Well, yes, I do think the Senate showdown mattered quite a bit. To begin with, just the confirmations that have already happened are a big deal. Assuming that the NLRB picks also go through (and I'll be very surprised if it doesn't hold through that point), it's even a bigger deal.
Then, if the deal holds through the 113th Congress, that means plenty of other exec branch nominations going through.
That Harry Reid was able to line up 53 Senators for a nuclear threat may also mean that Republicans will be even more selective about blocking judicial nominations. Note that they haven't been obstructing many of them at the Senate floor stage this year, anyway.
And then there's the broader issue: they eventually didn't go nuclear, which may mean that the filibuster in general is safer in the long run than it would have been otherwise.
So, yes, all of that mattered.
For something that doesn't matter? How about the efforts over on the House side to keep the IRS scandal going as a presidential scandal.
That's what I have, but it was a very newsy week, so: what did you think mattered this week?
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Plans like this are moving through GOP-run statehouses all over the country: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/06/26/top-1-fares-best-in-tax-plan.html
ReplyDeleteBig tax cuts for the wealthy, big tax increases on poor (mostly felt through increases in sales tax).
The GOP appears to be committing to this model. It's a big deal to people living in those states, and I think it's a big deal to the nation as this is becoming the GOP's policy platform.
It's their policy on the national level as well. Bloomberg had a story this week about House Republicans pressuring Dave Camp to move more in that direction: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-16/125-republicans-seen-pulling-camp-to-more-extensive-redo.html
DeleteIn the long run, though, I think it will hurt more than help. Jindal got creamed for advocating the same thing in his state earlier this year.
I agree that it will hurt more than help (I assume we're talking about electoral effects. Most definitely these policies will hurt economies and communities where they are enacted), but I don't think that the disaster that is regressive tax policy will prevent Republicans from taking over the White House and Congress, if fundamentals favor them in '14 and '16. That means that it's very possible a GOP Congress and President Cruz will sign into law a "flat tax" scheme that shifts the bulk of the tax burden onto the working poor and middle class in '17 or '18.
DeleteOn the other hand, maybe regressive tax policies are disastrous enough that they will damage the GOP at the state level. It will be interesting to see what happens in the North Carolina Senate election next year... the state-level GOP there is losing ground in opinion polls as they ram through a hard-right agenda (including a regressive tax), but '14 is "supposed" to see a right-leaning electorate. If the GOP loses those state-level elections in '14, it may indicate that hard-right statehouse policies are toxic enough to block the GOP's path to unified government control.
Being a Californian, I have to draw a connection to Pete Wilson's anti-immigration push in the 90's. He got the entire CA GOP on board with the plan... and the party has never recovered.
I think the news out of NY about the huge drop in insurance prices is really big news. The state is %6 of the population and this is really strong evidence that the basic incentives of Obamacare will work.
ReplyDeleteAlso looks like some progress with the Israelis and Palestinians at restarting some talks, this time in Washington.
I agree with longwalkdownlyndale that insurance price changes are big news. It will be interesting to see how the final numbers work out. More drops like in NY will be a huge boost for Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Jonathan that the IRS scandal is no big deal. I doubt it will hit Obama, but there are now links to William Wilkins, an Obama political appointee who may end up falling on his sword. It doesn't seem like a localized Ohio only thing, and I think both left and right should be upset that the IRS was (apparently) used for political purposes.
Um, Morgan? The IRS is supposed to scrutinize groups applying for tax advantages. They also have very little guidance in how to determine what to do with each group.
DeleteWhat we need is for Congress to actually do its job and govern.
Um, Anonymous? There is evidence that groups of a particular political persuasion, that just happened to be hostile to the current administration, were singled out for special scrutiny. And this may have been directed from the DC office of the IRS. *Everybody* should have problems with that. Lois Lerner dissembling, and then taking the 5th, doesn't help either.
DeleteAgree that Congress isn't governing. They are putting politics above the good of the country. Just like many defenders of the IRS.
The numbers of applicants targeted for aggressive IRS scrutiny I saw initially were something like 232 con/6 prog. I've read several pieces by progs claiming some giant shift in the storyline and that there may be no evidence that cons were specifically targeted, but I can't see where Cummings, et al, refer to different numbers. Are there different numbers?
DeleteThis IRS scandal isn't going to interest any who isn't already partisan. At the level of a regular person, these political groups (both left and right) aren't ones you'll have any sympathy for. They exist mostly to collect donations that go into the pockets of the top managers. The average folks can stomach donors being fleeced, about some of the organizations were trying for partial charitable status, and it won't make your average Jane happy if donors were trying to get fat tax deductions too.
DeleteThat's why this story is limited to politicos. It has no resonance outside of political circles.
One of the problems with the initial investigations is that Bush appointee J Russell George juked the stats at first. He wasn't interested in investigating whether or not there was excessive scrutiny, except as it related to conservative groups.
DeleteCurrently, the IRS is reopening the investigations to get a better picture on how liberal/progressive/occupy and other groups were handled. This doesn't mean that things were equal, or that they weren't, but rather that we'll have better stats for comparison before too long, now that the investigations aren't plainly partisan.
That's if a reasonable comparison is even possible. In the lists used for initial categorisation of groups seeking tax exempt status (sometimes referred to as the BOLO lists, but the term isn't specifically used), "Progressive" and "Tea Party" are indeed in two separate categories. "Historical" and Emerging," respectively. Newness may have featured more into this than ideology.
Again, this isn't to say that there's nothing, but so far, we've seen a lot of grand pronouncements of "Worse than Watergate" on incomplete data assembled by partisans. It's just good to keep that in perspective.
I would add that there is no reason to assume that equal numbers of Tea Party and Progressive groups were applying for tax-exempt status. This was the breakout and growth period of the Tea Party, and there may have been more of those groups being formed. Also, Tea Party groups might have been more likely than progressives to take cues from Rove's Crossroads GPS, which was the model for using 501(c)(4) groups as political organizations.
DeleteThe nomination showdown makes me wonder what is going to happen if Ginsberg needs to be replaced. Will Republicans issue a blanket filibuster on anyone, in the hopes that they will control the Senate in 2015? Or hold out until 2017, when their President might get to nominate someone to fill the vacant seat? Will Democrats counter with the nuclear option on SCOTUS nominees? All judicial nominees?
ReplyDeleteNow consider what would happen if Scalia needs to be replaced...
Their position is already clear, although you won't catch the GOP coming right out and saying it -- yet. "You need to nominate Americans, and not Democrats, to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Nominate an American, by which we mean a Republican, and then we'll talk."
DeleteWhen the argument becomes one not of which direction to take the country in, but who even counts as 'the country' in the first place, you're looking at a cold civil war, one with no shooting, yet.
Supreme court nominees are pretty high profile, so it'd take a lot of public relations work to justify the filibuster of a SCOTUS justice. Folks bring up Bork, but seem to forget the context. He was very conservative, Democrats controlled the Senate 55-45, and ultimately six Republicans crossed lines in order to vote against him (two democrats voted in favor).
DeleteMaybe this is naive, but I think it'd take a massive level of public (not just political) opposition to a candidate specifically to give the GOP cover for an outright filibuster of a qualified nominee, particularly if it was in attempt to push things beyond an election.
It's a lot easier to continue massive obstruction on an appeals or circuit judge who is eventually confirmed 97-0 or such when no one is watching. Everyone is watching the Supreme Court.
OK, I will be honest, I didn't even read the post. If this is the Dr. Bernstein I know, you were my mentor as a T.A. several years ago. If so, I hope you are doing well and a belated 'thank you.' I teach politics myself now and you were an inspiration.
ReplyDeleteIt's important that we're finally taking a closer look at the various "stand your ground" laws around the country. Can we now get away with murder?
ReplyDeleteAnd again for the progs who've missed the whole Zimmerman trial but still have strong opinions: the defense argued that Z had no ability to flee the scene and was being beaten by Martin who had mounted him. Most of the testimony matched this story, as did Z's injuries. The defense argued that it was straight-up self-defense and not SYG. Go read about SYG if you don't believe me, because the actual trial of Z had little to do with it.
DeleteUnless you weren't referring to Z, in which case, disregard.
I agree with the other Anon: the increased scrutiny of SYG matters after Zimmerman used it to get away with hunting and killing a teenager. It will be interesting to see if anger over those laws is enough to build political momentum for anti-SYG politicians.
DeleteWilliam Saletan wrote a detailed and embarrassed prog mea culpa about his ignorant rush to judgement regarding Zimmerman. A brief excerpt:
DeleteNew York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case.
There! Another prog educated!
From the jury instructions:
DeleteIf George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It's also worth noting that a case does not begin at the trial. SYG may well have had an impact on evidence collection as well as delays in charging Zimmerman. We know from other cases that SYG, often improperly understood by police and prosecutors (red flag right there...), has sometimes had a chilling effect, whereby they feel unable to fully investigate and prosecute. It's a law which confuses police, prosecutors, and judges, leading to inconsistent application, from a fatal gunfight between suspected gang members to people shot in the back. Tampa Bay Times has had a lot of reporting on it.
Just doesn't seem to be good law. However the ball gets rolling, reconsideration is wise.
What Fig said, if you want a good survey of how SYG affected the verdict Ta-Nehisi Coates did a good one at his blog: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/how-stand-your-ground-relates-to-george-zimmerman/277829/
DeleteAlso a quote from the Juror that did that interview with Anderson Cooper:
COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right
So yeah Stand Your Ground was a huge part of the trial.
What I'd like to see are laws mandating the collection of blood and urine samples from all individuals involved in a shooting, irrespective of whether it is deemed self defense.
DeleteIt was blatantly unfair that Zimmerman could have been hopped up on 'roids or meth, and the evidence was simply never taken.
JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right
DeleteThis description describes a standard self-defense. It would be the same in any non-SYG state. All that this shows is that the average prog is as ignorant of the basics as the average juror. SYG does not mean "right to defend oneself from serious bodily harm or death." Freaking duh!! And the entire case was built on the idea that Zimmerman could not flee.
Hey you guys!! There's this new site called wikipedia (sounds weird, right?!)
DeleteThey actually have an entry for the Martin shooting and it has a whole section on Stand Your Ground!! Cool, huh? It's great that after a year and a half, people finally have a place where they can learn how SYG applies to the case!
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
DeleteThe modern conservative movement dedicates enormous energy to arguing that terrible policy consequences are either not terrible or somehow not consequences of conservative-preferred policies. Meanwhile terrible conservative policies allow (and sometimes encourage) terrible things to happen.
BackYard is right. The defence never invoked stand your ground. The theory of the case, and what the juror describes to Anderson Cooper, is basic self defence law. Zimmerman's actions would have been justified in any state.
DeleteIt's things like this that make some of us suspect that liberals would go so far as to abolish any right to self defence.
You got to give modern conservatives props. They might never win an argument, but they always get the last word.
DeleteCongrats, fellas!
Anon, that was my first and only comment on the thread.
DeleteI make no apologies for expressing my opinion.
Can any prog commenting on SYG tell me the broad difference between SYG and non-SYG self-defense?
DeleteAnyprog? Anyprog?
Well when you explain what these tax-exempt groups are doing, most people say why the hell are political organizational groups getting tax exempt status?!!! Anyway, it doesn't matter for the 12th week in a row.
ReplyDeleteAgree about filibuster reform. McConnell is now going to face a challenge from the right, which could create some dramatic moments as he lurches hard right... it'll be interesting to see if this sets Harry Reid up to actually have to go nuclear or if they'll allow him to continue to work with McCain and the "Moderates".
Efforts in previously Federally scrutinized voting areas to pass strict voter ID laws matters and is totally pathetic... the 2nd time in 10 years the Supreme Court has made a horrible mistake that will matter.
Probably a few weeks late, but Immigration Reform's death matters, if only because as JB points out it would allow Republicans to distance themselves from the issue.
But Josh Marshall contends that Immigration Reform's failure mattered in a different way, that it will take down Rubio's presidential aspirations, which is pretty idiotic to me.
"Well when you explain what these tax-exempt groups are doing, most people say why the hell are political organizational groups getting tax exempt status?!!!"
DeleteI have to say the most frustrating thing about the IRS non-scandal scandal is how the idea that tax exempt nonprofits being subject to scrutiny is being treated as some Orwellian nightmare. Of course nonprofits should have be subject to being scrutinized if they are claiming tax exempt status! A nonprofit shouldn't be a hobby you run in your spare time, at least if you want people to be able to write off hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. And yes having to fill out a form with 50 questions is totally normal.
PLus 1 on this.
DeleteWhat mattered most this week will turn out to be President Obama's surprise statement in the White House press room. It's potentially the most important statement on racial issues since MLK in 1963. Time will tell if this is true, but that's my informed guess.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame so many folks just tuned it out reflexively. The President's words go a long way towards a kind of empathy, to understanding where people are coming from.
DeleteI often wonder how his big, bold rhetorical addresses will be remembered. I think you're right that 50 years or 100 years his rhetoric will be much more appreciated through the lens of history than it is through the crowd that covers news now. And more than almost any other time in his Presidency, I'd be surprised if he gave a flying fig about the absurd way the media covered this presser.
DeleteBut it wasn't a big, bold rhetorical address--that's partly why it is so important. It was its informal quality, the way he combined the personal and policy as in conversation. Important to different constituencies in different ways right now, but eventually I think a landmark moment.
DeleteI have to disagree that Obama's speech matters. Like Fig said, so many folks are reflexively tuning out, or going to their tribal bases, that it makes no difference, except to show how polarized the country is.
DeleteGingrich's reaction to Obama's first comments on the issue in March 2012 were a negative turning point last year. Too many people have a knee-jerk reaction to anything Obama says, but especially race-related issues.
It seems to me that race had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. So I don't see any discussion based on that premise going anywhere.
DeleteHe is right about the disparities of the criminal justice system. On that front, reforming our drug laws makes the most sense.
Nate Silver's departure from the *New York Times* does matter for the *Times* (and for Disney).
ReplyDeleteAnd possibly, to touch on another Plain Blog post, it matters for an even greater mainstreaming of SABR-consciousness. The median fantasy baseball manager of 2017 is going to be much more likely to understand and use various advanced metrics than his/her counterpart today.
Delete