Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Ted Olson Wants Congress to Bar the Koch Brothers’ Contributions to Incumbents. I Say: Good Idea!

Post updated below.

—-

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

—  Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment. When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to pr otect their own incumbency.  By Theodore B. Olson, Wall Street Journal, today

Hmmm.  The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance statute, which the Supreme Court largely eviscerated in Citizens United v. FEC in early 2010 and all but completed the job earlier this year in McCutcheon v. FEC, was enacted in 2002.  In 2006, the Democrats unexpectedly gained control of both the Senate and the House, largely by defeating, y’know, Republican incumbents, and substantially increased their majority in both houses in 2008, mainly by defeating, um, Republican incumbents.  Citizens United certainly helped the Republicans gain control of the House in 2010, but failed that year and again in 2012 to recapture the Senate.  Harry Reid won reelection in 2010, despite the Kochs’ and Karl Rove’s very best efforts.

Led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Republicans, as Koch puppets, claim that by defeating the proposed constitutional amendment to nullify Citizens United and McCutcheon, they are merely interested in good government to “return democracy to the American people” by continuing to allow unlimited amounts of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to have Congress and state legislatures controlled by plutocratic puppeteers who actually draft legislation secretly and then deliver the finished draft to their legislator puppets, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and try to gain or retain a stranglehold on mechanisms of government and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

That said, if Ted Olson’s real concern is that a return to pre-Citizens United, McCain-Feingold-like campaign finance laws would just serve to strengthen incumbency, the obvious answer is to demand that Mitch McConnell, an incumbent currently running for reelection, step up to the plate, return his Koch contributions, and propose legislation that would restrict contributions to incumbents in order to give challengers a stronger voice.  That’s something that McConnell and his challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, might agree on.

It’s all about the First Amendment, see.

What a moronic op-ed.

—-

UPDATE: I posted the following comment in the Comments thread in response to some comments there indicating that some readers missed the specific intended point of this post:

The intended point of my post is that Olson’s claim is clearly false that removing restrictions on contributions by the very wealthy and corporations hurts incumbents. This is a canard that the right is using to try to tamp down anger about Citizens United and McCutcheon and the unlimited amounts of money that are now purchasing elections, candidates and elected officials—and to undermine attempts to nullify those opinions.

Clearly, the Kochs and other very, very wealthy people are individually paying huge amounts of money to finance McConnell’s campaign. McConnell is an incumbent. So are the current Republican House members whose reelection campaigns these people are funding. McConnell’s opponent isn’t an incumbent; she’s a challenger. So are the Democrats trying to unseat House Republican incumbents. This is a sleight-of-hand that Olson and the others think no one will notice. I noticed. It’s a false statement of fact.

9/9 at 12:09 p.m.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (38) | |

What I agree with Richard Kahlenberg about on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. And what I don’t.

As Dan Crawford posted below, SCOTUSblog linked in its daily Round-up feature this morning to my AB post yesterday about Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, which is being argued at the Supreme Court this afternoon. Dan posted the Round-up paragraph in which the reference appears.  It says:

Commentary on Schuette comes from Richard Kahlenberg, who in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal argues that “[a] ruling in Schuette that promotes race-neutral strategies to boost minority admissions would reinforce the message the court tried to deliver last term in Fisher v. University of Texas but has largely fallen on deaf ears.” And at Angry Bear, Beverly Mann explains why she “expect[s] that the chief justice will vote to affirm a lower federal appellate court’s ruling in the high-profile affirmative action case that the Court will hear argument on tomorrow.”

I posted the following comment to Dan’s post:

Yikes. In reading that sentence that Amy Howe [of SCOTUSblog] quoted, I guess I better say that the rest of my post makes clear (I hope) that that sentence is facetious.

Facetious, it definitely is.  The chief justice will use, or try to use, this case to kill affirmative action in public higher education.

But after reading Dan’s quote of the SCOTUSblog paragraph, I decided to read the Kahlenberg op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.  Kahlenberg, the op-ed says, is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, is author of “The Remedy: Class, Race and Affirmative Action,” published in 1996.

