All Hank, all the time.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Please. You've been posting "Run, Al, Run!" messages in the comments section of DailyKos and Atrios for weeks now. Don't even try to deny it.

Close.

I'm the guy behind the "Draft John Kerry. Again!!!" campaign.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Until the tight clothing part, I thought for a minute you were talking about Al Gore

[Spanky]

Pombo v McCloskey in California

White knight in a battle-bus
Jun 1st 2006 | PLEASANTON AND STOCKTON
From The Economist print edition

An elderly Republican tries to clean up his party


“I DON'T know if I'll win or not, but the cause is just.” That is why Pete McCloskey, who ran against Richard Nixon for the Republican nomination for president way back in 1972, has returned to the political fray, touring California's 11th congressional district from the spruce Bay Area commuter town of Pleasanton in the west to the flat farmland of the San Joaquin valley in the east. The cause, emblazoned on the ancient bus that serves as the McCloskey mobile campaign HQ, is to “Restore Ethics to Congress”.


McCloskey's not expecting to winIn general, that means wringing the corruption out of a Republican Party stained by successive scandals, from the money-laundering charges against Tom DeLay, the former majority leader, to the admitted corruption of Jack Abramoff, a super-lobbyist, and the jailing in March of Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a California congressman. In particular, it means unseating the district's seven-term incumbent, Richard Pombo, in the Republican primary on June 6th. One non-partisan group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, claims that Mr Pombo, a DeLay protégé, is one of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress, guilty of everything from peddling his influence as chairman of the House Resources Committee to feathering the family nest. These accusations are unproven, but Mr Pombo has long been a target for the Sierra Club and other environmentalist organisations. They say he has tried to weaken the Endangered Species Act, privatise government-owned land and open protected areas, including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil-drilling.

So is Mr Pombo, a 45-year-old rancher fond of flaunting his cowboy hat, destined to fall? His campaign manager, Carl Fogliani, scoffs at the notion. Mr Pombo has plenty of money (perhaps $1m still on hand, after a fund-raising visit last week by Dick Cheney); the district's farmers overwhelmingly support him; and, unlike Mr McCloskey, who had to find a temporary home in unprepossessing Lodi in order to run, he is a true son of the district. As for those accusations of corruption, the Fogliani line is that they are all baseless—and donations from Jack Abramoff have been given to charity. Meanwhile, the Pombo name is hard to avoid: a property firm founded by his uncle is the largest landowner in the district, with billboards to prove it.


Ironically, Mr McCloskey, an impressively robust 78-year-old who served in the House of Representatives for the San Francisco peninsula from 1967 to 1982, also thinks a Pombo victory the more likely outcome. He agreed to stand only because he and like-minded veteran Republicans could not find a local candidate. He cheerfully tells bemused lunchers at Pleasanton's Blue Agave restaurant that his chances are not great, and spends surely too many minutes for campaign efficiency poring over trinkets in a bric-à-brac shop.

Yet the Pombo camp is not taking victory for granted. It may be true that “Agriculture loves Richard”, but the media have warmed to Mr McCloskey and the quixotic campaign that he calls “the Revolt of the Elders”—an effort that began more than a year ago when ten former congressmen, all Republicans, wrote to Dennis Hastert, the speaker, demanding higher ethical standards in the House. Moreover, it must help Mr McCloskey that he is a genuine war hero. He volunteered for the second world war, won the Navy Cross, the Silver Star and two Purple Hearts as a marine in the Korean war, and volunteered also for the Vietnam war before turning against it.

The question is how much it will help. Arguably, Mr McCloskey has always been a maverick within the Republican Party. He was the first lawmaker to call for the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that took America into Vietnam, and the first to call for the impeachment of Nixon. Today, he is proudly out-of-step with the conservative-dominated party. He is pro-choice, he supports stem-cell research and Oregon's assisted-suicide law, he favours withdrawing from Iraq within a year and he is a zealous protector of the environment (he was a co-chairman of the first Earth Day in 1970 and co-wrote the Endangered Species Act of 1973). In other words, he could easily fit into the Democratic Party; and although he admired the first President Bush, his disdain for George W. is such that in 2004 he endorsed John Kerry.

His disdain for Mr Pombo is still greater. Hence his pledge, should he lose in the primary, to campaign for the Democrat come November. Would that be enough to unseat Mr Pombo in a district where 46% of the voters are Republican and just 39% Democrats? Maybe not, since in 2004 Mr Pombo beat the Democrats' Jerry McNerney by 61% to 39%. On the other hand, while the Pombo team are keeping their internal polls to themselves, the Washington scandals are taking their toll. A recent poll commissioned by the Defenders of Wildlife predicts that this time Mr Pombo would lose to the Democrat (either Mr McNerney or Steve Filson). As Pete McCloskey tells the voters, “Congressmen are like diapers. You need to change them often, and for the same reason.”

[Sidd Finch]

I find it very, very interesting that you are pumping this guy.

Originally posted by Spanky
The question is how much it will help. Arguably, Mr McCloskey has always been a maverick within the Republican Party. He was the first lawmaker to call for the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that took America into Vietnam, and the first to call for the impeachment of Nixon. Today, he is proudly out-of-step with the conservative-dominated party. He is pro-choice, he supports stem-cell research and Oregon's assisted-suicide law, he favours withdrawing from Iraq within a year and he is a zealous protector of the environment (he was a co-chairman of the first Earth Day in 1970 and co-wrote the Endangered Species Act of 1973). In other words, he could easily fit into the Democratic Party; and although he admired the first President Bush, his disdain for George W. is such that in 2004 he endorsed John Kerry.

And will you follow his pledge?

His disdain for Mr Pombo is still greater. Hence his pledge, should he lose in the primary, to campaign for the Democrat come November. Would that be enough to unseat Mr Pombo in a district where 46% of the voters are Republican and just 39% Democrats? Maybe not, since in 2004 Mr Pombo beat the Democrats' Jerry McNerney by 61% to 39%. On the other hand, while the Pombo team are keeping their internal polls to themselves, the Washington scandals are taking their toll. A recent poll commissioned by the Defenders of Wildlife predicts that this time Mr Pombo would lose to the Democrat (either Mr McNerney or Steve Filson). As Pete McCloskey tells the voters, “Congressmen are like diapers. You need to change them often, and for the same reason.”

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I concede that the budget shenanigans of allowing a 1-year unlimited roth conversion to create revenues is bogus, but I support it because I support the increased use of allowing savings to grow tax free (whether taxed at the outset or upon withdrawal).

Is there a rule-of-thumb on when it makes sense to roll your regular IRA into a Roth? I supposed it's a calculation based on age, years until retirement, income, and weather in Toronto. Fringe?

I'll avoid the "what's good for the country" issue in favor of the "what's good for Sidd" issue (if the govt is going to fuck the country up with massive deficits for decades to come, I don't think I should try to offset the cost of that personally. Maybe if I had a spare 10 trillion around, but not otherwise.)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I find it very, very interesting that you are pumping this guy.

Politics is always the lesser of two evils. I may not agree with all of Pete's views but it is better than having somone that is totally corrupt.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And will you follow his pledge?

No - I will not.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Politics is always the lesser of two evils. I may not agree with all of Pete's views but it is better than having somone that is totally corrupt.

Is it Pombo's corruption that bothers you, or his policies? If the former, then billing the McCloskey campaign as part of the "moderate Republican revolution" is a little off-base.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Politics is always the lesser of two evils. I may not agree with all of Pete's views but it is better than having somone that is totally corrupt.


No - I will not.

If politics is always the lesser of two evils, and you don't want to have someone who is totally corrupt in Congress from that district, why wouldn't you support a Democrat running against Pombo?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

So here's a question for Spanky and all the other folks who supported the President's efforts to change Social Security:

The GOP leadership in Congress this week is pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, a move that would do harm to the government's balance sheet about equal to Social Security's 75-year deficit. That would be OK because it would benefit a small number of very rich people, while Social Security should be changed because the benefits go to people who are more likely to vote for Democrats, right?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So here's a question for Spanky and all the other folks who supported the President's efforts to change Social Security:

The GOP leadership in Congress this week is pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, a move that would do harm to the government's balance sheet about equal to Social Security's 75-year deficit. That would be OK because it would benefit a small number of very rich people, while Social Security should be changed because the benefits go to people who are more likely to vote for Democrats, right?

Did we already have the discussion of dedicating some portion of the estate tax to the SS trust fund instead of general revenues? Pure class warfare, I know, but at least you can hit the people before they die to pay off the invidious structural debt created by the early years of unkeepable promises of SS.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If politics is always the lesser of two evils, and you don't want to have someone who is totally corrupt in Congress from that district, why wouldn't you support a Democrat running against Pombo?

Because Democrats are evil. Evil! EVIL!!!!!


Duh. Have you met Spanky?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Just wanted to see the picture again.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The GOP leadership in Congress this week is pushing for a permanent repeal of the estate tax, a move that would do harm to the government's balance sheet about equal to Social Security's 75-year deficit.

FWIW, the Wall Street Journal observes that the estimated revenue costs of repeal are massively overstated, because the bill under debate also would repeal the "stepped-up basis" provisions currently in effect. That is, when momma dies, and you inherit stock, your basis is the price as of the date of death (some modifications apply). If the estate tax is repealed per this bill, you now will take her original basis. Any sales will be taxed at the k-gains rate for that. This is estimated to replace nearly all the revenue that would be lost by repealing the estate tax.*



*FWIW, small estates will be worse off under this rule, since they'll have to pay some tax whereas before they had to pay none.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
FWIW, the Wall Street Journal observes that the estimated revenue costs of repeal are massively overstated, because the bill under debate also would repeal the "stepped-up basis" provisions currently in effect. That is, when momma dies, and you inherit stock, your basis is the price as of the date of death (some modifications apply). If the estate tax is repealed per this bill, you now will take her original basis. Any sales will be taxed at the k-gains rate for that. This is estimated to replace nearly all the revenue that would be lost by repealing the estate tax.*



*FWIW, small estates will be worse off under this rule, since they'll have to pay some tax whereas before they had to pay none.

What the Wall Street Journal doesn't tell you is that their math is totally fucked. The loss of basis step-up carries with it a tacked holding period, which means that most inherited property will qualify for the 5% cap gains rate. In other words, yet again, the administration is giving to the richest and screwing everybody else.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
FWIW, the Wall Street Journal observes that the estimated revenue costs of repeal are massively overstated, because the bill under debate also would repeal the "stepped-up basis" provisions currently in effect. That is, when momma dies, and you inherit stock, your basis is the price as of the date of death (some modifications apply). If the estate tax is repealed per this bill, you now will take her original basis. Any sales will be taxed at the k-gains rate for that. This is estimated to replace nearly all the revenue that would be lost by repealing the estate tax.*



*FWIW, small estates will be worse off under this rule, since they'll have to pay some tax whereas before they had to pay none.

With this, they're presuming that the cap-gains tax remains in place too, right?

Silly newspaper.