3.3.13: Mountains of Evidence

We can't help but think watching this interview with John Boehner how there is such a dearth of leadership in Washington DC. However, for as much as Republicans and some Democrats criticize the president's lack of leadership (some justified), the Speaker of the House doesn't bear the same burden that he should.  He explained that the House has acted twice in passing a bill to stop the sequester, but what he refuses to acknowledge is that what they are proposing will not pass a Democratically controlled Senate, which Mr. Gregory rightly called him out on.  Because the fact is that both sides are equally to blame for the sequester.  Obama proposed it as an extreme and the extreme right happily voted for it so now we all have to live it.

The Speaker said that for two years he couldn't come to an agreement with the president, but actually they had one in the form of the grand bargain. He just couldn't sell it to the base of his party, and still doesn't have the mustard so to take them on in any capacity. Mr. Boehner's first goal is to maintain his position as Speaker, and as Mr. Todd pointed out during the round table, neither he nor Mitch McConnell (R-KY) nor John Cornyn (R-TX) are going to sacrifice themselves politically to get something done.  So when Mr. Greogry asks the Speaker if his Republican caucus leads him or does he lead it, the answer is clearly with the former.  With that in mind, you're not going to see a deal get done.  At this point, the president isn't worried about his job so he is able to compromise on measures that his base disagrees with, but this is not the case for the other side obviously.

And that entire sideshow with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling (the Administration) is just that - a side show.  Just looking at that e-mail response on the screen from Mr. Sperling, it is clear that he is not threatening Mr. Woodward but telling him that he'll regret the statement because he'll find he'll be wrong.  It was not a threat to do harm against him.  Mr. Woodward needs to grow a backbone (that's putting it in politically correct terms) and he knows better that a reporter shouldn't become the news.

However, Mr. Sperling, though he didn't threaten Mr. Woodward, was completely incorrect in saying that the President didn't exaggerate the consequences.  There were lots of signals from the Administration that we'll feel the consequences on Monday, which is not the case.  Will there be people hurting down the road from the sequester?  Absolutely, but as Mr. Sperling and Gregory discussed, what the sequester does is push for a big budget fight in the fall.  Great, so what that really says is that this back and forth is going to continue for another seven months and beyond.

Mr. Sperling also said that the administration originally proposal $1.5 trillion in revenue, but only got $650 billion and wants $400 billion more.  The Republicans now want roughly one trillion in more cuts - this is all over ten years. This nets out to $600 billion in cuts over ten years.  Politicians (mostly Republicans) like to say that Americans balance their budgets so the government should as well.  What they don't say is that most Americans also carry debt while trying to achieve a balance. What do they do with their debt?  They chip away at it, which is what the government needs to do, not take to it with an ax because if you do then you can't afford the basics.

The one question that Mr. Boehner begged was where is the Senate's plan.  Well, they did take a test vote which didn't pass (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-02-28/economy/37346422_1_test-vote-senate-vote-automatic-cuts) and how would it?  The Democrats don't have 60 votes and as we all know, if the Democrats go for the simply majority to pass it (cloture), the Republicans will threaten to filibuster, all of which means it's dead in the water.

What we're wondering is when Mr. Boehner said that the president has gotten his tax increases, now we need spending cuts, does the sequester now qualify as those cuts? Did we just open up a can of worms?  Maybe we should see what happens.  When Mr. Gregory asked John Boehner about closing loopholes, he responded by saying that the President got his increases - meaning that revenue is now off the table.  But thirty seconds later, Mr. Boehner said that closing tax loopholes is part of the solution.  His catch is that overall tax rates need to be lowered for everyone but unsaid is the broadening the base part, which means people in poverty will have to start paying taxes on any income they get, no matter how small.  It's all this unsaid minutiae that you have to sift through to understand why things aren't getting done.  And not to discourage you further but it's disheartening to hear the Speaker say that he doesn't think anyone understands how to resolve this impasse of noncooperation in Washington.

Before we get to the discussion of the Voting Rights Act, there is one last thing we need to say as it relates to Mr. Boehner's views on taxes, spending, the sequester, everything.   On today's program when Mr. Gregory challenged the Speaker on the philosophy that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, he said there were mountains of evidence to prove it.  The example he cited was when Ronald Reagan did it in 1981.  Whether you believe in that philosophy or not, what deeply concerns us is the willingness to consciously ignore the other side of the equation that President Reagan, as Mr. Gregory pointed out, raised taxes, eleven times in fact.  To acknowledge this hurts the Republican brand as Kathleen Parker pointed out on tax increases, but it ignores a historically recorded truth.  That whole exchange with Mr. Boehner just seemed like an example of willingness to mislead to serve a narrower agenda.

By extension, Mr. Boehner also said that he thought the Voting Rights Act has served as effective legislation, but that there is one small part that the court is considering.  It is NOT small nor inconsequential.  Section 5 is what is being challenged.  From Justice.org:

Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.
The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.
Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.

Basically, it singles out some states who have had a history of suppressing the vote because of race, color, language minority, and stipulates that they need federal approval before changing any voting laws.  Justice Scalia's much publicize comment that this was the perpetuation of a racial entitlement was completely ignorant, one worthy of censure, especially in light of certain states mentioned in Section 5 who tried to employ new voting restrictions in this last election.  Our question is this: Elections have national consequences, federal implications, so why single out those states when maybe it should just say all states?  There should be federal enforcement to ensure voting rights of minorities and everyone in every state, no?


Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); columnist for the Washington Post Kathleen Parker; Managing Editor of TheGrio.com Joy Reid; NBC Chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd and NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw.