Op-Ed: The Problems with Tax Increases

When Shil and I read this editorial in the student newspaper of our Alma mater asking why people are reluctant to accept tax increases, we decided to respond and contribute to the debate. While we still enjoy reading our old student paper, there are too many articles to which we’re inclined to respond, so we have to be selective. This one was well-timed, however, and while the writer’s question is familiar, it is also reasonable.

Here is our response. Key graph:

Historical spending levels do not offer much indication that increased revenues would be used to decrease the deficit instead of to increase spending. Perhaps this is why many voters reject tax increases that [the author] Suckstorff seems to find trivial. There is also another problem with tax increases. A majority of small businesses in this country, which provide most of the jobs in places like Suckstorff’s hometown of Troy, pay their federal income taxes at individual income tax rates. These rates will go up from 35 percent to 39.6 percent on Jan. 1 if President Obama and Congress do not act to stop this tax hike. This increase in taxes will invariably mean that employees will have to be let go. So to answer the question “What’s the big deal with paying taxes?” the big deal, which President Obama starkly learned a couple Tuesday’s ago, is simple: Jobs.

Lately, The Daily Northwestern has also promoted an appropriate debate on the topic of living wages. There was a time when we were in school that the editorial page seemed to shy away from legitimate political debate, but the paper seems to be embracing constructive discussion on contentious issues now. We commend “The Daily” for that.

Ghailani Acquitted of All but One Charge

The trial of U.S. embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani was supposed to be a slam dunk and an example of how the civilian court system could be employed to effectively prosecute terrorists. A recent development, however, signaled trouble for the government’s case. Then there were rumors that the jury was not in agreement on all charges against Ghailani. The result was acquittal of 284 out of 285 charges. What does this mean for Ghailani and for the bigger picture?

Andy McCarthy thinks that Ghailani will probably be sentenced to life in prison, so the verdict is not a complete loss. Yet, one can’t help but feel at least some disappointment in the outcome. Why did the government charge Ghailani with 285 counts, leaving the chance that he could be acquitted of many of them? Andy McCarthy says the explanation goes back to when the case was first charged under Attorney General Janet Reno. There was no debate at that time between using civilian trials versus military ones.

Today, however, that debate is an important one. President Obama made the issue of prosecuting the wars an important one during his campaign, and key officials in his administration have made it clear that they prefer using civilian courts over military commissions. In light of this result, Hugh Hewitt wants to know when President Obama and Eric Holder will take questions about the use of civilian trials for terrorists, and if Holder will resign.

If this jury decision was indeed a compromise verdict as some suggest, what does that mean for this case and in the larger debate? Over at the NYT, there is a debate between several legal experts. Andy McCarthy argues that “justice was not done,” and that the case should have been in a military commission instead:

But the blunt fact is that justice was not done, as Attorney General Eric Holder boldly promised it would be. This case did not belong in the civilian justice system, and that was abundantly clear long before the jury’s compromise verdict.

Construing civilian due process standards, the trial judge denied prosecutors the ability to call the crucial witness who would have testified to Ghailani’s purchase of the TNT used in the 1998 embassy bombings. Taking a huge chance, the Justice Department elected not to appeal that decision – betting that its remaining evidence would be enough. The government’s reluctance to litigate the admissibility of Ghailani’s confession (during which he identified the TNT seller) also meant the jury would learn of neither his admissions nor the fact that he became a celebrity in al Qaeda circles after the bombings. Thus, civilian due process and what now seems like Justice Department overconfidence gave Ghailani an opportunity falsely to portray himself as an innocent dupe, and he exploited it.

He would not have been able to do that in a military commission trial. In a commission, moreover, there would have been a jury of military officers. The government would not have been rolling the dice on the selection of a civilian jury, where it’s always possible to get an irrational juror who frustrates the deliberations, which may well have happened here.

Not everyone in that discussion agrees with McCarthy, however, and there are some other thoughtful opinions there.

No, the House Dems Are Still Not Listening

Or maybe they are listening, but are ignoring the message from this last election, because they just chose Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader by an overwhelming vote of 150-43. There’s tone-deaf, and then there’s, well, obstinacy?

From a policy standpoint, it would be preferable if someone like Heath Shuler were the leader of the House Democrats, as there would probably be more common ground between the parties. From a political viewpoint, however, righties should take Pelosi as the face of the Democrats any day. She’s so unpopular and recognizable that Republicans should be able to effectively campaign against her as the face of the Democrats in 2012.

Here’s to gridlock and another season of political ads with Republicans tying Democrats to Pelosi, and Democrats trying to distinguish themselves from her.

