The White House Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, is slimy; at least he proved as much during his interview with Andrea Mitchell, sitting in for Chuck Todd, this morning.
Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Mulvaney about the fact that in the bill corporate tax cuts are permanent and individual middle class tax cuts are temporary, the budget director explained that because of certain rules and to make the bill a budget one so that 51-vote reconciliation can be enacted instead of the 60-vote Senate requirement for legislation, Republicans have to game the system with expiration dates.
But why not the other way around? Why not make the individual middle class tax cut permanent and make the corporate tax cut temporary? Because that is who Mr. Mulvaney is, never having that inclination. He and other Republicans for that matter would never want to disappoint the people that matter most, the donors.
[And that clip of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) getting upset at the suggestion that the bill is one for the rich... Please, he gets no quarter of sympathy from this space. He's advocating for trickle-down economic theory and we know that it doesn't work. The latest operative example is how Governor Sam Brownback decimated the economics in his state of Kansas, from which they're still far behind neighboring states.]
Mr. Mulvaney also explained that the $1.5 trillion dollars that would be added to the debt according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assessment doesn't account for the [presumably positive] impact on the economy that these tax cuts will have. Despite evidence that growth will only recoup about a third of the $1.5 trillion coupled with lack of corporate reinvestment of the money they get back, Mr. Mulvaney wants you to believe the exact opposite.
The consolation of all this is at least we're discussing policy, even in the face of a politically cynical tax bill that just passed through the House. It's a Republican bill and trickle down theory is their dogma and we can debate the merits of that with supporters of that like The National Review's Rich Lowry and Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), respective guests today, without being disagreeable toward the person, personally.
I don't mean for this column to be a hit job on a particular individual, but Mr. Mulvaney said, with a straight face, that he's 'gaming the system,' blatantly admitting that the goal is giving some people advantages at the expense of others.
And then there's his recitation of the Republican talking point as it pertains to the sexual harassment discourse in terms of comparing Roy Moore with Senator Al Franken (D-MN): Mr. Franken has admitted guilt - he's guilty - and Judge Moore denies it. Note: the care in not saying he's not guilty.
But with exceptional addition to that, Mr. Mulvaney first said that he's the budget director and he's not focused on all that much on the details of the accusations against Judge Moore, but then went on to impugn Andrea Mitchell for predisposed political biased on what she and NBC believe, on which Ms. Mitchell clearly pushed back - it's one of the many reasons why you gotta love Andrea Mitchell. The rhetorical sum total of the equation for Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans is that it's up to the people of Alabama to decide who they want in the Senate. (That's called punting.)
Speaking of which, President Trump who 'couldn't resist' taking a shot at Senator Franken, according to Robert Costa, has nothing to say about Roy Moore who is defiant and refusing to step down. Why is that? Because Mr. Trump is accused of the same behavior, but worse. And he's admitted as much on tape. Mr. Costa also explained that this is going to get sticky for Republicans because they're going to have to answer for this implied, but blatant double (triple) standard set because of the president's alleged behavior.
But make no mistake, the talking point is that we're not saying who's worse but Al Franken admitted guilt and Judge Moore denies it. As Andrea Mitchell mentioned, it's about 'degrees and responses.'
Panel: Joy Reid, NBC; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A Couple More Things...
Yes, there should be an ethics investigation of Mr. Franken's behavior to verify that there aren't more instances of this behavior in his past and particularly during his time in the Senate. One difference between Mr. Moore and Mr. Franken is that Mr. Franken agrees with such action.
In citing The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, she explains that it's Alabama women who are going to ultimately make this election call.
Joy Reid made a notable assessment as to the nature of Democrats (as a party): self-immolation and torturing themselves... Priceless, actually.
And Congresswoman Barbara Comstock's apparently repeated mention of a current member of who showed up at his front door in a towel or robe or whatever is certainly speeding up the timeline as to when we'll find out who that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment