Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Mayor of Crazytown

Mayor of Crazytown

April 27, 2021

Mischiefs of Faction

By Matthew Green


With the exception of Paul Ryan, every Speaker of the House since Carl Albert has written a memoir. That includes John Boehner, whose newly published autobiography On the House is decidedly different from its predecessors.



For one thing, it is by far the most profanity-laden memoir ever written by a former Speaker. (By my count, Boehner uses curse words – usually an f-bomb, s-bomb, or some version thereof – 63 times. And that doesn’t include Easter Egg profanities hiding in his audiobook.) It is also unusually bitter, as Boehner repeatedly disparages media outlets, advocacy groups, and “knucklehead” House Republicans for undermining his speakership.



Looking past the name-calling and salty language, however, Boehner’s autobiography contains some valuable insights into a major theme of his speakership: the struggle to exercise legislative leadership over a congressional party that includes members who disdain compromise.



Boehner clearly views himself as a legislator first and foremost. He recalls with pride his role in passing the education reform law No Child Left Behind when he was chairman of the House Education Committee. Boehner also conveys frustration at the failure of Congress to enact critical legislation during the Obama Administration. Immigration reform fell by the wayside, weeks were wasted on a government shutdown in 2013 that accomplished nothing, and a “grand bargain” to balance the federal budget was never reached.



The former Speaker argues that Obama’s arrogance and poor negotiating skills contributed to many of these failures. But he also blames members of his own party who eschewed all bipartisan compromise, made dangerously unrealistic demands, and mindlessly attacked the nation’s political institutions. They were, in his words, “total moron[s],” “cranks,” “screwballs,” “kooks,” “crazies,” and “knuckleheads” (his favorite term of disparagement). The GOP was turning into "Crazytown," he laments, and "when I took the Speaker's gavel in 2011...I became its mayor."



Far-right Republicans who were first elected to the House in 2010 are a particular target of Boehner’s ire. “They didn’t really want legislative victories,” he opines. “They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades.” Furthermore, “some of them had me in their sights from day one” as a “liberal collaborator” because he was open to reaching deals with Democrats in order to enact legislation. They quickly gravitated to lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the “head lunatic,” whom Boehner especially deplores.



Boehner believes that these lawmakers were incentivized by two outside sources: the conservative media, which gave them a platform to espouse their absolutist rhetoric, and hyper-partisan donors and interest groups who were eager to contribute campaign money to ideological purists. "By 2013," he writes, “the chaos caucus in the House had built up their own power base thanks to fawning right-wing media and outrage-driven fundraising cash.”



He is hardly alone in making this claim. One rank and file Republican grumbled in 2014 that “Jesus himself couldn’t be the Speaker and get 218 Republicans behind something.” More recently, Jonathan Rauch remarked at a panel at the Catholic University of America (where I teach) that a major threat facing the country is “the tendency of politicians and others to denigrate our institutions for fun and profit and as a way of self-promotion.”



There is also empirical evidence that Boehner’s own party in Congress has indeed radicalized, and that conservative activist news outlets have proliferated in recent years. In my own research, I have found a relationship between lawmaker support for Boehner on key votes and their faith in party loyalty in general (though campaign spending by ideological groups did not seem to matter).



But while outside forces may have created a challenging environment for Boehner to govern, On the House unintentionally suggests another reason for Boehner’s difficulties: his personal aversion to the exercise of power.



Boehner opens the book with this tell-tale sentence: “Nancy Pelosi has a killer instinct—something I never had (well, not much of one anyway).” He later admits that “I’m not about power and never had been,” adding that “I couldn’t care less about conveying an image of power.” From Boehner’s perspective, political power corrupts. It was a lesson he learned from seeing colleagues transform into arrogant despots when they became committee chairs.



This disdain for power, odd for someone who served in the third-highest post in American government, may explain some of the more damaging errors Boehner made as Speaker. For instance, early in his speakership, Boehner decided to eliminate earmarks in spending bills in the name of reducing corruption. This proved costly, as it robbed him of a valuable means of influencing his fellow partisans to stay loyal on difficult votes.



Boehner’s dislike of political power may also explain key moments when he mistakenly let other lawmakers overrule his own preferences. Immigration reform legislation failed to pass the House, he writes, because the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), didn’t want it to. “Nothing would get him to move an inch toward compromise,” he laments. In 2012 he let the Republican Steering Committee remove four disloyal Republicans from their committees despite thinking it was a bad idea. And it was: those four Republicans voted against him in the upcoming election for Speaker, which he only narrowly won.



This hands-off approach to governing is somewhat reminiscent of how Speakers of the past like Sam Rayburn governed the House, deferring to committee chairs and following a more institutionalist model of leadership. But even Rayburn understood the importance of amassing influence, exercising it, and cultivating a reputation for power, which helped him serve longer as Speaker than anyone else in history.



Boehner most clearly demonstrated his lack of understanding of power – and how the perception of power creates more power – when he resigned suddenly from Congress in October 2015. Boehner credits the visit of Pope Francis with his decision to resign early, but he also did soon after key members of the House Freedom Caucus threatened to vote him out. The threat was empty – Boehner had the votes to remain Speaker – but the timing of Boehner’s departure fostered the impression that the Freedom Caucus had brought him down. It burnished the Caucus' influence over the House Republican Party that has continued to this day.



Whether or not Boehner’s speakership inadvertently helped the “knuckleheads” he so frequently disparages, his memoir should be read as a testament to the difficulties of being a Rayburn Speaker in a Gingrich House. It also underscores the dangers of treating political power in Congress as something to be avoided rather than nurtured.

Original link here: https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/post/mayor-of-crazytown

Republicans decide that for them to win, everything has to be a crisis

Republicans decide that for them to win, everything has to be a crisis

Washington Post

Opinion by 
Paul Waldman
Columnist
April 27, 2021 at 2:03 a.m. GMT+9

President Biden and first lady Jill Biden. (Al Drago for The Washington Post)

As President Biden reaches his 100th day in the White House, this is the shape of American political conflict: He wants to reassure the country that everything is under control, our problems are significant but solvable and things are getting better. The Republican Party, on the other hand, wants the country to believe that we are in a spiraling crisis, a nightmare of chaos and oppression that threatens to drag us to hell — if we aren’t already there.


There are hamburgers involved (seriously), but for his part, the president has so far implemented a strategy that seems almost designed to stay out of the news. Biden isn’t just refusing to be drawn into silly media controversies; he’s almost acting as though the national conversation is of minimal concern to him.


The contrast with the Donald Trump years couldn’t be stronger. Trump believed not only that he had to monopolize our attention for every waking moment, but also that conflict that had him at its center was inevitably good for him. Where Biden tries to tamp down disagreement and create the perception of stability — even if it means you can go for days without thinking about him — Trump wanted chaos, believing that he could ride it to success.


Story continues below advertisement

This is in many ways a natural extension of the events that brought Biden here. He did not capture the Democratic nomination in 2020 so much as he was gifted it by a primary electorate in the grip of sober calculation and lowered expectations, and his early successes in office (emphasis on early) suggest the value of underpromising and overdelivering.


There’s only so much Biden’s reassuring style can do to defuse partisan conflict, however. A round of just-released polls shows him in solid if unspectacular shape, averaging approval in the mid-50s. Though things have run smoothly since he came into office — no scandals, steady progress on the pandemic, an economy revving up — overall his approval is lower than that of most presidents at this stage (except Trump).


That demonstrates just how hardened partisanship has become. Just 12 years ago, significant numbers of Republicans joined in the honeymoon for Barack Obama (though they soon turned against him), just as many Democrats had eight years earlier for George W. Bush. Those days are over.


Story continues below advertisement

But the question for Republicans is not whether they can persuade their own partisans to disapprove of Biden. That’s not enough. They need to create an intensity of opposition, full of anger and motivation. For that, those voters need to be convinced that what they’re seeing isn’t stability at all. It’s crisis.


You see it in ways large and small, such as the argument over whether an increase in migrants coming to the southern border is or is not a “crisis.” Border “crises” come with regularity, yet never produce the societal collapse that Republicans predict (remember the caravans of 2018 that were going to rampage through the country?). The WiFi password at the House Republican retreat in Orlando is reportedly “Biden Border Crisis.”


