tell us how you really feel (republican pundits on palin: "it's over")

Peggy Noonan and other conservatives were caught on tape with their real feelings on John McCain's VP pick:

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and former John McCain adviser, Time columnist, and MSNBC contributor Mike Murphy were caught on tape disparaging John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

"It's over," Noonan said.

Noonan went on to respond to a question about whether or not Sarah Palin was the most qualified woman that McCain could have put on the ticket:

"The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and that's not what they're good at, they blow it."

Wow, tell us how you really feel, Peggy. Perhaps more Republicans are pretending for the cameras, but behind closed doors are disappointed with the Palin pick. Maybe Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is in agreement with Noonan, which would explain her faint praise.

barbara boxer on mccain's choice

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California released a strongly worded statement concerning Sen. John McCain's newly-announced running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The Vice President is a heartbeat away from becoming President, so to choose someone with not one hour's worth of experience on national issues is a dangerous choice.

If John McCain thought that choosing Sarah Palin would attract Hillary Clinton voters, he is badly mistaken.

The only similarity between her and Hillary Clinton is that they are both women. On the issues, they could not be further apart.

Senator McCain had so many other options if he wanted to put a woman on his ticket, such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison or Senator Olympia Snowe -- they would have been an appropriate choice compared to this dangerous choice.

In addition, Sarah Palin is under investigation by the Alaska state legislature which makes this more incomprehensible.

hutchison gearing up for governor run

It's been rumored for a while now that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison would leave her job at the U.S. Senate in order to run for governor of Texas in 2010.

Apparently, the rumors are true. According to Paul Burka, Hutchison has been meeting with the Texas Republican congressional delegation seeking their private endorsements as she gears up for the gubernatorial campaign.

The R’s aren’t thrilled about being in the middle of a potential Hutchison-Perry primary showdown. They would have sided with Perry in 2006, but he has done too many controversial things that he can’t undo: the Trans-Texas Corridor, the coal plants, the HPV controversy, his hostility to the education community, both public and higher.

And Capitol Annex has some interesting news, as well. Karl Rove is reportedly going to hold a Texas fundraiser for Hutchison's bid. We have a feeling that 2010 is going to be an interesting year for Texas Republicans.

all the news that's fit to print

NTL has fallen victim to a self-imposed semi-hiatus, so we thought we'd give you the rundown of what's been going on in Texas politics over the past week or so.

• Mikal Watts withdrew from the Democratic primary, leaving the field wide open for Rick Noriega to challenge John Cornyn for his Senate seat. Watts cited time away from his family as his reason for leaving the race.
  
  
• Gov. Rick Perry has decided to endorse former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the Republican primary. Some speculate this has to do with Perry's aspirations to become vice president, and Giuliani's need to sway the ultra-conservative Southern voting bloc.
  
  
• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is planning to resign in 2010 to run for governor of Texas. Maybe she just now remembered her promise of a self-imposed term limit? Preparing for her gubernatorial bid, she seems to be trying to position herself as more of a moderate: she voted in favor of S-CHIP and the Dream Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
  
  
• After previously denying vital funding to community colleges, Rick Perry restored the vetoed funds, allowing for performance incentives for two-year institutions.
  
  
• The City of Lewisville is considering regulating uses of personal parking garages. The ordinance, which will be considered at the first November meeting of the city council, would prohibit the use of garages for non-parking purposes.
  
  
• The sheriff of Potter County has been indicted on three felony charges relating to bribery and campaign corruption, but here's the kicker: he hasn't been, and likely won't be, removed from his position as sheriff!

If you've seen any other exciting Texas-centric tidbits, statewide or regionally exclusive to North Texas, then feel free to be our muse! Leave a link in the comments.

john cornyn is actually right about something (and it's about time)

We don't agree on much with Sen. John Cornyn, a tried and true Texas Republican that stands on the wrong side of issues such as SCHIP and Iraq and recently authored a "sense of the Senate" resolution condemning liberal organization MoveOn.org for an ad they took out in the New York Times.

There's not much doubt that we will support the eventual Democratic nominee that will run against Cornyn in 2008. In the primary, Texas Democrats will choose between Rick Noriega and Mikal Watts, both of whom would make an all-around better senator for Texas.

But maybe Cornyn's not all bad.

Here's what Cornyn and his staff had to say in a constituent response email about the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (S. 988) introduced by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

As you know, the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes employers in certain industries to hire temporary and seasonal workers—subject to an annual cap of 66,000 employees—from outside the United States. The H-2B program is designed to help U.S. employers fill a one-time need, seasonal need, peak-load need or intermittent need.

I supported a comprehensive immigration effort that would include a robust temporary worker program that meets the needs of the U.S. labor market. Though the comprehensive immigration reform proposal debated this year could not be adopted because of significant flaws, I continue to push for the Senate to re-engage the debate on immigration reform this year. As an interim step, I support reform measures that will streamline existing temporary worker programs, like the H-2B visa program, as a solution to demands in critical sectors like the Texas landscaping and construction industries. President George W. Bush has recognized the need for such reform and has taken the lead in looking at ways to administratively reform both the H-2B and H-1A seasonal worker programs.

I support the goal of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act (S. 988) as introduced by Senator Barbara Mikulski. I am also exploring introducing a more comprehensive legislative package designed to create more targeted reforms to both the H-2B and H-2A programs and to permanently re-authorize the “returning worker” provisions introduced in the Save our Small and Seasonal Business Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–13, as amended by P.L. 109–364).

I guess even if you make a career of bad decisions, you'll eventually do something right by accident. Or, he truly stands on the side of small business and supports legal immigrants and seasonal workers, both of which are invaluable to Texans and our state's economy.

Thankfully, Sen. Mikulski was able to protect small businesses for another year by adding language to the 2008 fiscal spending bill. In a press release, the senator said we could count on her to keep fighting for small business.

“Who says my promises made are not promises kept? I told small businesses they could count on me to keep fighting, and I meant it,” said Senator Mikulski. “Without these seasonal workers, many businesses would not survive – forced to limit services, lay off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.”

The Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, signed into law by President Bush in May 2005, made significant changes to the federal H2B (non-skilled seasonal worker) visa program. Among the changes, it exempted returning seasonal workers from counting against the national cap of 66,000 people, created new anti-fraud provisions, and ensured a fair allocation of H2B visas among spring and summer employees. This exemption, however, was not made permanent in the 2005 bill, and has to be extended each year until Senator Mikulski’s proposal to make it permanent is passed into law. Last year, a last-minute, one-year extension was included as part of the 2007 Department of Defense authorization bill, but it expired on September 30, 2007.

Senator Mikulski joined Senator John Warner (R-Va.) in March 2007 to introduce a stand alone bill to extend the provision, and also included it as an amendment to the comprehensive immigration packages considered by the Senate this spring. Unfortunately, no bill was brought up for a final vote before the provision’s expiration.

Today’s provision is a one-year extension to allow companies to continue to get the seasonal workers they depend on, and will expire on September 30, 2008.

Mikulski vowed that she won't give up until the fix is permanent. We're glad that John Cornyn stands by her side. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, however, is another story. She is remaining intentionally ambiguous on the issue. A line from her constituent response:

Temporary work visas play an important role in ensuring U.S. companies have the workers they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. However, U.S. immigration policy must ensure American workers have every opportunity to compete for available jobs.

Perhaps she will remain vague, since anything regarding immigration is seen as controversial in Texas. But why is she worried, when she enjoys such high approval ratings? It seems like she has some new career aspirations which might prohibit her from taking any real stances for the remainder of her Senate term.

