Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As for the AMT, why not repeal the regular tax code, and replace it with the AMT, with some adjustment for rates. It's a hell of a lot easier (it's a PITA only because you've already calculated your taxes under the complex system, and then have to back out a bunch of numbers), and according to one WSJ I read a year ago or so, actually cheaper.

But let's put aside the economics: are you saying repeal of the AMT is a partisan issue for which Bush should be held responsible? While admittedly it was adopted to prevent the rich from paying no taxes, at this point it's as much a Democratic issue as an R issue. The folks getting drawn into its net are hardly the wealthy--it's the folks in the Blue states with high taxes and high deductions.

Kevin Drum said it, not me, but I think his point is not pro or con, but only that Bush's rosy scenario entails ignoring what we all know. In other words, a "lie."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
-- Dick Cheney

So what are you saying? That deficits matter?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Good point. But, we do seem to have drawn a line (see Fundraising Letters from Gore, supra), and I'm just wondering where we draw it?

The legal lines in the Gore fundraising letters relate specifically to campaign activity, which is not what is at issue here. So one line we draw very clearly is the distinction between election related activity and other political activity (e.g., policy, appointments, etc.). And that line has legal implications.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let's see - because Joe Sixpack was laid off due to cutbacks that resulted from the company going bankrupt after losing a big law suit?

Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is a growing sentiment among Americans.

That's a 1980's sentiment. The current Joe Sixpack was laid off because (1) his job was shipped overseas; (2) he was replaced by a temp; (3) he was downsized based on multimillion dollar advise from McKinsey & Andersen; (4) his company went bankrupt because of criminal wrongdoing in the executive suites that evaporated his retirement. He's mad as hell at corporate America and he's looking for a trial lawyer. I wouldn't discount Edwards so soon, and I think the "trial lawyer" strategy may not work too well for the Rs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I can't be begging a question that hadn't been posed. If the "politics" in question refers to strategy re upcoming votes, e.g. on judicial nominees, I can't see why that's not official. Greedy put it well. Advising and consenting on judges is what Senators do.

Sure, but if the doc is taken only internally, does it violate any rules? The Senate is a single institution, not a conglomerate comprising two parties, each of which is its own institution. For example, if I work at a gov't agency and go into someone else's office and take a confidential memo, it's unlikely I'm violating some federal law. I may be violating some internal agency reg. or perhaps just a norm, for which I might get fired. But I don't think it's a federal offense in itself. (Gov't lawyers disabuse me?)

This, of course, ignores the possible illegality of the disclosure beyond the senate.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The legal lines in the Gore fundraising letters relate specifically to campaign activity, which is not what is at issue here. So one line we draw very clearly is the distinction between election related activity and other political activity (e.g., policy, appointments, etc.). And that line has legal implications.

Okay, that makes some sense. So, the next issue becomes, are the computer systems linked somehow such that the R staffers had proper access to the system, but weren't "supposed" to have access to those specific docs? Most property crime statute wording won't work in that case - there's no violation of a property right if you access a system to which you have permission for access. And, if there is no specific statutory or rule Senate prohibition on the docs, I'm not seeing where there's a violation.

That's not to say it wasn't a snarky thing to do, of course . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I can't be begging a question that hadn't been posed. If the "politics" in question refers to strategy re upcoming votes, e.g. on judicial nominees, I can't see why that's not official. Greedy put it well. Advising and consenting on judges is what Senators do.

Must everything become party-line? The republicans aides who did this should be fired. Distinctions as to the memos contents miss the point that you can't tell contents till after you look. (13-2)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, one reason is that Congress exempted itself from FOIA, did it not?

The distinction being drawn by GOP flaks is not whether the documents are otherwise available upon request --- it's the contents of the documents that excuse their disclosure. Sorta like the crime/fraud exception to A/C privilege, which, as you know, is different from waiver.

As for Cheney's docs, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Cheney says they're not available because they're policy documents, and the Administration should be free to gather policy input from confidential lobbyists --- um, I mean American citizens, um, I mean "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, while now we're being told that Dem documents are fair game because they're not policy documents. If it's inappropriate for government offices to harbor documents that relate to a partisan strategy, the GOP would be wise to remember that they presently control three branches of government, and the Dems none.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Putting aside the intractible anti-abortion/pro-choice debate, today is the annual rally for life, or whatever the Roe anniversary party is called. A large mass of people is now walking by my office (well, nearby). Fine so far. But while out to get lunch, I saw a bunch of them staging. a large contingent appeared to be generally clueless high-school students. Now, I'm all for political participation at a young age, but are they genuinely of this belief or here simply because they were able to cadge a field trip off of a pro-life principal?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
So what are you saying? That deficits matter?

Yes. I think the 80's and 90's proved that. It took the Clinton Administration (and Bush I) to put our financial house in order, and the current crowd is enjoying the short-term political gains that come with spending more money than you have.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but if the doc is taken only internally, does it violate any rules? The Senate is a single institution, not a conglomerate comprising two parties, each of which is its own institution. For example, if I work at a gov't agency and go into someone else's office and take a confidential memo, it's unlikely I'm violating some federal law. I may be violating some internal agency reg. or perhaps just a norm, for which I might get fired. But I don't think it's a federal offense in itself. (Gov't lawyers disabuse me?)

You're thinking like a lawyer, not a politician --- i.e., you want to get the client off, but don't care about the social effects of the rule you advocate because that's the other guy's job. Which is fine, if you're these people's lawyer. As for me, I don't care whether it's a federal crime; I care about what the GOP's reaction is. If it's anything other than "This is deplorable," they're inviting an escalating war of document poaching and disclosure, legal or not.

If you're a guardian of the institution, you fire the aides and publicly denounce such skullduggery. And you tell your new aides not to get caught next time. Otherwise, all your own memos have to be written under the "front page of the NYT" rule, because there's gonna be a lot of black ops going on on both sides of the aisle if everyone agrees it's perfectly legal.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Must everything become party-line? The republicans aides who did this should be fired. Distinctions as to the memos contents miss the point that you can't tell contents till after you look. (13-2)

Concur. (1-0)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's a 1980's sentiment. The current Joe Sixpack was laid off because (1) his job was shipped overseas; (2) he was replaced by a temp; (3) he was downsized based on multimillion dollar advise from McKinsey & Andersen; (4) his company went bankrupt because of criminal wrongdoing in the executive suites that evaporated his retirement. He's mad as hell at corporate America and he's looking for a trial lawyer.

As much as it pains me to say this, I agree. I am wealthy and even I hate these CEOs.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The distinction being drawn by GOP flaks is not whether the documents are otherwise available upon request --- it's the contents of the documents that excuse their disclosure. Sorta like the crime/fraud exception to A/C privilege, which, as you know, is different from waiver.

Is there a distinction between having the freedom to deny disclosure of your own docs, and crim charges for disclosing someone else's? (Not sure, but this does seem like two different argument.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Yes. I think the 80's and 90's proved that. It took the Clinton Administration (and Bush I) to put our financial house in order, and the current crowd is enjoying the short-term political gains that come with spending more money than you have.

I think it was the bubble that put our financial house in order. The bubble generated increased tax revenue.