The message is and will continue to be that the United States is falling apart because of Biden’s inaction, but also because of his actions. It isn’t enough to say that a Biden policy initiative is a bad idea; it must be turned into a crisis reaching right into every American’s home. Or mouth.


Story continues below advertisement

Which brings us to the hamburgers.


While discussing this kind of story risks spreading the lunacy, this one is such a revealing case study in the spread of misinformation that it’s worth noting. It starts with a ludicrous article in Britain’s Daily Mail that found a university study exploring how various changes in habits, including drastic reductions in meat consumption, might affect greenhouse gas emissions.


The Daily Mail article, produced as it was by people for whom integrity and honesty are utterly foreign concepts, made this leap: Biden wants to cut greenhouse emissions; some researchers said reducing meat consumption would cut greenhouse emissions; therefore “Biden’s climate plan could limit you to eat just one burger a MONTH.” That is in the actual headline.


Story continues below advertisement

Naturally, Fox News picked up this preposterous lie and ran with it, and before long, Republican governors such as Greg Abbott of Texas and Brad Little of Idaho were bravely announcing their intention to stand up to the imaginary jackbooted federal burger police, as were Internet nincompoops such as Donald Trump Jr.


All these well-known Republicans — all of them — know full well that there is no Biden burger-grabbing plan. But they also think their supporters are dumb enough to believe it, and they’re right. The insanity of the idea that there would be a legal limit on how much meat you can eat — the very thing that should make any sentient person say “That can’t possibly be true” — is what makes Republicans say “This is perfect.”


So these are the two competing narratives of the moment: One is about stability and progress, and the other is about madness and collapse. Either Americans will believe what they see in their own lives and their own communities, or they’ll believe that everything is spinning out of control and the crisis is everywhere, because that’s what they heard on Fox News. It’s hard to know yet which narrative will prevail.


A dumb attack on Biden’s plan actually reveals the weakness of GOP arguments

A dumb attack on Biden’s plan actually reveals the weakness of GOP arguments

Washington Post

Opinion by 
Greg Sargent
Columnist
April 26, 2021 at 11:08 p.m. GMT+9

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). (Andrew Harnik/AP)

Republicans have settled on an attack against President Biden’s jobs plans: Raising taxes on ultra-rich Americans constitutes socialism.


The most buffoonish expression of this yet comes courtesy of former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who said Sunday on ABC News that raising the capital gains tax, of all things, is “socialism” because it constitutes “redistribution of income.”


But this absurdity is actually useful. It points to a deeper intellectual scam employed by opponents of higher taxes, one that should be exposed as the debate over Biden’s plans gets underway.


It’s the idea that higher taxes represent a departure from a purportedly natural baseline of free-market capitalism that is getting distorted by those higher taxes in a way that offends pristine free-market principles.


Story continues below advertisement

This was also voiced by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on “Fox News Sunday,” who suggested new taxes to fund spending on infrastructure and social programs are “socialist.”


The same old scam

This week, Biden will introduce new proposals for higher taxes on the wealthy, including an increase in the capital gains tax on those with income over $1 million, and a hike in the rate paid by earners in the top income bracket.


Those would pay for the next phase of Biden’s economic plans, which include investments in child-care funding, paid medical leave and free community college. It comes after Biden proposed higher corporate taxes to fund the first phase of his infrastructure package.


Story continues below advertisement

Christie’s denunciation of a capital gains tax hike as “socialism” vividly illustrates the scam that opponents will pull. The fact that we tax capital gains (which come from sales of capital assets and overwhelmingly go to the wealthy) at a lower rate than wage income (the main income of everyone else) is a policy choice.


The Biden plan would tax the capital gains of millionaire investors at roughly the same level as income. The idea that this constitutes “redistribution” (let alone “socialism”) presumes that the current tax structure is the natural order of things.


But in reality, it is one of countless ways our economic order has been structured by rules created by the government, via policy choices. There cannot be a magically “natural” economic order that is not structured by policy choices. This is precisely what people like Christie want to obscure.


Story continues below advertisement

Why? Because it helps obscure a larger truth: Many who would see these higher taxes have gotten rich in part due to various policy choices in recent decades, ones the wealthy have helped engineer. Higher taxes would simply be another such choice to undo a fraction of the benefits those choices helped lavish on them.


It’s the economic rents, stupid

In a pair of useful papers, Berkeley professor of political economy Steven Vogel explains this well. Government rules enable markets to exist in the first place, Vogel notes, so the choice is how to structure markets, in whose interests and for what purpose.


These market rules, Vogel explains, structure power relationships between various players and factors in the economy. The “neoliberal” turn is often described as moving toward “free” markets, but in many cases, “free-market ideology camouflaged policies that did not actually reduce government regulation but rather redirected it in favor of those with wealth and power.”


Story continues below advertisement

Changes in labor market law weakened worker power relative to employers. Changes in corporate governance channeled higher salaries to executives and prioritized shareholder gains over other stakeholders’ interests. Changes in financial regulation helped the financial sector seize a larger share of the economy. A retreat on antitrust enforcement, and more generous government protection for intellectual property rights, have granted more market power (and profits) to dominant firms, such as in Big Tech and Big Pharma.


The big story: The top has benefited partly from economic rents, or extractive gains rooted in deliberate changes in market rules. Tax policy, too, has helped channel more after-tax income upward, including taxing capital gains at a lower rate, as scholar Gabriel Zucman illustrates well:


Economist Dean Baker notes that Biden’s tax hikes would target many who profited in part from these economic rents. The top tax bracket includes many in the top 1 percent of earners, who are often tech, pharma and Wall Street executives and wealthy investors (who would also face a capital gains tax hike), Baker notes. Higher corporate taxes would hit many wealthy shareholders.


Story continues below advertisement

“We structured the market to redistribute tens of trillions in income and wealth upward,” Baker told me. “Biden’s tax hikes would take back a small portion of this money. This is taxing back rents we’ve given those at the top.”


Indeed, another feature of Biden’s proposals — reining in multinational tax avoidance — also targets a type of rent. As Ryan Cooper notes, rules that facilitate this avoidance via profit-shifting also emerged from policy choices, meaning we can choose to undo them and bring back more revenue to fund public investments.


All these insights are longtime features of progressive economics, but they need centralizing right now. Indeed, the Biden brain trust appears to believe rising rents help justify higher taxes.


Story continues below advertisement

“The share of profits ... from rents have been ... increasing over time,” top Biden economic adviser David Kamin told me, adding that taxing those rents would help rebalance long-running imbalances.


“The system is broken,” Kamin said. “There are multiple reasons why we should be trying to fix it.”


This is what Republicans want to portray as “socialism,” precisely because they don’t want you to understand what tax hikes on the wealthy would even begin to rectify.


Read more:


In his address to Congress, Biden will advance his agenda. He’ll also have to defend democracy.

In his address to Congress, Biden will advance his agenda. He’ll also have to defend democracy.

Washington Post

Opinion by 
Michael Gerson
Columnist
April 27, 2021 at 3:50 a.m. GMT+9

President Biden. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)

It is the predominant advice to the new president that he focus his budget address to Congress on jobs, jobs, jobs. This reflects a consensus that the Republican Party’s culture war can be defeated by serving the economic interests of average Americans — that blood-and-iron appeals can be overcome by bread-and-butter issues.


This sets up a type of political conflict that is difficult for social science to describe. How do you poll a contest in which one side offers a child-care proposal and the other side alleges a nationwide conspiracy to steal a presidential election? Or in which some set out an infrastructure plan and others warn of a satanic conspiracy to rape children? It’s like comparing apples to existentialism.


Democrats are in a constructive and ambitious mood, trying to squeeze a vast heap of pent-up liberalism through a legislative aperture the size of a mouse hole. The few establishment Republicans who remain are going through the motions of an ideological response, defending fiscal responsibility, limited government and a spirit of inclusion. This will be the substance of South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott’s response to President Biden’s address on Wednesday.


Scott can credibly claim these traditional Republican themes for himself. But if he attributes those values to his party, he will be lying. Trumpism in power cared nothing about the level of government spending; Donald Trump’s main fiscal concern was getting his name printed on the stimulus checks. Trumpism in power constantly probed the limits of executive authority and sought to turn institutions such as the FBI and the Pentagon into extensions of the president’s political will. Trumpism in power employed exclusion as its organizing principle and invited white supremacists to sit at the GOP table.


