hillary Clinton instead--because on everything Professor Loury mentions here, both Clintons have been worse.

Posted at March 31, 2008 2:31 PM in response to Losing the Narrative

"1) Control of congress. Pay attention to down-ticket effects. If McCain wins the GE, Republicans would gain control of one or both houses of Congress. They wouldn't get a veto-proof majority, but who needs one with McCain as president? Dangerous, because:"

I'm not sure what I'd do, but if I did decide to boycott the presidental vote, I'd definitely vote for a Dem in Congress. Republicans are unlikely to gain control of either house whoever wins the GE. McCain will be stuck dealing with Democratic majorities.

On the other hand, if Clinton governs the way she acts now, you can darn well bet Republicans will perform pretty well in the 2010/2012 elections. Meaning, a vote for Hillary today is a vote for Republican domination in the future--which is bad for all the reasons you list. In fact, worse--McCain has actually been louder complaining about signing statements than Clinton or Obama. Given his torture flip flop I don't think that counts for much, but it does mean that any GOP president who wins in 2012 would likely be worse.

The pragmatics of the situation seem cloudier to me than they do to you. And the ethics do as well--I'm not sure it's morally obligatory to participate in a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil from rising.

Posted at March 23, 2008 7:01 PM in response to Why I can't vote for Hillary

I definitely think McCain would support worse policies than Senator Clinton, but I can't see a plausible scenario where he literally destroys the country or removes our right to argue. I think if you look above, most people are arguing that a Clinton defeat sets up better scenarios in 2012 and onwards. Maybe that's right, maybe it's wrong, but it's a completely pragmatic argument.

Posted at March 23, 2008 8:52 AM in response to Why I can't vote for Hillary