December 9, 2010...The New York Times

The Senate Stands for Injustice

On one of the most shameful days in the modern history of the Senate, the Republican minority on Thursday prevented a vote to allow gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly in the military of the United States. They chose to filibuster a vital defense bill because it also banned discrimination in the military ranks. And in an unrelated but no less callous move, they blocked consideration of help for tens of thousands of emergency workers and volunteers who became ill from the ground zero cleanup after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The senators who stood in the way of these measures must answer to the thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers who must live a lie in order to serve, or drop out. They must answer to the civilians who will not serve their country when some Americans are banned from doing so for an absurd reason, and to the military leaders who all but pleaded with them to end this unjust policy. They must answer to the workers who thought they were aiding their country by cleaning up ground zero.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said that he would allow another vote on repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in a free-standing bill later this month. That long shot is likely to be the final test of whether the Republicans are interested in allowing military equality.

Republicans wanted extra days of debate, demanding the right to amend the defense bill that contained the repeal provision, and essentially killing the bill without quite admitting to it by suffocating it of time. Mr. Reid said he had concluded that they had no intention of repealing the repressive measure, so he called for a vote.

The outcome was three votes short of the 60 needed to break the filibuster. Only one Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, voted to end the filibuster. Two Republicans who said they would vote for repeal, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Scott Brown of Massachusetts, voted the other way, as did one Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Ms. Murkowski and Mr. Brown stuck with a Republican pledge to support no other measures until the tax-cut deal had been dealt with.

Mr. Reid will undoubtedly be second-guessed on his decision to call for a vote, but given the other-worldly logic of a lame-duck session, it is hard to fault his hard-bitten calculation of the Republicans’ intentions. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if debate on the 850-page defense bill did not begin this week, there would be no time to finish it in the remaining few days of the session.

The defense bill would also have raised pay for soldiers, improved their medical care and provided troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with additional equipment and support. It would be the first time in 48 years that Congress did not approve such a bill — all because of an irrational prejudice against gay men and lesbians.

The filibuster on $7.4 billion in medical care and compensation for the workers at ground zero will be harrowing for the tens of thousands who labored tirelessly for weeks and eventually had to seek care under a patchwork of temporary medical and research programs in the city. These police, firefighters and waves of citizen volunteers need ongoing care for illnesses being traced to the toxic fumes, dust and smoke at ground zero.

In the House, Democrats also took a wrongheaded vote to ban transfers of prisoners from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to detention facilities in the United States. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has urged the Senate to strip the provision from the final bill.

Another measure of overdue justice — the Dream Act, which would empower the innocent children of illegal immigrants with education and public service opportunity — barely survived a Republican filibuster in the Senate after being tabled by proponents hoping to drum up support in coming days. There is little sign of encouragement, however, for that good cause or others as the 111th Congress expires in the grip of Senate Republicans demeaning public service as an exercise of naysaying.

December 6, 2010
The New York Times

The Tax Cut Endgame

President Obama’s deal with the Republicans to extend all the Bush-era income tax cuts is a win for the Republicans and their strategy of obstructionism and a disappointing retreat by the White House.

We suppose it could have been worse. The deal could help to stimulate the weak economy. And if the Republicans had blocked an extension of unemployment benefits, as they were threatening to, millions of Americans would have suffered greatly.

But the country can’t afford to continue tax cuts for the rich indefinitely. And by kicking the issue down the road to 2012 — a presidential election year — it all but guarantees more craven politicking then.

Speaking on Monday evening, the president said that the deal would extend for two years all of the tax cuts, both those from the Bush years and those for low-income workers from last year’s stimulus law. Recently expired benefits for the long-term unemployed would also be extended for another 13 months.

In addition, the agreement includes a one-year cut in payroll taxes that will put a relatively modest, but much needed, $120 billion in workers’ pockets, and a year of bolstered write-offs for business investments.

On a decidedly sour note, Mr. Obama also said he had agreed to cut estate taxes even more than in the last year of the Bush administration. That is not compromise. It is capitulation.

The Republicans gave up very little except for their unconscionable stance of holding up all other Congressional action until they ensured that the richest Americans keep their tax cuts.

The tax cuts were not affordable when they were passed and are even less affordable now — with unpaid-for wars, with a weak economy crying out for recovery efforts, with the nation’s infrastructure and education system increasingly decrepit, and with retiring baby boomers inexorably driving up health costs and the budget deficit in the decades to come.

A thoughtful approach — not broached by either side — would have been to extend the tax cuts for most Americans for another year or so, letting the high-end tax breaks expire as scheduled this year and using the money to help pay for policies that would do more than income tax cuts to generate growth. In the meantime, lawmakers and the administration could have undertaken tax reform to bring revenues in line with spending.

Mr. Obama and the country should not wait for two years to begin reforming taxes.

Until Monday night, both sides were silent on the fate of one of the biggest high-end tax cuts of all — the estate tax on multimillionaires and billionaires. Now Mr. Obama seems to have given in to largely Republican demands on it.

Perhaps he wanted to placate the main proponent of gutting the estate tax further, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, who has also been working to block a vote on the New Start arms control treaty. Yes, the Republicans were also holding the nation’s security hostage to their relentless drive for tax cuts for the wealthy.

All of this only validates the Republican strategy of obstruction, and invites more. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, has never wavered in his stance that all Bush tax cuts should be extended. Mr. McConnell and the Republicans will undoubtedly now push to make the cuts permanent.

Mr. Obama said on Monday night that he still believed extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was a bad idea. He predicted that it would be undone in two years when it becomes apparent to everyone that the country can’t afford it. The president needs to ask himself why he couldn’t make that case now — and how he plans to change his approach to governing so he doesn’t get trapped this way again.

Mr. Obama also said that “we cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking for us to solve problems.” Unfortunately, the Republicans felt no such compunction. He should have fought harder.