Story continues below advertisement

Biden’s return to normalcy and basic humanity has led to a great unclenching in our public life. It is a pleasure to be occasionally bored by politics again. But it would be a mistake for Biden to assume that our political system has returned to its previous state, à la memory foam. The Republican Party remains dominated by an apocalyptic politics that accuses liberals of dismantling Western civilization and authorizes undemocratic means to save civilization. Many conservatives — parroting media outlets that profit from incitement — have become reactionary and authoritarian. Their return to power in a second Trump term would be a threat to the republic.


I am fully aware that my description of this apocalyptic movement is itself apocalyptic. But it’s absurd to deny that the American right is infected by a strain of authoritarian thinking that has turned other democracies into repressive shadows of their former selves. One piece of evidence is dispositive: On Jan. 6, Trump introduced the federal government to intimidation by mob violence. And many Republicans — including many elected Republicans — seem pleased by the memory.


We remain a democracy at risk. But how can Biden confront this development without further polarizing the country? It would certainly not be helpful to call out these trends in the GOP directly, as I have done.


Story continues below advertisement

Biden’s challenge in his first speech to Congress — apart from inspiring confidence in his pandemic response and creating momentum for his economic proposals — is to make a compelling, even poetic, case for procedural democracy.


This is not an easy rhetorical task. Fanatics can easily appeal to rage, envy or fear. Capturing the romance of self-government requires more craft and thought. The democratic virtues of civility, tolerance, decency, fairness and empathy announce themselves quietly. The social bonds created by these virtues — respect for the rule of law, respect for the rights of political minorities, a sense of shared destiny despite large differences — are inherently vulnerable. A democracy is held together by millions of invisible ties — ties of memory and mutual regard — that are easier to cut than to repair.


In the shadow of Jan. 6, the case for democracy needs bold restatement. A government of divided and balanced powers, created by the consent of the governed and dedicated to the rights and dignity of the individual, is a tremendous moral achievement. The historical exclusion of many people from the protection of this ideal does not discredit it; it demands that ideal’s more rigorous application. Our shared commitment to these democratic principles is what makes a nation out of nations. And we can’t be bystanders while bullies and would-be autocrats squander an inheritance they do not understand or value.


Story continues below advertisement

In his address to Congress, Biden will have an opportunity, like every president, to advance his agenda. He will also face the need — as few presidents have before him — to defend democracy in a time of peril.


Read more:


Free trade with benefits

Free trade with benefits

Washington Post

By 
Daniel W. Drezner
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a regular contributor to PostEverything.
April 26, 2021 at 8:00 p.m. GMT+9

Never send an economist to do a political scientist’s job.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador looks on as Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister for North America Jesus Seade, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer sign documents at the Presidential Palace in Mexico City on Dec. 10, 2019. (Henry Romero/Reuters)

If there is a last redoubt for this idea inside the Beltway, then it is surely the Peterson Institute for International Economics. PIIE has made the best case for the economic merits of U.S. economic openness for some time now. In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, PIIE President Adam Posen makes a provocative case for continued openness, arguing, among other things, that “populist anger is the result not of economic anxiety but of perceived declines in relative status. The U.S. government has not been pursuing openness and integration over the last two decades. To the contrary, it has increasingly insulated the economy from foreign competition, while the rest of the world has continued to open up and integrate.”


Posen’s essay “The Price of Nostalgia” is well worth reading for two reasons. The first is the evisceration he provides on more populist takes on what trade liberalization did to the U.S. economy. The second is the unintentional revelation for why neoliberalism faces such stark political head winds.


Story continues below advertisement

The good parts first. Posen makes a persuasive case that all of the things that critics of neoliberalism rage against — such as rampant inequality and declining manufacturing employment — actually strengthened at the same time the United States became a more closed economy. Even during the heyday of the 1990s, the United States was less integrated with the global economy because of its size compared to other countries. Posen deftly explains how the raising of trade barriers has accomplished nothing but harm for the U.S. economy, and that the trends many decry — such as declining manufacturing employment — are a global phenomenon.