Iraq Resolutions

Those of us who are passionately opposed to the continuation of the Iraq war have mixed feelings about the upcoming debate over the Iraq war resolution in the Senate. Yes, it's good to oppose escalation of the troops, but a non-binding resolution containing watered down language which will certainly be ignored by the White House anyway, hardly seems worth the time. Still, one could argue that something is better than nothing, so when Sen. John Warner, R- Virginia, joined with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to announce his opposition to Bush's plan to escalate the war, that seemed to be a positive sign.

But now comes the news that all 49 Republican Senators are prepared to filibuster next week if the Democrats don't agree to debate additional resolutions introduced on the war. Yes, all those "principled" Republicans - Snowe, Hagel ("go sell shoes"), even John Warner, who is prepared to vote against cloture even if it delays a vote on his own resolution.

Our Texas senators are split, taking different tactics in this debate. Sen. Cornyn, as we know, is an unapologetic supporter of Bush's war. Cornyn explains why he thinks blocking a vote on the resolution is a good thing.

Cornyn said the Biden resolution and another resolution prepared by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., also opposing the troop buildup, “are fraught with meaning, and the meaning is all bad.”

There, that was illuminating, wasn't it? But Cornyn wants debate on his own resolution, one that supports the buildup.

Republicans including John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas have drafted alternative resolutions supporting the president's plan. McConnell didn't say which Republican alternatives should be considered.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, on the other hand, wants to appear moderate while doing nothing to alienate any of the powers that be. Here is her position before the elections last year on whether she regretted her vote to authorize the Iraq war:

The list of those who say they would vote differently is a bipartisan group whose ranks include former and current Republican Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Here are her comments from last month regarding the nonbinding resolution opposing troop escalation.

Some Republicans worried that it would undermine Bush's diplomatic efforts on Iraq. "The worst thing we can do as a Congress is to undercut the president internationally," Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, said Wednesday on CNN television.

Sometimes it's hard to decide which stance on the war is more contemptible - Cornyn's pigheaded support for the administration's ruinous policies, or Hutchison's "We can have our cake and eat it, too" political posturing.

Meanwhile, the latest NIE (National Intelligence Report) casts serious doubt on our ability to stabilize Iraq.

In the bleakest terms yet, a new U.S. government intelligence assessment warned Friday that Iraq's sectarian violence is now self-sustaining and that the country's forces will be "hard pressed" to assume responsibility for security before mid-2008, despite accelerated U.S. training.

And yet in the midst of this chaos, Bush is asking for another $245 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which would bring the totals to a staggering three-quarters of a trillion dollars. But the President also promised us a balanced budget in five years, so something's gotta give.

"Controlling spending also requires us to address the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid," Bush said. "Spending for these programs is growing faster than inflation, faster than our economy, and faster than our ability to pay for it."

Funny, the same logic doesn't seem to apply when he's asking for a 10.5 percent increase for the Pentagon budget.

will radnofsky challenge cornyn in 2008?

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, the Houston Democrat that challenged Republican incumbent Kay Bailey Hutchison for her seat in the U.S. Senate, may be gearing up for another campaign for the same position... in 2008.

Many have speculated that her bid against a popular incumbent was simply a way to gain name recognition while campaigning statewide. Not only would she earn credentials, she would be able to say that she took on the most popular politician in Texas unflinchingly. Then she would be able to challenge the weaker of Texas' two Republican Senators, John Cornyn, who is up for re-election in 2008.

Radnofsky's holiday message to supporters suggests that she might be planning to announce an exploratory committee or an official campaign sometime in 2007.

We've kept the entire professional campaign staff together. Katie Floyd, Communications Director, is busy with our new Art Project (we have become dealers in JapanArt.Org and will be posting on the website soon), visiting her beautiful horse and baking for the holidays. She's also editing the second campaign book, and will plan a book and thank you tour for the spring. Katie planned and executed our successful fundraiser for Ciro and we all rejoiced in his win in the runoff. We're also working on starting a PAC. Your suggestions for names would be appreciated.

Seth Davidson, Campaign Manager, is also a principal in our Japan Art venture and remains with his business, Wildsteps. I'm traveling, thanking folks, spending time with family, doing the occassional mediation, planning the PAC and looking forward to the future. I'm counting my blessings, particularly you who read the newsletters.

I have great hope for the future. Believe.

Warmest regards,
BAR

One thing is for sure: if Radnofsky decides to make a run for Cornyn's seat, she'll have to emerge victorious from what is bound to be a more contentious primary than she faced in 2006, when she was forced into a runoff election against a perennial candidate. There are bound to be several sets of prominent Democratic eyes focusing on Cornyn's floundering approval ratings.

Why You Really Should Have Voted for Radnofsky

Texas, you had your chance. You could have elected an intelligent, intellectually honest lawmaker who was dedicated to ending the conflict in Iraq. Instead, you voted Kay Bailey Hutchison back in office by a wide margin.

As further proof of the folly of that vote, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram offers us reactions from Texas politicians to the much-hailed Iraq Study Group Report. In a sidebar beside an article headlined "Panel concludes Bush's war policies have largely failed," Senator Hutchison offers this assessment:

Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison: "A well-thought-out report. ... Having the Arab countries step up to the plate is a very good suggestion. I do not think it was in any way a repudiation [of the Bush administration's policy]....."

This is the woman that Republicans are kicking around as a possible Vice Presidential nominee. Seriously.

Hutchison Admits the War Was Unnecessary But Still Doesn't Want a Withdrawal

In yesterday's Senate candidate debate, Kay Bailey Hutchison made a stunning admission.

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said in a televised debate with her Democratic and Libertarian opponents Thursday night that she would not have voted for the Iraq war if she had known in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

"If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, I would not have voted to go into Iraq as we did," said Hutchison, a Republican seeking a third term in Washington. "But I don't think the president would have asked us to."

Maybe somebody should get her a copy of Richard Clarke's book before she goes too far with this argument. As Clarke described the aftermath of 9/11:

I expected to go back to a round of meetings [after September 11] examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq.

Radnofsky was quick to jump all over the "If I'd known then..." theory, too.

The concession drew a sharp rebuke from Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky, who said key senators had intelligence reports questioning whether nuclear, chemical and biological weapons were stashed in Iraq. And she questioned whether those reports were read by many in the Senate before they cast their votes.

"Any senator who did not do what their colleagues begged them to do was derelict in their duty," Radnofsky said.

So Hutchison thinks it's finally time to admit the obvious and move on, eh? Well, no, not exactly. Now that we're in Iraq we don't want to "cut and run." Of course, we know that Hutchison has no plan to end the war. (See previous post Senator Hutchison's Plan to Get Out of Iraq.) But it's also no secret that things in Iraq are going very badly, and that President Bush plans on making adjustments to the Iraq plan just as soon as the elections are over. Of course, that's cold comfort to the families of Texans lost so far in this senseless war, or of the 72 U.S. soldiers killed in fighting so far this month.

But, hey, on the upside, Hutchison did broker a deal on the Wright Amendment, so I guess it all evens out.

radnofsky, hutchison prepare to face off

This Thursday, Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate Barbara Ann Radnofsky will face two conservative opponents in a televised debate: Republican incumbent Kay Bailey Hutchison and Libertarian Scott Jameson.

Senator Hutchison, whose latest ad campaign promotes her as "A Senator for All Texans" and touts her thirteen years experience in the U.S. Senate, has polled consistently ahead this election season. Undaunted, Radnofsky plows on, debuting her first television commercials this week. Radnofsky hopes to better serve the constituents of Texas than her opponent, citing Hutchison's anti-veteran and anti-immigrant votes on the floor of the Senate.

Radnofsky has pledged to make her practice session for the debate open to the media. The day before the debate, Radnofsky will stop in San Antonio to prepare.

"We decided to give the media a chance to see unrehearsed, uncensored preparations for the debate. This kind of access is unprecedented, but we think voters deserve to see what a candidate looks like under pressure and unscripted," said Radnofsky.

The only debate between the three senatorial candidates takes place this Thursday, Oct. 19, in San Antonio. The debate is sponsored by the League of Women Voters and will air on select PBS stations at 9 p.m. Check your local listings for more information.

congress repeals wright amendment

An effort spearheaded by Texas Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans, has finally come to fruition: both houses of Congress have passed legislation that would phase out flight restrictions at Dallas Love Field. President Bush will presumably sign the bill into law next week.

"It's a great relief to have a final solution," said Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, whose district includes Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. "The fact that none of the parties are completely happy and all of the parties are relieved to have it over should be a sign that it's a good agreement."

The congressional legislation comes after an intensely-negotiated agreement between the mayors of Dallas and Fort Worth concerning the repeal back in June. This plan will be implemented under the new legislation by 2014.

The Dallas Morning News notes that this issue split legislators unusually: they were not divided by party lines or by geography.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, argued against a frequent ally, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, whose district includes Love Field.

Mr. Sensenbrenner [R-Wisconsin], recalling the "Don't Mess with Texas" bumper stickers in the House garage, said, "Tonight is one of the nights where we ought to mess with Texas.

"This is the most anti-consumer, anti-free-enterprise legislation that has come before this House in a long time," he said.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, was distributing red "Vote Yes" fliers to members on the floor; Ms. Johnson had her own yellow fliers supporting the bill.

The final tally, which came just past 10 p.m. Dallas time, was 386-22.

Again, reactions to the passage is mixed. The chief operating officer of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Kevin Cox, predicts a "calming effect" at D/FW and a possible dip in fares as American tries to match Southwest's low rates. Some travel analysts disagree.

[Terry] Trippler said consumers shouldn't expect ticket prices to go down at D/FW because Fort Worth-based American will still be able to charge a premium for nonstop flights, compared with the connecting and one-stop service that Southwest Airlines will offer from Love. American operates more than 80 percent of the passenger flights at D/FW.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a good piece on the "winners" in the new legislation. The list includes passengers, Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and both airports in contention. Many look at the situation as a win-win. "Everyone gave up something for the common good," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth.

Another local lawmaker summed up the debate: "This bill is important to North Texas, the air-service community at large and my constituents at Love Field, which is in the heart of my district," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas. "I am not anti-competitive. I'm not anti-lower fares. I'd be stupid to be that. But I am pro-principle."

stem cell research enhancement act: vetoed

Recently, the Senate passed legislation that would enhance stem cell research by loosening restrictions on federal funding. The legislation passed in the U.S. House back in 2005 without help from several North Texas Republicans that voted against it: Rep. Michael Burgess (Flower Mound), Rep. Ralph Hall (Rockwall), Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Dallas), Rep. Sam Johnson (Plano), Rep. Kenny Marchant (Carrollton), and Rep. Pete Sessions (Dallas). Two North Texas Republicans supported stem cell research and are to be commended: Rep. Kay Granger (Fort Worth) and Rep. Joe Barton (Ennis).

How did the Democrats vote? Totally in favor of stem cell research. Texas Democrats stood in solidarity; not a single one voted against the legislation. If you're represented by a Texas Democrat, take a minute to write them a letter and thank them for supporting stem cell research.

Over in the Senate, our two Republican senators were split. Sen. John Cornyn voted against the stem cell research legislation, while Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted for it. Sen. Hutchison is to be commended for standing up and letting her vote be counted to help save lives. Unfortunately, Sen. Cornyn decided to cater to the religious right.

Regardless of how everyone voted, President Bush used the first veto of his presidency today to reject this legislation that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said Wednesday afternoon. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it."

Attending the White House event were a group of families with children who were born from "adopted" frozen embryos that had been left unused at fertility clinics.

"These boys and girls are not spare parts," he said of the children in the audience. "They remind us of what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells."

Despite Bush's decision, the issue has divided much of the Republican Party. Only two Texas Republicans (North Texas Reps. Barton and Granger) strayed from Republican talking points to cast their vote in favor of the legislation, but across the nation things were different. In the Senate, many states were split with one senator voting one way and the other voting another. In the House, a coalition of 200 Democrats and Republicans co-sponsored the legislation. Even top Republicans in Congress were forced to publicly disagree with the president.

The Senate bill's principal sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, who recently survived a brush with cancer, was joined by Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, a physician who argued that Bush's policy is too restrictive.

"I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," Frist said in a statement. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."

Currently, House Republicans plan to re-introduce the legislation in an attempt to override President Bush's veto. Please help this effort! If your legislator voted against the bill last year, there's a chance that public opinion could change their mind this year. If they supported it last year, make sure you write them to encourage them to cast the same vote to override the veto. Right now, House leadership isn't sure that they'll have enough support for the measure, so this requires immediate action if we want to save lives. Contact your representatives in Congress here.

Senator Hutchison's Plan to Get Out of Iraq

Tonight on Hardball, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison faced off with Senator Dick Durbin on the Iraq war. Senator Durbin was his usual self -- low-key, precise, if lacking passion. Senator Hutchison was a mess. On the key question regarding the Republican plan to end the war, she gave this response.

Norah O'Donnell: What is the plan to get out of Iraq? What's the exit strategy?

Senator Hutchison: The exit strategy is to see their government come together, to continue training their security forces, and to understand that they are victims, too. The Iraqi people - when they blow up a police station - it's those men who are coming in to be a part of the security force that are being tagged again and again and again by the insurgents. The insurgents are trying to keep them from having an economy, by not letting them have the ability to set up shops and start building commerce.

We've got to see it through, so that we can show there is a stable government, that America keeps its word, and that democracy can work with the three factions that are in Iraq. It has not been easy. These three factions have never worked together in the history of the world.

We can end the war by seeing it through to the end. Glad we cleared that up. Apparently, this plan requires nothing more from us than sheer determination. And anyone suggesting a proactive end to the war, you know, by actually having a plan and implementing it, is a "cut and run coward." You can catch the complete debate on video at the Hardball website, "The Senate Debate Over Iraq."

Here's Hutchison's opponent, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, on the war:

I have consistently stated that Congress needs to insist on its right to be informed fully about what’s going on. Congress must not abdicate its responsibility to obtain, analyze, and act on timely military intelligence. Congress must demand accountability from defense leaders, civilian and military. Our military officers are eager to serve the legitimate ends of Congress, are eager to provide more information, and are eager to serve their intelligence role to Congress. Rather than a Texas senator who rubberstamps failed administration policy, who displays an absence of interest in learning about the real military situation from our military leaders and coming up with good solutions, we need an earnest, thinking, committed, and responsible senator.

We should set a timetable and safely withdraw.

There is a reason why Republicans are having such a hard time articulating the administration's exit strategy for Iraq. There is none. And that's all Democrats have to say between now and November. Stop defending the plans for withdrawal. It doesn't matter whether Kerry's plan matches Murtha's plan matches Durbin's plan. The Republicans want to keep the debate on the Democrats' perceived lack of unity to hide their own vulnerability on this issue. What matters is that the Democrats have a plan to end this war and the Republicans do not. Keep it simple and hammer it home.

Tax Cuts- More Fuzzy Math

The $70 billion tax cut bill received final approval last week from the Senate, and now awaits President Bush's signature to become law. The President is expected to sign it sometime this week. The bill was approved largely along party lines.

Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn voted for the tax cut bill. Senator Hutchison expressed confidence that the two-year extension of the sales tax exemption, important for states like Texas that lack an income tax, would be included in a follow-up bill expected later this year.

The bill was roundly condemned by economic think tanks and the Democratic leadership.

Saying the bill "caters to an elite group of wealthy Americans at the expense of the middle class," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said extending the cuts was fiscally irresponsible, especially during an era of high budget deficits. "I've heard, and I always thought, Republicans were the party of fiscal integrity," Reid said. "This has been blown sky high."

But Frist fired back that almost half of the tax returns declaring capital gains and dividends come from people with adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000.

According to the Brookings Institute, if you make $50K or less, your share of the cuts amount to an average of $46. Compare that to $42,000 in tax cuts for anyone making over $1 million. Many more wage earners make $50K than one million, so Dr. Frist is technically correct. But the suggestion that these cuts represent tax relief for the middle class is typical of the lies and distortions that have used to sell this house of cards since before President Bush even took office. When Vice President Al Gore pointed out that candidate Bush's plans amounted to a tax cut for the wealthy, Bush accused him of "fuzzy math."

Yes, President Bush campaigned on tax cuts, and he's kept his word. This tax cut package represents the sixth in as many years. The result is that federal revenues have slipped since 2000 from 21 percent to 17.5 percent as a share of GDP. During the same period, federal spending increased from 18.4 percent to 20.8 percent of GDP. The difference is made up with borrowed money, and the debt is rising year by year. The deficit has grown fifty percent under Bush's watch. In the not too distant future, Congress will be asked to raise the debt ceiling to an unfathomable $10 trillion.

David Broder highlights a speech on the Senate floor by George Voinovich, who earned his political chops advocating fiscal discipline as governor of the Buckeye state. Voinovich was one of three dissenting Republicans to vote against the tax cuts.

Some members believe that the solution is to grow the economy out of the problem, that by cutting taxes permanently, the economy will eventually raise enough revenue to offset any current losses to the U.S. treasury. I respectfully disagree with that assertion....In November 2005, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint economic Committee and told Congress: 'We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing.'...Instead of making the tax cuts permanent, we should be leveling with the American people about the fiscally shaky ground we are on...."

The question I ask is, what sacrifice are we making? Anyone in the know who is watching us has to wonder about our character, our intellectual honesty, our concern about our national security, our nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace now and in the future, and last but not least, our don't-give-a-darn attitude about the standard of living and quality of life of our children and grandchildren.

The question is, are we willing to be honest with ourselves and the American people and make these tough decisions?

Senator Voinovich, you are so living in the 20th century. The Republicans haven't stood for fiscal responsibility at the federal level in at least a quarter century. That's why you have to keep switching sides to vote with the Democrats in support of fiscal reform. Remember PAYGO? Too bad your fellow Republicans didn't leave it alone. From the March 2005 release of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Last year, the House Budget Committee approved legislation that would fundamentally alter PAYGO by applying it only to increases in mandatory programs. Under that approach, tax cuts would not have to be offset, regardless of their size, economic justification, or impact on the deficit. That proposal was not aimed at controlling deficits. Rather, it was more narrowly designed to control spending by requiring that entitlement expansions be offset with cuts in other entitlement programs. Since tax cuts would be exempt from fiscal scrutiny under such a proposal, deficits could rise substantially even if the spending restraint in the proposal proved effective....

There is no good reason to exempt tax cuts from budget enforcement rules. In the absence of a compelling case to provide short-term economic stimulus, if Congress wants to pass particular tax cuts, it should either reduce mandatory programs or raise other revenues to offset the cost of the tax-reduction measures, not simply give itself a free pass to enact tax cuts without financing them. Doing otherwise
merely provides an open invitation to keep our existing government services without fully paying for them and then send the bill to our children.

We're already cutting our existing services, but let's not quibble. The conservative pundits argue that Bush is a liberal because they don't like his fiscal policies. But those policies have been soundly renounced by the Democratic leadership. And what does that make the Republican House and Senate who have voted in lock-step to follow the President over the cliff?

If after all this, you're still hankering for more discussion of the tax cuts and fiscal policy, go to Brad DeLong's website and click on "Morning Coffee Videocasts: Time for a Fiscal Stabilization Board to Deal with the Deficit?" It sounds like a sleeper, but it's pretty quirky.