Stickybuffalo.com

In the 1990s we had Bill Clinton practicing what became known as “triangulation.” Now, I think, we might arguably describe the political strategy of Barack Obama as “discombobulation.” Not that I expect the idea to take hold, even if anyone read SB, but for all the Obama administration’s continuity with the Clinton era I don’t think that there’s really the same kind of “triangulation” in progress. Obama made a considerable attempt at a “bring everyone together” approach—far more than he is ever credited for—and has since largely given that up in the face of contemptuous obstinacy from the GOP. But it doesn’t seem like he has at any point taken to “pushing off” of both the left and right in an attempt to elevate himself as some kind of “third-way” centrist. He is a centrist, but he doesn’t seem to have much inclination or for that matter much scope for defining himself as such against a more-liberal Democratic congress; there isn’t one any more, really.

Instead I think that the Obama strategy, to the extent that there is one, is less of a pitch to the people based on being different from the two major parties, and more of a judo-move directed at Republicans. Obama (like most observant people) can easily predict the attacks which Republicans will make, and has nearly perfected the art of not being in the spot where those attacks are aimed; the president thus sidesteps them while leaving his opponents to expend their energy on moves which don’t work. It’s kind of like a rope-a-dope without actually having to stand there and take the punches.

Of course, Republicans seem to have an almost unlimited capacity for outrage and spleen-venting fury. But even if they never burn themselves out in assaulting an opponent who is standing several feet away from the path of their strikes, the strikes don’t connect and, moreover, it does at least seem to confuse the Hell out of the GOP. They don’t actually catch on, and so far have neither paused not re-targeted their attacks, but and probably in part because they are getting even more tied up in conceptual pretzels than ever before. Thus, discombobulation.

(more…)

Okay, if you have missed it thus far, today the Obama administration proposed a big reform of corporate taxes, essentially reducing the base rate and then offsetting that by reducing the number of deductions/loopholes. Here’s a blog post about The Economist discussing it; most reaction seems to be along predictable lines, i.e. “good idea, contains too many compromises but would improve on the current mess, basic concept has broad bipartisan support and at the same time stands zero chance of actual congressional approval in an election year.”

With this in mind, here’s a question: why not bundle this with a carbon tax?

I mean, a carbon tax is a pretty good idea for various reasons, and some form of price on heat-trapping gas pollution is really desperately needed to pre-empt runaway climate change. I think it’s reasonably relevant to corporate tax reform, in that a carbon tax would mostly be collected from businesses rather than from consumers. Making a dangerously underpriced externality produced by a broad swathe of industry more expensive would seem to align well with the general stated goal of making the corporate tax code less distorting, and would also offer a form of support for clean energy at least as sound as the preservation of tax breaks which Obama wants, for that purpose, instead.

Presumably it would be dead on arrival, but with general agreement that any major tax reform (or any major legislative action, at all) is a non-starter until next year, what is there to lose? (more…)

Okay, this occurred to me yesterday as a potential reason for a bit of genuine enthusiasm about an Obama re-election victory: what might it mean for the Supreme Court?

Our guy has already appointed two justices to the court, which is pretty good. (And I’ll call him “our guy,” at any rate in discussing this matter; I don’t think he has let us down at all here.) But Kagan and Sotomayor were, as I understood it, basically just replacing relatively liberal justices anyway. So we’ve probably re-secured a couple of seats in Democrat* hands for another quarter-century, at least. But the overall leanings of the court haven’t really changed.

Could that change with a second Obama term?

Looking at Wikipedia I suppose the answer is “maybe.” The oldest justice on the current court is Ginsburg (78), another Democrat, so no opportunity for gaining a new seat, there. (And nothing against Justice Ginsburg but, Bill, what were you thinking appointing a 60-year-old? The key to this game is locking up seats for as long as possible. Get, like, a 40-year-old justice with all four grandparents and maybe even a great-grandparent or two still alive.) Breyer, 73, is also a Clinton appointee.

Kennedy and Scalia however, both Reagan appointees, are also both 75. Kennedy is currently seen as the “swing vote,” though replacing a “swing vote” with a “reliable vote” would be a bit of a plus.

But Scalia—Nino—isn’t the thought of Obama choosing his successor really kind of exciting? Unless you’re a Republican, in which case it’s horrifying, which is why I can’t bet on it happening. You know that they would have to literally pry the gavel from Scalia’s “cold, dead hands” before he allows Barack Obama to replace him. By January, 2017, he’ll be nearly 81, but that’s not necessarily a big deal to a well-to-do high government official with the best health care available and a job that involves sitting around giving his opinion. (Old age arguably enhances most people’s qualifications for this, rather than diminishing them.) I tend to suspect he’ll hang on, though the future of the Court is still one pretty good reason why an Obama re-election will matter.

(And if Republicans can’t do any better than their current field of candidates in 2016, well, then certainly I imagine you might start to see a worried Scalia browsing the vitamin and supplement section…)

* I think at this point we might just as well start identifying justices as Democrats and Republicans. No, not every vote breaks down upon consistent “party lines,” but neither does every House or Senate vote. We still recognize an obvious partisan divide in those institutions’ membership.