No Trial for KSM?

President Obama has found out just how difficult it is to close Gitmo, and he has found out just how opposed the public is to a civilian trial for KSM. President Obama and much of his administration seem opposed to a military trial, so what is he to do? Apparently, he might not do anything except keep KSM detained.

It cannot be said enough that the prosecution of enemy combatants can be complicated. Several books in our recommended reading section highlight some of the challenges. President Obama has spent a lot of time criticizing George W. Bush’s decisions on complex issues like this, but Obama has seemingly learned that the issues are not as clear-cut as he may have suggested.

Jen Rubin has a strong contrast between George W. Bush and Barack Obama in a recent post about the potential change to the Afghanistan timeline:

Don’t get me wrong. The decision is the correct one. But this is pathetic. Obama didn’t have the political courage to do what was plainly in our strategic interests, with men on the field of battle, when he feared electoral consequences. Only when the coast is clear can he do the right thing. How completely not-Bush.

These are harsh words, but many people are concerned with President Obama’s decision-making (how fitting we’re talking about that, since George W. Bush’s new book is about making decisions). Faced with the choice between ideology and politics, President Obama is in a tough position. He can either go against what he believes and anger his base, or he can go against the larger public and potentially send the wrong message to the world and our enemies. The President is elected to make these tough decisions; what will he decide?

Obama May Compromise on Bush Tax Rates

In order to avoid tax increases on the middle class, President Obama might agree to extending the current tax rates for all income levels. While not raising income tax rates in this sluggish economy would be a smart thing to do, it would be a significant defeat for a president whose party was just drubbed in the midterms. As Paul Mirengoff notes at Power Line, this news on a tax policy compromise and the latest news on Iraq and Afghanistan make George W. Bush look good as he promotes his new book.

If President Obama and the Democrats do compromise on tax rates, and/or if the Iraq and Afghanistan timelines are extended or abandoned, then we can add those changes to the list of broken promises and failures to the left. Also on the list: failure to close Gitmo, failure to pass cap and trade, failure to pass card check, failure to pass nationalized health care or even a public option (try subsidies for private insurance instead), failure to win Second Amendment cases, and losses in campaign finance reform (pending the fate of the DISCLOSE Act). Sure, lefties got the stimulus and some token financial reform, but will they be okay with just those plus a watered down healthcare bill?

Will Obama Administration Extend Afghanistan Timeline?

We just heard that the administration might keep troops in Iraq beyond the current agreement, and are we also hearing that the Afghanistan timetable might be extended? A report suggested that the July 2011 withdrawal might not happen as planned, but the White House is denying and the plan may be ambiguous.

It wouldn’t be surprising if the timeline were adjusted or abandoned. I’ve predicted since before Obama was elected that he wouldn’t completely pull us out until the conditions allowed him to do so. We’ll see what happens. If the withdrawal isn’t as immediate as promised, the anti-war left might go bonkers.

UPDATE: The Pentagon has reportedly said that a transfer of security to Afghan forces by the end of 2014 is an “aspirational goal.”

What if California or New York Goes Bankrupt?

Watching the election returns from the 2010 midterms was a lot more fun and exciting for me than watching them in 2006 and 2008. Yet, even as I was talking about and mostly enjoying the results with Shil and others throughout much of the night, I wasn’t able to shake my disappointment with a few results like Nevada’s senate and the California senate and governor races.

California was particularly disappointing to me, not only because I’ve lived there, but also because of what the state’s troubles mean in the bigger picture for the country. While most of the country chose to at least slow the progressive agenda, California willingly elected a liberal Senator and a Democrat governor who will likely promote the same liberal agenda that has put the state near fiscal collapse.

One of the big questions from election night isn’t if, but when California might go bankrupt, and then what that would mean for the state and the country. New York is in that same category, and other states like Illinois aren’t far behind. So what happens if a state were to go bankrupt?

Law professor and author Richard Epstein takes on the question at the NRO Corner. Here is part of what he says:

To David’s second question: There is no obvious mechanism for state bankruptcies, even if there are some procedures, I believe, for municipal bankruptcies. This is a ticklish issue because states are sovereigns, and it is a frightening prospect to think that when mired in bankruptcy, they could not discharge their essential functions because they could not pay their pension obligations, among others. So the battle over the form of bankruptcy will be acute, and I have no idea how this would play out — except badly.

Read the whole post, because this is a topic that might be discussed a lot more as some of these states head off a cliff and raise serious questions about who will pay for their debts.

