Sprinting Towards Wealth

Millman contemplates tax rates on the wealthy. His bottom line:

The most anti-tax people I know are small business owners and Wall Street traders. These people, in my experience, work very long hours. They don’t really have the choice to work shorter hours – working long hours is part of the package. Many of these people are “sprinting.” They are working so hard to get to a particular level of wealth. They may not get there – but there is a destination. And they don’t want anybody putting obstacles in their way. They have a reason for hating high taxes that is not shared by people who are already at a high level of wealth, nor by people who do not have a reasonable prospect of getting to that level of wealth.

If you raised taxes on these people, they would be angry. They couldn’t “work less” – as I say, that’s usually not an option. But they could do something else to earn a living, and give up on the dream of “sprinting” to wealth. The more sophisticated version of the anti-tax case, then, claims that these “sprinters” generate substantial positive externalities for society from their activity.

Obama Is More Popular Than He Should Be

John Sides finds that Obama’s approval ratings are higher than predicted by economic fundamentals. Ezra Klein wonders why: 

Sides offers two hypotheses for Obama’s overperformance: First, that perhaps he’s just a likable guy. Second, that Americans still seem to place most of the blame for the bad economy on Bush. I’d add a third: That the Republican Party isn’t offering a very compelling alternative right now, and so Obama’s numbers are, in part, a relative judgment given the options available to voters. It’s easier to say someone is doing a bad job when there’s someone you can point to who looks like they’re doing, or at least could do, a better one. 

Ad War Update

After a series of foreign policy blunders, the Romney campaign pivots back to the economy: 

The Obama campaign relishes Newt's likely endorsement of Mitt: 

The Sunlight Foundation has its own highlight reel of Gingrich attack ads against Romney. Keenan Steiner has more

Winning Our Future spent about $3.7 million on attack ads against Mitt Romney back when Gingrich was Romney's main contender in January, an analysis using Sunlight's Follow the Unlimited Money tracker shows. The money went for TV, radio, Internet and email ad buys, mostly in Florida and South Carolina. … They called him a faux-conservative who governed in favor of abortion rights, would not be a strong defender of gun rights, and who can't beat President Obama, whose reelection Gingrich says "would be a genuine disaster," in a farewell video to supporters that he released Tuesday. Winning Our Future sharply criticized Romney's record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, hammering him for overseeing a company in the early 90's later fined for Medicare fraud and producing a documentary that portrayed Romney as a corporate raider. 

Previous Ad War Updates: May 1Apr 30Apr 27Apr 26Apr 25Apr 24Apr 23Apr 18Apr 17Apr 16Apr 13Apr 11Apr 10Apr 9Apr 5Apr 4Apr 3Apr 2Mar 30Mar 27Mar 26Mar 23Mar 22Mar 21Mar 20Mar 19Mar 16Mar 15Mar 14Mar 13Mar 12Mar 9Mar 8Mar 7Mar 6Mar 5Mar 2Mar 1Feb 29Feb 28Feb 27Feb 23Feb 22Feb 21, Feb 17, Feb 16, Feb 15, Feb 14, Feb 13, Feb 9, Feb 8, Feb 7, Feb 6, Feb 3, Feb 2, Feb 1, Jan 30, Jan 29, Jan 27, Jan 26, Jan 25, Jan 24, Jan 22, Jan 20, Jan 19, Jan 18, Jan 17, Jan 16 and Jan 12.

How Would The GOP Pay For An Extension Of The Bush Tax Cuts?

They're not saying. Jonathan Bernstein fumes

Republicans are currently blocking the extension of lower student loan interest rates because they insist on cutting a health care fund to pay for its cost. But when it comes to the Bush tax cuts, they continue to believe that no budget offsets are necessary to pay for them. … You really couldn’t ask for clearer evidence that Republicans are not only wholly uninterested in reducing federal budget deficits, but even oppose the whole notion of considering individual spending and taxing decisions in the context of an overall budget.

The Daily Wrap

6a00d83451c45669e2016766065729970b-550wi

Today on the Dish, Andrew explained why Ric Grenell's ousting by social cons demonstrated Romney's fundamental subordination to the GOP's most extreme faction, demonstrated why the incident proves the Republican party is hostile to gays of all stripes, explored the psychology of a gay Republican, showed just how committed Grenell was to the neoconservative cause, acknowledged the foulness of Grenell's old tweets, copped to some inconsistency on the issue, listened to readers and a dissent, and reacted to a foul outburst related to North Carolina's anti-gay Proposition 1 (video here). We spotlighted the effort to defeat the ballot initiative, labelled Romney "too risky for national security," bet Richard Lugar would be the next purged Republican, wondered what the GOP's problem was,  checked in on Ron Paul, rolled our eyes at Americans Elect, raised a barrier for "political consumerism," and chuckled with Shep Smith – at Gingrich's expense.

Andrew also explored the role of IQ research in explaining global poverty, debuted the questions for Ask Bruce Bartlett Anything, and raised questions for the theory that Bibi had betrayed his father. We aired pushback against Moshe Arens' Malkin nomination, dove into the weird world of Iranian sexual frustration, read over the fine print in the new US-Afghanistan agreement, proposed the F-35 be the "poster child for Pentagon waste," and debated the relative merits of scholarships and military aid in the Middle East. The American economy always balanced public and private contributions, summer jobs slipped away, pre-K needed mor funds, raising special needs children got more complicated, the Court appeared in position to strike down affirmative action, birth control didn't require pap smears, and Facebook nudged you towards organ donations. Novels made for terrible soapboxes, The Avengers fought The Dark Knight Rises in a war of ideas, black people stole "white" music, and the NFL saw another terribly sad day. There was no lonlieness epidemic and brain freeze came from blood. Ask Jim Manzi Anything here, Quotes for the Day here and here, VFYW here, MHB here, and FOTD here.

Z.B.

The Muzzling Of Ric Grenell: An Update

[Re-posted from earlier today]

Some actual reporting from yours truly. It seems clear from sources close to Grenell and reporters on the foreign policy beat that his turning point came last week. He’d been part of organizing a conference call to respond to Vice President Biden’s GrenellRomney’s national security spokesman, was not introduced by name as part of the Romney team at the beginning of the call, and his voice completely absent from the conversation. Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasn’t absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up. Sources close to Grenell say that he was specifically told by those high up in the Romney campaign to stay silent on the call, even while he was on it. And this was not the only time he had been instructed to shut up. Their response to the far right fooferaw was simply to go silent, to keep Grenell off-stage and mute, and to wait till the storm passed. But the storm was not likely to pass if no one in the Romney camp was prepared to back Grenell up. Hence his dilemma. The obvious solution was simply to get Grenell out there doling out the neocon red meat – which would have immediately changed the subject and helped dispel base skepticism. Instead the terrified Romneyites shut him up without any actual plan for when he might subsequently be able to do his job. To my mind, it’s a mark of his integrity that he decided to quit rather than be put in this absurd situation. And it’s a mark of Romney’s fundamental weakness within his own party that he could not back his spokesman against the Bryan Fischers and Matthew Francks. I’m with GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia on this. A couple other thoughts. How many gay conservatives oppose marriage equality – now, apparently, a litmus test (though it wasn’t for Cheney)? I cannot think of any. Why? Because marriage equality started out as a conservative revolt within the gay community. Gay conservatives and Republicans helped pioneer gay marriage as an issue – to some serious pushback from the gay left at the start. So if all gay Republicans who support marriage equality are banned even from speaking on other topics entirely (like Iran or Afghanistan, where Grenell is a fire-breather), who’s left? The answer, I’m afraid, is no one. Grenell was prepared to stay silent on gay issues entirely and do his job. But that wasn’t enough. Romney’s anti-gay agenda is therefore deeper and more extreme than Bush’s.

I might add that the private conversation among many Republicans in this town is that this was unjust and unfair. The Romneyites are correct when they say they tried to talk him out of it. But they kept and keep their views quiet. The gay-inclusive elements in the elites simply do not have the balls to tackle the religious right. And this is particularly true of Romney, as this case now proves. The Christianists gave Bush a pass on social issues because of his born-again Christianity. They trust Mormon Romney not an inch. And this week demonstrates without any doubt that Romney will therefore not be able to deviate from their wishes an iota. He has no room to maneuver. The notion that he could be a moderate on social issues in office is, alas, a pipe dream.

Remember: Grenell was told to be silent solely because he was gay. He was accused in National Review of being a potential fifth columnist for Barack Obama, simply because of his support for marriage equality, which he was never going to speak in public on anyway. His job was to speak on national security, a job for which he was very well prepared and very, very neoconservative.

But the bigots won.

Busted

Many readers have written in on these lines:

I think it was last week that you decried Democrats' use of the phrase "War on Women" as overblown … you even called it "screechy" if I remember right. I'm unclear why you then get to use "War on Gays" then? I'll point to this as one of the reasons your demographics skew toward men. Things always seem some how "more" or "worse" to you if they affect gay men. As you are part of that group, it makes sense. But to minimize the outrage of others and then immediately display this level of hypocrisy makes me less likely to take you seriously. Though it will likely keep me from ever being your daily dissent, I'd also point out that at the current moment there seem to be more legislative efforts aimed at limiting a woman's right to choose or receive proper medical care than there are aimed at gay rights (and thank goodness for that). But how is the shaming of one man, Ric Grenell, a full-out "War on Gays" while multiple states promoting multiple laws not a "War on Women"?

My critics are right. It was a lazy headline and I should have tried for a better one. I've now replaced those headlines with the original Grenell meme: "GOP: No Gays Allowed". But I haven't downplayed or dismissed the real issues women face in various states.

Is Big Football The Next Big Tobacco? Ctd

Another day, another NFL suicide – again by a bullet shot to the chest, not the head. Why?

If Seau committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest, it is similar to the way former Chicago Bears great Dave Duerson ended his life. Duerson shot himself in the chest on February 17, 2011 — the method used so that his brain could be examined for symptoms of CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), a trauma-induced disease common to NFL players and others who have received repeated blows to the head.

The Dish ran a big thread on this troubling trend last month.

Let The Greatest Man Win?

Mark Schmitt thinks that Americans Elect, the crowd-sourced online campaign to pick a presidential candidate, misunderstands politics:

[T]he deepest problem with Americans Elect is its unspoken Great Man Theory of American politics (and this is a Great Man Theory: you can count on one hand the women among the 26 declared candidates and top 50 draft candidates for the AE nomination): All we need to break through Washington’s dysfunction, so goes the idea, is a president with the will to get things done.

Weirdly, this theory echoes both the most delirious Grant Park dreams of what Barack Obama would be able to achieve in the White House, and the delusions of Obama’s sharpest critics from the left, who insist that if he had only pushed harder for a bigger economic stimulus or a public option in health reform he would both have more to show for his presidency and be coasting to reelection. If the last three years have not demonstrated that the President operates within the constraints of an extremely complicated institutional structure with veto points everywhere, what could convince someone? How would a president with no allies in Congress do better?

Avlon profiles the group's founder, Peter Ackerman:

Americans Elect has flown under the radar because it has so far failed to attract a prominent candidate, despite conducting what Ackerman describes as 100 confidential briefings to potential candidates ranging from senators and governors to university presidents and CEOs.