Posen’s best example is the decline of foreign greenfield investment. As he explains, “Foreign greenfield investment is generally associated with increases in higher-paying jobs and R & D spending. But since 2000, the inflow of greenfield investment to the United States has been trending down sharply, from $13 billion annually in 2000 to $4 billion annually in 2019. Blame goes to a succession of nationalist policies that have increased the threat of arbitrary restrictions on technology transfers and foreign ownership.” The idea that protectionism would trigger productive foreign direct investment is foolhardy.


Posen also proffers useful suggestions for policies that can ameliorate some of the more pernicious effects of untrammeled globalization — including the need to address corporate tax havens, carbon pricing and labor standards.


Story continues below advertisement

Where Posen falls short is his discussion of communities ailing from acknowledged negatives such as the “China shock.” He writes:


Accordingly, much of the writing from policy wonks in recent years has called for plans to recognize the importance of local communities and build them back up. Elected officials, for their part, make a pilgrimage to these places of suffering to show their concern and empathy and then follow up with targeted government assistance.

The problem is that there are precious few examples of a government successfully reviving a community suffering from industrial decline. Geography is not destiny, but it is the embodiment of economic history in many ways, and accumulated history is difficult to overcome....

No one should be abandoned simply because of where they live, and no community deserves to decline. But governments should not lie to their citizens, either. There simply is no reliable method of saving local communities when they lose their dominant employer or industry, even with a massive amount of resources devoted to the effort. Any promises made to revive particular communities through government action are likely to lead to disappointment, frustration, and outright anger when they fail.

Now on the one hand there is a refreshing candor to Posen’s argument. I have read enough economic geography about trying to replicate places such as Silicon Valley to know that he is probably correct. State interventions to rebuild ailing communities after a dominant employer has left the scene face long odds of success.


The problem is that the message of “there is nothing the government can do, so best to just let it happen” is a dead-bang loser argument that no politician can sell. Between hearing that message and hearing some shyster say they will fight like hell to preserve what once was, the politics of nostalgia will win every day of the week and twice on Sundays.


Story continues below advertisement

This is not just about economics, either. For all the talk about footloose and mobile Americans, the bulk of the country does not live this way. According to one moving company, more than 70 percent of Americans live in or close to the city where they grew up. In 2015, the New York Times reported that “the typical adult lives only 18 miles from his or her mother.” Simply telling families that they should move to where the jobs are significantly understates the transaction costs of doing so.


There are policy responses that would be appropriate here. Matthew Yglesias’s idea of relocating federal agencies outside of the Beltway retains its appeal. The pandemic realization that perhaps folks can work far away from their places of employment might also improve the chances of de-clustering employment. It is worth considering how governments can enact policies to turn fading communities into “Zoom towns.”


The point is, neoliberals have a valid critique of the populist critique of globalization. But to push back against populists, they need a better response for struggling communities than a shrug of the shoulders.


The next Republican attack on Biden will boomerang on the GOP

The next Republican attack on Biden will boomerang on the GOP

Washington Post

Opinion by 
Paul Waldman and 
Greg Sargent
April 28, 2021 at 5:42 a.m. GMT+9

The IRS building in Washington, D.C. (Bill O'Leary/WASHINGTON POST)

In 2010, private equity magnate Steven Schwartzman attracted great derision when he greeted an Obama administration proposal to raise taxes on his kind of profits with a World War II analogy: “It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.”


Schwartzman managed to survive the blitzkrieg. Today his fortune stands at a healthy $27 billion.


But now that President Biden is set to introduce a new proposal that would beef up IRS enforcement, making it harder for such wealthy investors to cheat and shield their incomes, the Nazi comparisons may start up again. The ultrarich are already reportedly in a panic about other Biden plans to raise their taxes, and more IRS enforcement will only make things worse.


Story continues below advertisement

This, combined with the particulars of Biden’s new proposal, will make it hard for Republicans to register their inevitable opposition without it boomeranging back on them.


The Post reports that when Biden announces the next phase of his jobs plan on Wednesday, it will include a proposal to add $80 billion in funding for the IRS that will make plutocrats choke on their wagyu tartare:


Probably the single biggest source of new revenue in the plan comes from dramatically expanding the clout of the nation’s tax agency. It seeks to beef up the number of agents and give the IRS new tools and technology to execute collections and crack down on avoidance, the people said.

White House officials have eyed raising as much as $700 billion from toughening IRS enforcement and auditing over 10 years, two of the people said, although the precise amount in the plan remained unclear. Enforcement will be focused on the wealthy, the people said.

Enforcing tax collection tends to get less attention than other Biden tax proposals do. We’ve been debating whether to raise taxes on corporations, capital gains, and top level incomes, and crack down on tax avoidance by multinational companies.


But the sorry state of tax enforcement may also make a huge difference to the tax bills of the ultrawealthy, and therefore to the rest of us.


Story continues below advertisement

The Internal Revenue Service lacks the resources to enforce tax laws. The tax gap — between what is owed and what is paid — amounts to an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars a year. IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig even suggested recently that this might “exceed $1 trillion per year.”


Two things in Biden’s proposal will make the political debate over it interesting. First, it will seek additional revenue reporting requirements. Though details remain vague, it appears these will be applied to people who hide money in “opaque structures,” as Jim Tankersly dryly notes.


Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chair of the Finance Committee, points out that this will help ensure that the targets are very wealthy investors. Wage earners are already less likely to misreport income, Wyden notes, which means such requirements will target unreported revenue from holders of capital that employ creative bookkeeping to hide them.


Story continues below advertisement

“The reason people who earn wages generally don’t cheat on their taxes is because their employers also report their income to the government,” Wyden told us in a statement. “That’s not the case for the highfliers, whose income from wealth often goes unreported. Plugging this hole in the system is critical.”


Second, the Biden proposal will also seek dedicated funding from Congress, meaning it would be insulated from future budget cuts.


Wyden pointed out that this is essential, because Republicans might seek to undo that funding if they take back the House next year, and wealthy tax avoiders could continue scheming in anticipation of that.


“Wealthy tax cheats are savvy enough to understand that a one-year budget increase isn’t going to rebuild the agency after a decade of neglect,” Wyden said.


Story continues below advertisement

History confirms that this might happen. After the GOP House takeover in 2010, Republicans successfully won deep cuts to IRS enforcement, even though Barack Obama was in the White House.


“We all saw what happened when Republicans took back the House and went to war against the agency,” Wyden told us. “They were able to slash IRS funding and hobble enforcement efforts.”


That had an impact. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, the audit rate for those with incomes over $1 million a year “fell by 71 percent between 2010 and 2019, from 8.4 percent to just 2.4 percent.”


All this should also make it harder for Republicans to oppose the plan. They will try to rehash old attacks by arguing that the jackbooted IRS will be coming for ordinary Americans. But the proposals are geared toward rich investors, so that will be a harder case to make without Republicans appearing to protect their interests.


Story continues below advertisement

Second, Republicans may have a tougher time arguing that this IRS funding shouldn’t be protected, given recent history and their own role in authoring that history.


By now, this history has established for the public that with a decimated IRS, it’s harder to audit wealthy individuals, since they can employ high-priced accountants and lawyers. We’ve heard horror stories long these lines for years.


At a time when we’re mired in crises not seen in many decades, it will be harder to defend anything that might make it easier for the very rich to skate when so many ordinary Americans are enduring such hardship.


Back in 2019, Biden told a group of wealthy donors that he didn’t want to “demonize” them, but something had to be done about inequality. Under his proposals, he said, “no one’s standard of living will change.”


Story continues below advertisement

For better or worse, even if Biden gets everything he wants on taxes, that will still be basically true. If someone who makes $50 million a year from investments has to pay a few million more in taxes, their lives will be pretty much the same. There are only so many yachts one person can own.


But, given the large public investments this could help fund at a time of such deep public need, the country could be much better off. Let’s see Republicans argue against that.


Read more:


Elite conservatives want you to be a terrible person

Elite conservatives want you to be a terrible person

Washington Post

Opinion by 
Paul Waldman
Columnist
April 28, 2021 at 1:37 a.m. GMT+9

Supporters of then-President Donald Trump protest the ballot count outside TFC Center in Detroit on Nov. 5, 2020. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

Every political movement contains within it a critique of the present and a vision of the future, an agenda of problems to be solved and a series of solutions that would bring us to a better existence. But political movements also say something about people, both who they think we are and who they’d like us to be.


