I hope the WH pays him well. 

Corporate America certainly will just as soon as he's sick of answering Helen Thomas's questions.

Posted at November 1, 2005 4:32 PM in response to Scott on the Rack

Full disclosure:  I'm a CPA with a master's degree in taxation, and therefore have a vested interest in the tax code retaining mind-numbing levels of complexity...

That said, I do believe that simplifying the individual tax code is a very worthy goal, both practically and politically.  But, the devil is always in the details.  Much like the social security system, I think the existing tax code should simply be tweaked to make it more straightforward for the 95% of this country that doesn't have to deal with 99% of the tax code.

However, the Wyden plan concerns me a bit.  From a purely political perspective, titling it a "flat tax" plan makes me very nervous.  I am fundamentally opposed to a strict flat tax system because by definition, it precludes the use of the US tax system to encourage (or discourage) certain policy goals.

There is plenty of merit to the home-mortgage interest deduction, for example, because it uses federal tax policy to encourage home ownership, which I think everyone agrees is an admirable goal and worthy of government subsidy.  The AMT (although long overdue for adjustment) also achieves an admirable (to me) policy goal -- ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax, no matter how rich the taxpayer or how expensive his/her CPA.

Any fundamental change to the US tax code will undoubtedly create big winners and big losers.  Thus, understanding the details is vital.

Posted at October 27, 2005 5:13 PM in response to Tax Reform

You can't run the government of the US when you centralize all the power in the hands of personnel who are nationally unqualified or pure theoreticians.

Goes back to Kevin Drum's excellent analogy of the "CEO President", i.e. problems are solved and progress is made by the simple act of delegation.  No accountability, no responsibility, overreliance on PR.... the same qualities that make crappy managers also seem to perfectly describe the Bush admin.

Posted at October 27, 2005 4:47 PM in response to Peggy Noonan's Stump Speech for Dems

Posted at October 27, 2005 4:37 PM in response to The Marriage Canard and Valerie Plame

Obivously, '08 is quite a while from now.  If things continue the way they have been, I have a hard time believing that any Repub intimately associated with Bushco is going to have much of a shot at the nomination.  To me, the significant trend is evidence of splintering within the fabulously loyal GOP... I mean, it's only a matter of time until the few remaining grownups in the Republican party decide to regain control and salvage their party.  I think that fact, more than any besides maybe his health, is going to keep Cheney out.  Frankly, I suspect things will be so screwed up in the country by 2007, that electing the guy who made most of it happen, seems very unlikely to me.

My guess is, the GOP will look to a governor for a pick.  Don't know enough to suggest who might be a contender though....

Posted at August 11, 2005 6:28 PM in response to Cheney '08?

And at the Springfield GOP Headquarters, Mr. Burns opens the meeting with: "Welcome fellow Republicans. To start on new business, brother Hibbert will read a report on our efforts to rename everything after Ronald Reagan."
      Hibbert: "All Millard Fillmore schools are now Ronald Reagan. The Mississippi River is now the Mississippi Reagan."
      Burns: "Who will we put up for young Wilcox's congressional seat."
      Krusty: "Gentlemen, I am your candidate. There's just one thing. Are you guys any good at covering up youthful, middle aged indiscretions?"
      Burns: "Are these indiscretions romantic, financial or treasonous?"
      Krusty: "Russian hooker, you tell me."
      Burns: "We'll say you were on a fact finding mission."
      Hibbert: "Congratulations Krusty, you're running for Congress."

(from "Krusty for Congress")

Posted at August 5, 2005 5:02 PM in response to Good for Tom Davis (R-VA)

If I were a member of the evangelical right, I'm not sure whether I would be satisfied with simply trusting Bush's judgement on Roberts (which is the typical defense as to why it's ok for the White House to stonewall the Senate).  Enough has come out over the past few weeks to at least suggest a risk that Roberts could very well be the next Souter, and the Dobsonites are still smarting from Frist's latest flip flop on stem cells.  As many have pointed out, Bush certainly could have picked someone with more obvious Dobsonian credentials.

My point is that if this exercise were really about thoroughly evaluating Roberts as a candidate for the Supreme Court, there is enough incentive for both sides to want a full release of documents, notwithstanding the Constitutional responsibilities.  I also get the sense that if Roberts turns out to be a moderate conservative after a full and thorough hearing, that his nomination would enjoy some bipartisan support and probably not be that controversial.

I see this as a power play, pure and simple.  It's the same MO from this White House.  They're simply withholding the information because they think they can, and no one can do anything about it.  The question is, will Democrats allow themselves to be railroaded yet again?  There is certainly enough at stake here to force the issue.

Posted at August 5, 2005 4:44 PM in response to Friday afternoon non-surprise

From a political standpoint, I think there is plenty of mileage to be earned by hammering the fact that the Bush approach is a complete failure, highlighting the gross incompetence that got us to this point, etc.  It doesn't necessarily have to become whose acronym sells more voters, since the unfortunate tragedies continue to serve as a reminder not that "we're still at war" but that what we've been doing the past few years doesn't seem to be working.  This is a pretty simple observation that I think most people understand.

I also don't think that the Dems answer necessarily has to to be 2,000 words long... focus on fighting terrorism primarily through law enforcement, sharing of information between agencies (which is another BushCo failure, despite the posturing the contrary), and investing in top-notch intelligence and talent.  It has to start with the fundamental recognition that our enemy is not state-sponsored; therefore, the best response is probably not state-targetted.  Hence, the prosecution of the Iraq war was the single greatest mistake made with regard to combatting terrorism.

The BushCo problem has always been that this threat can't be war-gamed on a PlayStation.

Posted at August 4, 2005 5:17 PM in response to Behind the Acronyms . . .

Not sure if I buy the "contrived fit" theory.... Novak has been spinning BS about his role in Plamegate for two years; why would he clam up all of a sudden?

I'm most intrigued by the last thing he said, "Just let it go."  Let what go?  Given the context of the discussion and Carville's mild snark, that comment seemed out of place.  Henry hadn't yet asked any questions about Plamegate, so.... let what go?

Sign me up for the "snapped under the pressure" camp.  Life in Novak's shoes can't be too much fun these days.

Posted at August 4, 2005 5:00 PM in response to Novak

yes, it "could have been worse".  Does that mean this guy gets a pass simply because as potatohead just mentioned, he's "smart" and "decent"?  The Dems cannot cow to this kind of rhetoric.

Posted at July 19, 2005 6:36 PM in response to Supreme Indirection, Part II