WaxWorks
|
Thursday, February 06, 2003
Somebody help me out. Bush passed a $1.3 trillion dollar tax cut in 2001. He then proposed a $670 billion tax cut this year, right? Apparently not. It appears that the cost of Bush's new tax cut is actually $1.5 trillion.
It is widely speculated that Bill Frist has presidential ambitions for 2008 -- this incredibly odd anecdote in a profile by David Brooks in the conservative publication, The Weekly Standard, pretty much confirms it to me:
On one memorable day during a tour of Israel, Senator Frist stood on the spot where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount and read the sermon to the tour group. He electrified them with his simple faith and devotion.
WaxWorks is proud to say that it played a part in getting Josh Marshall and talkingpointsmemo.com on top of this story about Miguel Estrada giving false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee back in September. It appears that Estrada claimed that he had never considered Roe v. Wade as one would "in the judicial function."
MR. ESTRADA: The Supreme Court has so held and I have no view of any nature whatsoever, whether it be legal, philosophical, moral, or any other type of view that would keep me from [sic] apply that case law faithfully.
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Do you believe that Roe was correctly decided?
MR. ESTRADA: I have -- my view of the judicial function, Senator Feinstein, does not allow me to answer that question. I have a personal view on the subject of -- of abortion, as I think you know. And -- but I have not done what I think the judicial function would require me to do in order to ascertain whether the court got it right as an original matter. I haven't listened to parties. I haven't come to an actual case of controversy with an open mind. I haven't gone back and run down everything that they have cited. And the reason I haven't done any of those things is that I view our system of law as one in which both me as an advocate, and possibly if I am confirmed as a judge, have a job of building on the wall that is already there and not to call it into question. I have had no particular reason to go back and look at whether it was right or wrong as a matter of law, as I would if I were a judge that was hearing the case for the first time. It is there. It is the law as it has subsequently refined by the Casey case, and I will follow it.
But the year Estrada clerked for Justice Kennedy, 1988-89, the Supreme Court considered Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which explicitly addressed the issue of whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overruled. First Clarence Thomas says he never discussed Roe with anyone, then Ted Olson denies any involvement with the Arkansas Project, now this. Is there a perjury exception for Republicans?
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
The controversy over "stealth nominee" Miguel Estrada and his refusal to provide any information about his jurisprudential views of philosophy makes this quote particularly relevant:
I believe the Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining who will become activists is not easy since many of [this President's] nominees tend to have limited paper trails. Nor is there a chemical eye-dropper test we can run which will turn likely activists blue. Determining which of [this President's] nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees’ jurisprudential views.
Hmm. Can you guess who said this? Must be some liberal wacko, right? Maybe Schumer? Kennedy? Nope.
This quote is a statement by Senator Orrin G. Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter on Feb. 18, 1997. How times have changed . . .
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
|
Estrada vote is at 2:15 tomorrow. Will the Democrats filibuster?
Here's the latest Iowa/NH poll. Kerry is looking good:
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Kerry: 36 percent
Lieberman: 18 percent
Dean: 16 percent
Gephardt: 8 percent
Edwards: 6 percent
Sharpton: 1 percent
Undecided: 15 percent
IOWA
Kerry: 24 percent
Gephardt: 23 percent
Lieberman: 13 percent
Edwards: 9 percent
Dean: 8 percent
Sharpton: 2 percent
Undecided: 21 percent
The White House has always been very scripted about the new budget deficit -- it is caused by the recession Clinton left us and the terrorist attack that Osama gave us. It doesn't ever, ever mention that Bush passed a $1.35 million tax cut in 2001 on the premise that there would be at least $1.35 trillion in surplus over the next 10 years, and, now that we're in deficit, the Bush tax cut is spending surplus money that never materialized, thus increasing the deficit. The White House refuses, at all cost of logic and sanity, to admit that the Bush tax cuts have worsened the deficit. Until now.
Some poor employee has unfortunately let out the truth in the new budget document. Timothy Noah and Chatterbox at Slate have come across a passage that finally concedes what we all know to be true. In the historical tables volume of the 2004 White House budget, a passage from the bottom of Page 5 states:
An economic slowdown began in 2001 and was exacerbated by the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001. The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief provided to help offset the economic slowdown and additional spending in response to the terrorist attacks produced a drop in the surplus to $127.1 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits ($157.8 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002.
Whoops! And, let's not forget one important fact as we read about the Bush Administration's budget. The deficit for 2004 is predicted to be over $300 billion, a record. Now, you might say, well, that's not really so bad, is it, after all we're planning a war in Iraq. Aha, but the cost for the war on Iraq, estimated to be between $50 and $200 billion, hasn't been accounted for in this budget. So there is a realistic chance that the budget deficit could actually climb to HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. And Bush wants to cut taxes again?
Monday, February 03, 2003
More Ann:
BEGALA: Ann, welcome back to CROSSFIRE. It's always good to have you here. This should be fun.
Let me begin with your current column. . . It concludes with a suggestion -- not a suggestion, an allegation that Democrats are guilty of treason for insufficient applause when the president talked about missile defense.
COULTER: Correct.
BEGALA: Let me test your definition of the word treason. Let's check out another -- just to test your definition of treason. Take a look at this from "The Washington Post."
"According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney" -- that would be Dick Cheney, now vice president -- "was chairman and CEO of the Dallas-based company. Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiary say that as far as they know, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq."
Is that treason too?
COULTER: We weren't at war with Iraq.
BEGALA: So that's not a problem. He wasn't a bad guy two years ago?
COULTER: In fact to the contrary -- no, to the contrary it was actually quite useful to have Iraq and Iran fighting one another, I might add.
BEGALA: But they weren't. This was 1998, Ann.
COULTER: No, but I'm just saying...
BEGALA: 1998.
COULTER: Right, we weren't at war then.
I don't know of the details this. But this is just, you know, the classic liberal scandal. Some, you know, precious technical little point. I think my was really clear in that people can understand. Not that somebody worked for a corporation that sold equipment that ended up someplace at somewhere we're going to war with now.
BEGALA: He was the CEO, not the parking garage guy.
COULTER: George Bush announced that this year we're deploying a shield to defend America from incoming ballistic missiles. Only one side of the aisle stood up and gave that a standing ovation. The Democrats don't stand for defending America from incoming missiles. Yes.
BEGALA: If Al Gore had sold oil field equipment to Saddam Hussein would you say the same thing?
COULTER: He wasn't trying to sell this. You're complicated little legal points really are not -- makes no --
SPRINGER: This is kind of like my show.
BEGALA: Yes.
For those of you who wondered about Miguel Estrada, Bush stealth nominee for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Ann Coulter has apparently answered the question of where he stands quite nicely on Crossfire the other night. Here's the relevant exchange, with Ann's final comment speaking about as loud as can be:
BEGALA: Now let me ask you about your book, a huge bestseller, about the American news media. And of course I read it. And let me read to you from the acknowledgements. They're brief, which is notable.
But one of the names you do mention is Miguel Estrada. And you say, "In the event any of them are nominated to confirmable (ph) positions, they're absolutely not responsible for what I write." Miguel Estrada, for those keeping score at home, is now nominated for the second highest court in the land. What did he do to help you on the book, to begin with?
COULTER: I describe it in the acknowledgements what all of my friends do.
BEGALA: No actually you didn't.
COULTER: Yes, I do. You didn't read it that closely.
BEGALA: I'm really curious because you said your "long suffering friends gave me ideas and editing advice." What ideas did Mr. Estrada give you?
COULTER: What was the next sentence?
BEGALA: "I habitually ignore."
COULTER: "Which I habitually ignore." They give me ideas...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: The reason I'm trying to tease this out is because Mr. Estrada (ph) would very much like to be on one of the most important courts in the land, but he doesn't want us to know his views on important issues. And is he an Ann Coulter conservative or a Paul Begala liberal?
COULTER: Yes, I get the point you're getting at. We're going to do a little left wing guilt by association.
BEGALA: No. I am curious about his views, Ann.
COULTER: Miguel Estrada is a friend of mine. But just to calm you, Geraldo Rivera is a friend of mine, too.
BEGALA: I understand that. That doesn't calm me, by the way. But does he share your views? Has he ever expressed a view to you about Roe v. Wade, (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
You're an accomplished attorney yourself. He's an accomplished attorney. You must talk attorney stuff, right?
COULTER: I send a lot of people my columns before they go out. They argue with me. They tell me jokes. They send stuff back. They correct errors. I have a lot of friends and they help me in a lot of different...
BEGALA: So you're not going to tell me about any of his views?
COULTER: What do you want me to say?
BEGALA: Are you embarrassed by his views?
COULTER: The second he gets in there, he'll overrule everything you love, Paul Begala.