Keep that in mind as we look at where elite conservatives are putting their attention and energy, to understand what they think of Americans and how they think we ought to be living our lives.


A rant that Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the chief propagandist of today’s right, delivered this week was shocking even for him. The subject was the evolving thinking on mask-wearing outdoors; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has just released new guidance on the subject, which, as expected, reflects the understanding that transmission of the coronavirus in outdoor settings is extremely rare, particularly as more people are vaccinated.


Story continues below advertisement

But that’s not good enough for Carlson. He urged his viewers to start fights and turn on their neighbors:


As for forcing children to wear masks outside, that should be illegal. Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart. Call the police immediately. Contact Child Protective Services. Keep calling until someone arrives. What you’re looking at is abuse, it’s child abuse and you are morally obligated to attempt to prevent it. If it’s your own children being abused, then act accordingly.

The truth is that in most cases it is indeed unnecessary for people to wear masks outside — though not in every case, and not for everyone. But the more important question is, why in heaven’s name does Carlson want people to call Child Protective Services on their neighbors for something so unimportant? So that a parent who has their kid wear a mask in the park gets plunged into a bureaucratic nightmare that could result in their child being taken away?


What kind of person would do that? The kind of person Carlson wants his audience to be. Or perhaps the kind of person he already thinks they are.


Story continues below advertisement

What else do you learn on Fox, the central hub of the conservative media universe, about what’s going on in the world? You learn that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, of course, but also that President Biden wants to limit the number of burgers you’re allowed to eat (he doesn’t) and that government officials are handing out copies of a children’s book Vice President Harris wrote in 2019 to immigrant kids (they aren’t).


The conservative media figures and Republican politicians who spread those lies know that they’re false. But they use them to keep their supporters in a state of perpetual outrage precisely because they hold those supporters in such boundless contempt.


You have to think — no, you have to know — that your audience is pretty darn stupid if you think they’ll believe that the president is going to ban hamburgers. But that’s exactly how elite conservatives like their supporters: dumb, gullible and easily enraged.


Story continues below advertisement

The ideology Carlson is developing takes it to another, more repellent level. This isn’t just get-off-my-lawn conservatism (protective of individual liberty, alienated by cultural change, generally grumpy); it takes itself out into the world, building its identity on confrontation.


This version of conservatism doesn’t just want you to hole up in your house feeling fear and anger. It wants you to become a “Karen” (or whatever the male equivalent is), feeling entitled not just to impose your ideas on others but to do so aggressively, unpleasantly, invasively wherever you go, turning every trip to the supermarket into a shouting match with strangers.


Who in their right mind would want to live that way?


Story continues below advertisement

I’m reminded of a Web ad that President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign released to great attention in 2012. Called “The Life of Julia,” it showed how a woman is helped by government programs — she goes to school, then college, then starts a business, has her own children, and eventually retires, with a helping hand from Pell Grants, Obamacare and Social Security.


That was one version of the future Democrats wanted to create, where people lead productive, fulfilling lives with support from the government. Republicans saw it and were horrified, not only because they read “support” as “dependence” but also because Julia didn’t seem to have a husband.


For many on the right, the ad became representative of everything they hated about the liberal agenda and what kind of people it would turn us into — though they also were obsessed for a time with another Obama ad featuring a young man wearing pajamas, which conservatives spun into a tale of Democrats wanting to rob men of their masculinity.


Story continues below advertisement

Some of this is a familiar divergence of visions: In one, people are interconnected and use government to enable human flourishing, while in the other, people are self-reliant and rise or fall on their own hard work. And there are plenty of conservatives who are happy people who treat those they encounter with respect and consideration. But more than ever, elite Republicans want their supporters to build their identity on anger and confrontation.


So “We don’t need to wear masks outside” becomes “Call the police on people who have their kids wear masks outside.” “I can make my own choices” becomes “I won’t take the vaccine because it makes liberals mad” (the actual title of an article on the pro-Trump site American Greatness). The answer to the question “Who are you?” begins and ends with “I hate liberals.”


That might turn out to be politically effective, at least for a while. But it’s no way to live.


Story continues below advertisement

Read more: