Happy Birthday to Tammy Duckworth, 45.
On to the good stuff:
1. David Frum doesn't like Woodrow Wilson and explains why you shouldn't, either.
2. New Buzzfeed WH reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro seems to be starting out with a healthy realistic view of the job. I wrote about this a while ago, by the way.
3. Andrew Sprung on the GOP, electioneering effects, and more.
4. Health care real estate, from Sarah Kliff.
5. And via Sarah Binder, Richard Arenberg's filibuster defense.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
March 11, 1973
Chuck Colson, now outside of the White House, took a trip out of the country during Patrick Gray's testimony, and now talks to the president on the phone, mainly reassuring him. Nixon knows what's important, however: keeping the White House staff, and John Dean in particular, away from Congress.
Crazy, or Crazy Like a Fox?
Kevin Drum has a conniption because....well, I better tell this in order. First, the TSA announces they're going to relax the restrictions on stuff you can take onto an airplane -- including a bunch of fairly boring stuff such as a bunch of sports equipment, but also including small knives. Second, like clockwork, a politician decides to demagogue the issue: knives?!? On airplanes?!? In this case, the first-off-the-mark pol appears to be, no surprise, Chuck Schumer. Which is where Drum (and presumably other critics of "security theater") come in, hitting Schumer and defending the (relatively more) sensible TSA.
Fair enough! I had noticed the knife thing when it was announced last week, and I expected a grandstanding politician to join with the flight attendants in complaining about it.
Here's what I wonder, however. The hardest thing in the world is to relax safety restrictions. No matter how stupid they are, or how pointless, or even how counterproductive, there's always a risk that something will go wrong and the person who eased off will be blamed. It doesn't even have to be directly related; it's always easy to toss the blame on the person who was removing the restrictions (not concerned enough about safety!). And no, the Kevin Drums and James Fallowses of the world are a tiny minority when it comes to this. For anybody, when it comes to avoiding blame on security, the safe bet is always to ratchet up, and never never never to ratchet down.
So what I've wondering is whoever is making this happen over at TSA is actually really smart about that, and added "knives" to a collection of innocuous stuff to draw fire away from everything else. Not that I'm saying small knives should be banned, or even that TSA thinks they should be banned. Just that it's probably a viable bureaucratic strategy to toss in one item on the list that politicians can go after, thus allowing everything else to go into effect.
Well, probably not. And I'm not expert, but on the substance I'm sure Drum is right. But if the next step for the TSA is to announce that they're going to stop making people take off their shoes and also allow in very small amounts of explosives...well, whatever it takes, right?
Fair enough! I had noticed the knife thing when it was announced last week, and I expected a grandstanding politician to join with the flight attendants in complaining about it.
Here's what I wonder, however. The hardest thing in the world is to relax safety restrictions. No matter how stupid they are, or how pointless, or even how counterproductive, there's always a risk that something will go wrong and the person who eased off will be blamed. It doesn't even have to be directly related; it's always easy to toss the blame on the person who was removing the restrictions (not concerned enough about safety!). And no, the Kevin Drums and James Fallowses of the world are a tiny minority when it comes to this. For anybody, when it comes to avoiding blame on security, the safe bet is always to ratchet up, and never never never to ratchet down.
So what I've wondering is whoever is making this happen over at TSA is actually really smart about that, and added "knives" to a collection of innocuous stuff to draw fire away from everything else. Not that I'm saying small knives should be banned, or even that TSA thinks they should be banned. Just that it's probably a viable bureaucratic strategy to toss in one item on the list that politicians can go after, thus allowing everything else to go into effect.
Well, probably not. And I'm not expert, but on the substance I'm sure Drum is right. But if the next step for the TSA is to announce that they're going to stop making people take off their shoes and also allow in very small amounts of explosives...well, whatever it takes, right?
Plans vs. Talking Points
I think Glenn Kessler gets maybe two things right in his column this morning about what constitutes a "plan" by a politician.
One is that there are times when a fact checker is better off just backing off and explaining a story without needing to award "Pinocchios" or whatever. The other is that there is, in fact, a difference between partisan talking points and a real, operative, policy commitment. At issue here is whether the White House has a "plan" to replace sequestration, and Kessler is right that "[I]n Washington, there are real plans and faux plans."
Alas, it all goes badly wrong after that.
Kessler winds up, basically, endorsing what I'd call a supersized version of John Boehner's talking point: that a "plan" is only a talking point if it's unlikely to be enacted as is by the current Congress and President (Boehner settles for able to pass one chamber of Congress, allowing him to say the Democrats have no plan if Republicans in the Senate defeat something by filibuster).
By Kessler's standard, the House sequestration replacement passed in the last Congress doesn't count as a plan because only Republicans voted for it (and therefore it had no chance in the Democratic Senate or with Barack Obama. The sequestration replacement that Democrats proposed in the Senate last week doesn't count, because Republicans successfully defeated it by filibuster. And Barack Obama's plan doesn't count because..well, apparently he hasn't put enough public emphasis on the parts of it that Republican want him to talk about. Which is a pretty goofy.
In fact, the Boehner/Kessler standard, which says that any proposal is a mere talking point unless you have the votes to meet some arbitrary standard, is ridiculous:
How to tell the difference?
If it's written down in sufficient detail, that's a major indication that it's a real plan.
If it's been introduced as a bill or amendment, that's a major indication that it's a real plan.
If serious policy analysis have examined it and found it to be, well, possible to actually analyze, that's a major indication that it's a real plan.
If the people who claim to support it have actually voted for it in the House or the Senate, that's a major indication that it's a real plan.
(Oh, and: no, it doesn't have to be unanimous to be a party's plan. 52 of 55 Democrats voted for their sequestration replacement in the Senate, with Harry Reid switching to no for parliamentary reasons; it's just silly for Kessler to say that lack of unanimity means that it's just a talking point. Nor does the successful GOP filibuster against it make it any less of a plan).
Okay, that's four things to look for. That still leaves plenty of judgement for any analyst trying to distinguish proposal from talking point. For example, budgets proposed by smaller House factions (or, for that matter, a single Senator) can still be "plans" rather than talking points even if they were crushed in a floor vote. Something sufficiently detailed may nevertheless be only a talking point...if the same people proposing it oppose those details and say they are just for illustration.
And, yes, it's perfectly reasonable for analysts to discuss whether some politician's plan is politically viable (that is, whether it can pass Congress and be signed into law as is), as opposed to whether it's a real policy (that is, whether the proposal actually constitutes a public policy that could, if passed, actually be implemented). That seems to be what Kessler is getting at, but it's a real mistake to confuse the two.
So: if a politician says he wants to balance the budget with spending cuts and furnishes no other detail or backup...that's a talking point. If he has dropped a bill with detailed spending cuts that can be scored by CBO and that actually do add up the way he suggests...that's probably a "plan." Even if not a single other Member of Congress would vote for it -- it's a politically unrealistic plan, but still a plan.
Kessler is correct that a plan should count for something above and beyond the credit a party or politician should get for mere talking points. But the next step isn't just to assess how politically viable a (real) proposal is; it's also to assess how open to compromise. A party which insists as a matter of principle that it will never compromise may have plans, but unless they have the votes to pass them alone it doesn't really matter. But that's really getting far beyond John Boehner's clearly false claim about the White House and the real differences between plans and talking points.
One is that there are times when a fact checker is better off just backing off and explaining a story without needing to award "Pinocchios" or whatever. The other is that there is, in fact, a difference between partisan talking points and a real, operative, policy commitment. At issue here is whether the White House has a "plan" to replace sequestration, and Kessler is right that "[I]n Washington, there are real plans and faux plans."
Alas, it all goes badly wrong after that.
Kessler winds up, basically, endorsing what I'd call a supersized version of John Boehner's talking point: that a "plan" is only a talking point if it's unlikely to be enacted as is by the current Congress and President (Boehner settles for able to pass one chamber of Congress, allowing him to say the Democrats have no plan if Republicans in the Senate defeat something by filibuster).
By Kessler's standard, the House sequestration replacement passed in the last Congress doesn't count as a plan because only Republicans voted for it (and therefore it had no chance in the Democratic Senate or with Barack Obama. The sequestration replacement that Democrats proposed in the Senate last week doesn't count, because Republicans successfully defeated it by filibuster. And Barack Obama's plan doesn't count because..well, apparently he hasn't put enough public emphasis on the parts of it that Republican want him to talk about. Which is a pretty goofy.
In fact, the Boehner/Kessler standard, which says that any proposal is a mere talking point unless you have the votes to meet some arbitrary standard, is ridiculous:
Person 1. What do you want to do tonight?Now, it is absolutely true that sometimes a politician claims to have a proposal when all she has is a talking point.
Person 2. How about a movie?
1. I don't want to go to a movie.
2. Fine. How about going dancing.
1. I hate dancing.
2. Go to a ballgame?
1. No, I'm not in the mood for that.
2. Fine -- what do you want to do?
1. Why am I the one who always has to propose something? You never have any ideas!
How to tell the difference?
If it's written down in sufficient detail, that's a major indication that it's a real plan.
If it's been introduced as a bill or amendment, that's a major indication that it's a real plan.
If serious policy analysis have examined it and found it to be, well, possible to actually analyze, that's a major indication that it's a real plan.
(Oh, and: no, it doesn't have to be unanimous to be a party's plan. 52 of 55 Democrats voted for their sequestration replacement in the Senate, with Harry Reid switching to no for parliamentary reasons; it's just silly for Kessler to say that lack of unanimity means that it's just a talking point. Nor does the successful GOP filibuster against it make it any less of a plan).
Okay, that's four things to look for. That still leaves plenty of judgement for any analyst trying to distinguish proposal from talking point. For example, budgets proposed by smaller House factions (or, for that matter, a single Senator) can still be "plans" rather than talking points even if they were crushed in a floor vote. Something sufficiently detailed may nevertheless be only a talking point...if the same people proposing it oppose those details and say they are just for illustration.
And, yes, it's perfectly reasonable for analysts to discuss whether some politician's plan is politically viable (that is, whether it can pass Congress and be signed into law as is), as opposed to whether it's a real policy (that is, whether the proposal actually constitutes a public policy that could, if passed, actually be implemented). That seems to be what Kessler is getting at, but it's a real mistake to confuse the two.
So: if a politician says he wants to balance the budget with spending cuts and furnishes no other detail or backup...that's a talking point. If he has dropped a bill with detailed spending cuts that can be scored by CBO and that actually do add up the way he suggests...that's probably a "plan." Even if not a single other Member of Congress would vote for it -- it's a politically unrealistic plan, but still a plan.
Kessler is correct that a plan should count for something above and beyond the credit a party or politician should get for mere talking points. But the next step isn't just to assess how politically viable a (real) proposal is; it's also to assess how open to compromise. A party which insists as a matter of principle that it will never compromise may have plans, but unless they have the votes to pass them alone it doesn't really matter. But that's really getting far beyond John Boehner's clearly false claim about the White House and the real differences between plans and talking points.
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to Jerry Zucker, 63. There really aren't a lot of movies better than Top Secret!
Good stuff, good stuff, good stuff:
1. John Sides on the partisan press.
2. Dan Larison brings us a key quote about modern and pre-modern warfare, from a new book about the law of war.
3. More on Senate procedure and the Rand Paul filibuster from Sarah Binder.
4. What happened to Gallup, from Mark Blumenthal.
Good stuff, good stuff, good stuff:
1. John Sides on the partisan press.
2. Dan Larison brings us a key quote about modern and pre-modern warfare, from a new book about the law of war.
3. More on Senate procedure and the Rand Paul filibuster from Sarah Binder.
4. What happened to Gallup, from Mark Blumenthal.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sunday Question for Liberals
Still have a few to go, but so far: Barack Obama's best second-term appointment? His worst?
Sunday Question for Conservatives
From election day to now, which Republican 2016 presidential candidate has impressed you? Which one has hurt his or her chances?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