Defense Secretary Gates Says U.S. Open to Staying in Iraq Beyond 2011 Timetable

I’ve been predicting all along that even President Obama wouldn’t pull out if the conditions didn’t allow it, and Secretary Gates is hinting that that might be the case:

Gates urged Iraq’s squabbling political groups to reconcile after eight months of deadlock. Any request to extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to come from a functioning Iraqi government. It would amend the current agreement under which U.S. troops must leave by the end of 2011.

“That initiative clearly needs to come from the Iraqis; we are open to discussing it,” Gates said.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have said for months they expect Iraqi leaders to eventually ask for an extension of the military agreement with the U.S., but the political impasse has put the idea on hold.

A spike in violence in Iraq over the past two weeks has underscored the continued potency of al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.

Maybe President Obama’s Iraq war withdrawal address was a bit premature.

UPDATE: Max Boot reports that a coalition government has formed in Iraq.

Both the Right and Left Have a Choice to Make

Perhaps the biggest question from last week’s midterms going forward will be how both sides learn from and adjust to what happened. The Tea Party, which fueled much of the Republican victory, was full of political newcomers who need to ask questions about strategy. Jim Geraghty wonders how conservatives will approach blue states in 2012:

In 2012, Republicans will need challengers for Senate races in Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, and California, as well as friendlier territory. In these blue states, perhaps they will discover a staunch conservative who can win over independents by sheer charisma. (I support human cloning of Marco Rubio.) But more likely, for a Republican to win in these states, they’ll need a challenger who can emphasize some Tea Party points while still strongly appealing to independents and deviating from the party line periodically. The template would seem to be Scott Brown or Chris Christie, but perhaps Paul LePage, the new Republican governor of Maine, is another example . . .

What the Tea Party must do is consider the Buckley argument that Republicans should nominate the most conservative candidate who can win. Delaware obviously highlighted the Tea Party struggle with that idea this year, as conservatives nominated Christine O’Donnell in the primary over a moderate who had a better chance to win. The right should vote for conservatives in the primaries, but it should begin early to find the conservative candidate(s) available for those primaries with the best chance to win general elections. The primaries can provide a choice of conservatives, where voters can apply the Buckley rule or can place principle above strategy.

On the other side, Democrats will have a chance to signal to the country very soon which direction they will go. With Nancy Pelosi saying she will run for Democrat House minority leader, the House Democrats will have a choice: Will they reject the message sent by voters and continue the hard left agenda that Pelosi has been pushing in the House, or will they pivot and put a more moderate voice in charge, signaling a willingness to work with the new Republican majority?

The Tea Party will have time to look for primary challengers and to strategize based on the lessons learned from 2010. Before that, however, House Democrats will choose if they want to address the Tea Party and the message sent by voters. The choices made by both sides will have significant impact on 2012.

From an Awakening to an Arrival

Scott Brown’s election was an awakening (as I called it then) of Americans who recognized the direction of the country and were concerned. The people of Massachusetts rose above traditional party lines to reject the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda, but those in power did not listen. Now, the patriots who have become engaged in politics these past two years have arrived on the national scene. They were largely mocked and derided by the left, but they will be hard to ignore after likely taking more than 60 House seats, at least 6 Senate seats, 6 governors, and several state legislatures. The message was unmistakable: Mr. President, you lost.

To be sure, not every race was a victory for conservatism, and there are lessons to learn about finding viable primary challengers early, and voting strategically. But overall, conservatism won the night, with much help from the Tea Party. Democrats who voted for ObamaCare and cap and trade were largely wiped out, taking with them a few colleagues who didn’t vote for either. Independents rejected the Obama agenda 55-39.

This was not, however, a victory for Republicans, as the party is not equivalent to conservatism and still has a lot of work to do to win back the trust of voters. Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner, among other Republican winners last night, made it clear that he understood:

“Let’s start right now by recognising this is not a time for celebration. This is a time to roll up our sleeves and go to work.We can celebrate when small businesses are creating jobs again.

“We can celebrate when the spending binge in Washington has stopped. And we can celebrate when we have a government that has earned back the trust of the people it serves … when we have a government that honours our Constitution and stands up for the values that have made America, America: economic freedom, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

The oceans will not stop rising, the world will not magically start loving us, and our problems will not quickly be solved in a bipartisan manner in which both sides get along. This was but one battle in a long struggle, and yesterday, the American people advanced self-government. If the Americans who stood up now turn a blind eye, however, we could quickly head back down the wrong path. If we learn from this process and continue to stand up for those principles in which we believe, then the ideas advanced yesterday can win.