His op-ed is titled “A Fresh Chance to Rein In Racial Preferences.” And most of the article uses the University of Michigan/Ann Arbor as an example of why racial preferences per se as a state university admissions criterion are bad policy.  He argues instead for socioeconomic criteria, and identifies several major state universities that have used various tools to achieve some semblance of socioeconomic, and not-coincidendally racial, diversity.  U-M/Ann Arbor is not among them and has not even tried to be.

I couldn’t agree more.  On all points.  Anyone who spends so much as a couple of hours on or near campus on a weekday during the fall or winter semester would be struck by how almost-thoroughly white and upper-middle and upper-class the undergraduate, non-Asian student body is.  Denizens of Ann Arbor itself are not much into current-model upscale foreign-import cars–old Volvo station wagons and Detroit-made small and midsize cars are far more common–but walk through a student parking lot and you’ll probably see several of the he high end import variety.

And I can attest that this was so during the 2006-2007 school year, the last admissions year before the constitutional amendment at issue in Schuette became effective. Indeed, I recall a longtime U-M professor, then nearing retirement, lament how much the nature of the student body had changed since his early years teaching there in 1970s.  He said that back then, there was a feeling of real connection between the university and the Big Three automakers whose headquarters were only 40 miles or so away and whose manufacturing and design plants dotted the metro area, and the central part of the state, because so many of the students had parents or other family members who worked there.  Now, he said, the student body is almost all upscale. Macbooks outnumbered Windows-based laptops by, I’d guess, three to one.  And most of them were recent models.

Kahlenberg mentions the University of Florida/Gainesville as one of the public universities that has made a successful effort at socioeconomic and thus racial diversity in its undergraduate body. That is clear just from walking through the campus during the school year, as I did not long ago on a visit to North Central Florida. He also mentions UCLA, UC-Berkeley, the University of Georgia/Athens and the University of Texas/Austin. But he also could have mentioned Michigan State University, The University of Illinois.Champaign/Urbana, I believe, and the University of Wisconsin, I also believe.

What I suspect happened at U-M, although it’s just my speculation, is that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s two 2003 racial affirmative action programs, one case about U-M freshman admissions policies, the other about U-M law school admissions policies–both opinions which focused heavily on the legitimate state interest in racial diversity among its student body the university–the university began to focus almost entirely on racial diversity, but, as it happens, without a lot of success. Had the school ditched its alumni-legacy preferences, which Kahlberg points out, UCLA and UC-Berkeley did but U-M did not–and instead focused more on socioeconomic diversity, it probably would have been more successful at achieving racial diversity as part of the broader socioeconomic diversity.

But, for the reasons I explained (or tried to) in my post yesterday on Schuette, that case is not, in essence, an affirmative action case.  Kahlberg sort of acknowledges that.  He says:

At issue is whether voters can amend a state constitution to ban racial preferences by referendum, as Michigan voters did by 58%-42% in 2006. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the measure down by an 8-7 vote in 2012, arguing that the amendment introduces an extra political hurdle for minorities. Whereas alumni can lobby the University of Michigan to strengthen legacy preferences for their children, the Sixth Circuit said, minority parents would need to amend the constitution to get racial preferences reinstated. “Such a comparative structural burden undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change,” the court said.

This case is about whether a voter referendum can amend a state constitution in a manner that removes a particular type of group, or removes groups with a particular type of cause, from access to the normal democratic methods of lobbying elected or appointed officials–the legislature, a local governing body, the University’s Board of Regents.  That is what this case is about, and Kahlberg, unlike (surprisingly) Emily Bazelon in Slate yesterday, does not miss that point.  But he both says that he thinks the court will nonetheless use the case to kill affirmative action in public universities and urges the court to do that.  His justification:

Although minority voters cannot easily lobby to reinstate racial preferences in Michigan, they remain free to lobby for race-neutral programs that assist many minority students. These would include programs that help low-income students of all races—programs for more generous financial aid; for more community college transfers to the main campus of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor; for an end to legacy preferences that disproportionately benefit white students; and for admitting students in the top of every high school class in the state.

Hey! They remain free to lobby for race-neutral programs that assist many minority students! Well, aren’t they lucky!  For now, anyway.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (5) | |

Fodder For a Great Blog Post

 

I received the following email from Dan Crawford last evening:

Fwd: Blog Post Idea: SCOTUS Must Protect Free Speech in Ohio and Beyond

Is this interesting?

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Kristen Thomaselli <kristen@keybridge.biz>
Date: Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Subject: Blog Post Idea: SCOTUS Must Protect Free Speech in Ohio and Beyond
To: angrybearblog@gmail.com

Daniel,

I wanted to share an oped from this weekend’s Wall Street Journal that I thought you might find interesting (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579040671355619380.html and pasted below).

It’s by Brad Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and it focuses on one man’s fight in Ohio to exercise his First Amendment right to speak freely about political issues in his community. In his piece, Brad calls on the Supreme Court to accept this important case, as it could have huge ramifications for Americans’ First Amendement rights — and states’ efforts to deprive them of those rights.

Few people know more about these issues than Brad, so his piece is quite instructive — and could provide fodder for a great blog post.

Please let me know if you have any questions — or if you end up writing about Brad’s        piece!

All the Best,

Kristen Thomaselli
(202) 471-4228 ext. 101

Bradley Smith: The Supreme Court and Ed Corsi’s Life of Political Crime
How one Ohio man’s blog on politics got him in trouble with campaign-finance law.

By Bradley A. Smith

In the winter of 2008, Ed Corsi decided that he was tired of stewing about the politics in his home of Geauga County, Ohio, and the country at large. He started a website, put Thomas Jefferson’s quote, “The price of freedom . . . constant vigilance” at the top, dubbed the site “Geauga Constitutional Council,” and set about blogging his thoughts on local and national politics. So began his life of political crime.

Over the next two years, Mr. Corsi and a few friends would sometimes gather to talk politics. He occasionally sponsored meetings featuring speakers (not political candidates) on public policy issues (not elections), and charged a nominal fee for seating to offset his costs. He and two friends passed out political pamphlets they made at the Geauga County Fair.

Mr. Corsi spent $40 a month to maintain his website, and perhaps a couple hundred dollars a year in other expenses. According to the state of Ohio, however, these activities are illegal under campaign-finance laws because Mr. Corsi did not first register with the state, report to the state on his activities, and subject himself to the regulations governing the operation of a state political action committee.

When he was summoned to a hearing before the Ohio Elections Commission in April 2011, Mr. Corsi asked, “Do I have to hire a lawyer to [do] these things?” Commission Chairman Bryan Felmet replied, “Yeah, I guess so. I think that it’s very complicated without going to those lengths.” The commission ordered Mr. Corsi to register and report his activities to the state.

When the Supreme Court reconvenes in October, the big campaign-finance case will be McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which nervous censors have dubbed “the next Citizens United.” McCutcheon deals with the ability of affluent Americans to contribute to political parties and candidates. Never mind that the candidates and causes these people support represent the views of millions of citizens. “Reformers” argue, and many Americans seem to agree, that “big money” in politics must be regulated.

It is inconceivable, however, that America’s founders thought the First Amendment would allow the government to routinely require citizens to report their political activity, and be subjected to such complex regulations. They wanted to prevent government from doing precisely this sort of thing. Yet Mr. Corsi lost in state court. Now he waits to see if the Supreme Court will agree to hear his case.

The “big money” in politics can afford the accountants, consultants and lawyers needed to cope with campaign- finance law. The burdens frequently fall more heavily on grass-roots politics-the very thing we ought to be encouraging. There also is abundant anecdotal evidence that the main result, if not the purpose, of campaign-finance laws is to allow political insiders and government officials to harass grass-roots activists. The IRS targeting scandals are merely the most prominent example of the way these laws are used by those in power to harass their opposition.

On his blog, Mr. Corsi was critical of Ed Ryder, the chairman of the Geauga County Republican Party and a member of the county Board of Elections, and of various officials and candidates supported by Mr. Ryder. The initial complaint against Mr. Corsi was filed by Mr. Ryder, who admitted spending two months to find out who constituted the “Geauga Constitutional Council,” so he could file a complaint against Mr.Corsi.

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and again in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986), the Supreme Court held that the regulatory requirements of operating a political action committee could not be imposed on groups that lacked the primary purpose of supporting or defeating political candidates in elections. But across the country, states are flouting that command, imposing rigid requirements on ordinary citizens who are trying to express their political opinions.

In Colorado, for example, a group of friends calling themselves the Coalition for Secular Government operate a website on which they posted a long policy paper on abortion and church-state relations. The paper concluded by urging Coloradans to vote “no” on a ballot measure. For that, the state says they must register as a political committee and report their activities, income and expenses.

Most state statutes now simply ignore the Supreme Court and require that two or more citizens who spend even nominal amounts on politics to register and report to the government. Even printing yard signs or running an email list can trigger these requirements. In Ohio, a single dollar in expenditures will do, so be careful if you talk politics over a cup of coffee.

As a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, I have seen the effects these laws have on citizen participation and civic-mindedness. I have read the plaintive letters from citizens who could not afford a lawyer, and could not believe their government was fining them for political activity.

In the past, both liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court were sensitive to this problem. Liberal Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion in the Massachusetts Citizens for Life case. But that sensitivity appears to be vanishing.

Forty-seven years ago, in Mills v. Alabama, the court struck down a lawprohibiting election-day newspaper editorials, noting, “there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”

Is that still true? Will the court leave millions of Americans who want to engage in politics at risk of prosecution? Will it leave Mr. Corsihanging?

Mr. Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is a law professor and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, which is representing Mr. Corsi at the Supreme Court. 

Hmm.  Happy to oblige, Kristen.

Yes, this is very interesting.  Especially because Smith’s piece actually focuses on one man’s fight in Ohio to misconstrue Ohio campaign-finance law as impinging upon his right to speak freely about political issues in his community.  Or as having anything to do with his right to speak freely about political issues in his community.

Or maybe it’s really about one high-profile Washington, D.C. lawyer’s longstanding anti-regulatory, anti-campaign-finance laws crusade.  Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the FEC upon appointment by George W. Bush, is a longtime rightwing, anti-regulation crusader.

Which may be why he says in that piece that McCutcheon deals with the ability of affluent Americans to contribute to political parties and candidates, rather than that McCutcheon deals with the ability of affluent Americans to contribute as much as they wish to political parties and candidates.

Or maybe it’s just that factual accuracy is not his forte.  He did, after all, baldly misrepresent in the op-ed that the IRS targeted conservative political groups, but not liberal ones, for harassment, saying, “The IRS targeting scandals are merely the most prominent example of the way these laws are used by those in power to harass their opposition.” Since actually the IRS used its power to try to prevent misuse of exemption regulations by liberal as well as conservative groups, that statement is merely the most prominent falsity in Smith’s article.  But maybe the Ohio Elections Commission, unlike the IRS, would target only Republican social welfare groups. Hurray!  Apparently Ohio law doesn’t exempt  social welfare groups such as Mr. Corsi’s.

In any event, the issue in McCutcheon is whether it is unconstitutional for government to place any limits at all on campaign contributions directly to parties and candidates, not whether affluent Americans can be barred from contributing to parties and candidates within the same amount limitations as everyone else.

What is Smith’s forte, apparently, is the artful sleight of hand, the use of the non sequitur as sophism.  Which may be why he claims that because the candidates and causes that, say, the Koch brothers want to financially sponsor represent the views of millions of citizens, the Koch brothers should be allowed to pay for millions of dollars of TV ad buys in order to try to persuade millions of other people to vote for these candidates.

Why, of course, David Koch should serve as campaign proxy for the minimum-wage Walmart employees he wants to enlist in his cause of lowering the Kochs’ income tax and eventual estate tax obligations, of disassembling the social safety net, of keeping the minimum wage at $7.40 an hour, and of ensuring the continuation of Chamber of Commerce control of the entire federal and most state judicial systems!  The Kochs are altruists!  The Walmart employees can’t pay millions of dollars in campaign contributions for TV ads that will convince them to vote Republican, so the Kochs will do that for them!  (Tautologies are another Smith specialty, apparently.)

It may well be inconceivable, as Smith claims, that America’s founders thought the First Amendment would allow the government to routinely require citizens to report their political activity, and be subjected to such complex regulations.  But the government does not routinely require citizens to report their political activity; it requires them to report–or rather, requires those to whom they give monetary support in election campaigns–to report that funding, so that those whose votes are solicited as a result will know who, exactly, is soliciting their vote.

And as for those complex regulations, anyone who complains about that should try instead to navigate, say, the federal court system as a non-corporate and non-wealthy litigant.  It’s unlikely that America’s founders, or at least the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments, thought the Constitution would allow the government to methodically turn the civil, criminal and habeas judicial processes in this country into bureaucratic regulatory labyrinths navigable only by rightwing crusaders, Chamber of Commerce members, others who can retain $1,000-per-hour “name” counsel, and state and local governments (dignity for states, except the ones that enact affirmative action programs!); no one else need apply.

Who knew that Rube Goldberg was a Federalist Society member?

And, while I do recognize that the Framers thought it fine that the right to vote be limited to the landed gentry and others who could afford to pay a steep poll tax, I’m not sure they actually had campaign contributions in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s speech clause.  Nor do I recall learning in Civics class that George Washington, et al., thought corporations are people, my friend.  But maybe I was absent from school the day of that lesson. Or just didn’t attend Mitt Romney’s, Anthony Kennedy’s or Bradley Smith’s elementary school alma mater.

Unlike Mr. Smith, who, I guess, did.  Which is nice for the Fab Five members of the Supreme Court.  Mr. Smith, who went to Washington long ago, already has provided them the first draft of their opinion in the Corsi case.  Justice Scalia will join his four other fair-weather dignity-of-the-states-crusading colleagues in striking down the Ohio statute, just as the five of them summarily struck down a Montana one last year, before he returns, briefly, to indignant-umbrage posture at the very suggestion that courts should strike down duly enacted legislation. Briefly is a very safe bet; there is, after all, another Obamacare challenge heading toward the Supreme Court.  Not to mention the likelihood of another state-university-admissions affirmative-action case, surely soon.

I hope Ms. Thomaselli likes this blog post.  If not, I can beef it up a bit.  Trust me.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (5) | |

The Large Number of Hedge Fund Managers Near Fort Rucker, Ala. (A Suggested Response to the Republicans’ Simple Response(s).)

It’s unconscionable to use our military men and women in uniform as a bargaining chip to raise our taxes.

— Rep. Martha Roby, (R. Ala.)

Our taxes, huh?  Ours!  This actually is unexpectedly good financial news for most of, um, us. Not to mention very surprising news.

According to The New York Times today, Roby made the comment in an interview yesterday after a visit to the town just outside the Army’s Fort Rucker.  And presumably, she, and her family (thus, the “our” rather than a “my”), have substantial income from capital gains and dividends. Or maybe she or her husband is a hedge fund manager and would lose the “carried-interest” tax deduction, because the tax loopholes that Obama and the congressional Dems are proposing to close are those and similar ones. And she did say “raise our taxes.”  

Maybe both are hedge fund managers. She part-time, of course.  

Maybe not, though, since, by using that phrase, she intended to convey, falsely, that Obama was using our military men and women in uniform as a bargaining chip to raise the taxes of the our military men and women in uniform, most of whom have spouses who are hedge fund managers, and of the residents of the town just outside of Fort Rucker, most of whom live off of their capital gains and dividends, and none of whom, whether working or unemployed, receive assistance from the the federal food-assistance program.  

I know that latter fact to be true because the New York Times article says that House Republicans say they believe that the have “politically inoculated themselves against claims they are responsible for the cuts by approving measures last year that would have substituted reductions in government programs like food stamps for the lower Pentagon spending.”

Which itself undoubtedly is true.  Especially since Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ran on just such a proposal last fall, and won.  I mean, lost.  By about 5 million votes.  

The Republicans must have received their inoculation serum through the Web. From a company in Afghanistan, maybe. 

Roby also said in that interview referenced in the Times article:

The president says he has to have tax increases to head off the sequester. Well, he already got his tax increase.

Indeed, he did.  He got a tax increase on individuals with non-investment income of at least $400,000, and on couples with non-investment income of at least $450,000, to Clinton-era rates, and slight raises on some investment income, to less than Clinton-era rates.  Clinton-era rates being rates at which we were able to have a budget surplus, without using our military men and women in uniform as a bargaining chip  for anything, and without cutting food assistance programs, including the assistance that goes to Alabamans, a few of whom may live in that town near Fort Rucker.  

So, I have two suggestions for Obama. Serious ones.  

Seriously.

One is that he travel to that town near Fort Rucker and explain, among other things, that salaries for our men and women in uniform are exempt from the sequester, and that, while we’re on the subject, of unconscionable political conduct, it’s probably a good idea to include the dispensing of false information to the contrary as fitting comfortably within that category.  He also should explain to the group assembled in the audience at the high school gym, or wherever, who it is exactly that will have their taxes raised by the tax raises included in the “fiscal cliff” agreement, and, especially, who it is exactly–exactly–that would have their taxes raised under Obama’s proposal to replace the sequester.  

Then he should ask for a show of hands, first, by those in the audience who will have their taxes raised under the “fiscal cliff” deal, and then by those who would have their taxes raised under a current proposal to replace the sequester.  His own proposal or the Senate Democrats’ or the House Democrats’.  In other words, a show of hands by “us”–as in “raise our taxes.”  

He also could, and should, explain how, and why, the sequester law came about–and what would have happened to this country’s credit rating and the financial system and the economy beginning in August 2011 without it.  I.e., explain again, as he did at his successful press conference in mid-January, what the debt ceiling, and raising it, are.

Obama of course instead could make these points in a short primetime TV address, one advantage of which would be a national audience.  That’s my other suggestion. He could do this in an address of under 10 minutes.  

If he took that avenue, he could even take advantage of the national audience to point out, within that under-10-minute address, that John Boehner wasn’t quite accurate when he said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed yesterday that:

[A]s the president’s outrage about the sequester grows in coming days, Republicans have a simple response: Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?

Yes, some–but not all–Republicans’ simple response is to fail to acknowledge that Obama is proposing replacing some of the sequester’s cuts with increased tax revenues achieved by closing tax loopholes on wealthy individuals and corporations.  Martha Roby is a Republican who does acknowledge this.  Her simple response is, rather than pretending that this is not so–that Obama has not proposed an offset by raising more revenue in the manner that he and the congressional Dems in fact have proposed–to instead misrepresent to all or most of her constituents that their (“our”) taxes would go up. It’s a statement either unconscionably deliberately deceptive or instead reflecting dismaying ignorance of the sources and amounts of income of at least some, probably most, of her constituents, unless her district is among the wealthier ones in this country.* 

Which, for all I know, it may be.  But if so, most of the residents of the town close to the Army base probably are not among the hedge fund managers in her district.  Nor even among the Apple shareholders.

Obama could of course both travel to the town near Fort Rucker and address the nation on primetime TV.  But only if the matter is really important.  Really important.  Which Obama may or may not think it is.  I mean … to each his own.

What I don’t understand about this White House is its failure to grasp that what matters is actual explanations and refutations of the Republicans’ incessant misrepresentations of fact–killing the Repubs’ constant representation of cliché  and generic slogans as facts–rather than silly Twitter tweets, attractive photos of Obama at work or play, or appearances on The View or interviews on 60 Minutes that do not explain substance and do not refute the opposition on issues of substance.

Actually, this one’s pretty easy to explain:  Raise our taxes?  Then the tax raise must also be on our income.  I guess we’re all hedge fund managers now.  (Seeee? I told you this was good financial news for us. Not to mention surprising financial news for us. And surprising employment news for, well, at least those of us whose tax raise will come from the elimination of the “carried-interest” deduction.)

Of course, now that I think about it, that little explanation in that last paragraph would fit in a Twitter post.  So maybe Twitter’s the way to explain and refute, after all.  At least when you’re camera shy.  Or just shy.

—-
*This paragraph was edited slightly for clarity, as were two or three sentences elsewhere.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |