The Big Con Jonathan Chait HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY BOSTON | NEW YORK 2007 Copyright © 2007 by Jonathan Chait ALL RIGHTS RESERVED For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book, write to Permissions, Houghton Mifflin Company, 215 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10003 www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Chait, Jonathan The big : the true story of how Washington got hoodwinked and hijacked by crackpot economics / Jonathan Chait p cm Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN-13: 978-0-618-68540-0 ISBN-10: 0-618-68540-5 Lobbying — Moral and ethical aspects — United States Economists — United States — Political activity Political corruption—United States 4.Deception—Political aspects— United States United States—Economic policy—Moral and ethical aspects I Title JK1118.C43 2007 320.973 —dc22 2007014001 Printed in the United States of America Book design by Victoria Hartman QUM 10 To my two families—first, Mom, Dad, and Daniel, and now Robin, Joanna, and Benjamin They have given me a life of boundless joy CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix Introduction Part I: The Transformation of the Republican Party Charlatans and Cranks 13 The Sum of All Lobbies 45 Driving Out the Heretics 80 The Necessity of Deceit 115 Part II: The Corruption of American Politics Media: The Dog That Didn't Watch 139 How Washington Imagines Character 159 The Abuse of Power 189 The Mainstreaming of Radicalism 219 Conclusion: Plutocracy in America 262 Notes 267 Index 284 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My life is hard to understand I'm a compulsive procrastinator, I'm not particularly good-looking, and though I a few things well, I many others badly And yet my life has gone far better than I ever could have hoped I often puzzle over my inexplicable good fortune The best explanation I can give is that at every stage of life I've been surrounded by people who saved me from my failings My parents, David and Ilene, have always been warm, encouraging, smart, and funny My mother encouraged me to read, write, and think from an early age, constantly taking me to the library My father explained to me history, politics, science, and almost everything under the sun in concise, entertaining ways I only hope that as a parent I can give my children the warmth and generosity that my parents have shown to me My brother Daniel would no doubt vouch for this Daniel is brilliant and hilarious, a lifelong intellectual influence and a wonderful friend My childhood best friend, Michael Mullen, taught me a lot and—being far tougher than I—saved me from some beatings In high school I became great friends with David Lenter and Joel Rubenstein, who debated politics with me and encouraged me (in vain, alas) to apply myself in school In college I made lifelong friendships with Geoff Earle and Jay Mazumdar, who stood together with me at the Michigan Daily when it was not popular to so After college I was hired at the American Prospect by Jonathan Cohn, my first mentor, who remains a close friend and is one of the finest human beings I have ever met At the Prospect, Paul Starr was a sharp and brilliant editor, and Robert Kuttner generously let me publish, even though I was, in his words, "a damn moderate." After a year at the Prospect I came to The New Republic, my journalistic heaven I learned much from every editor I worked with—Andrew Sullivan, the late (and mourned) Michael Kelly, Charles Lane, and Peter Beinart When the current editor, Frank Foer, was first named, I was ecstatic Frank is a great friend, and working under him has been the highlight of my career All those editors were selected by Marty Peretz, who sustained this wonderful institution My close friends at TNR have included Michael Crowley (who started with me as an intern), Hanna Rosin (my second mentor), Margaret Talbot, Jonathan Cohn (again), David Grann, Ryan Lizza, Michelle Cottle, Noam Scheiber, Jason Zengerle, Leon Weiseltier, and John Judis Michael Kinsley taught me a huge amount simply by publishing brilliant work I enjoy the company of others whom I haven't known quite as long or as well, and I benefit from their brilliance every day In fact, I wrote this book in TNR's offices rather than holing up in isolation, as most authors If there's a more fun place to work, I haven't heard of it Chris Orr—a great friend and colleague—deserves special mention for helping me through every stage of this book His imprint on it is profound David Grann, Michael Crowley, Jonathan Cohn, Frank Foer, and Hanna Rosin provided valuable input I hired the talented young writer Elspeth Reeve to the endnotes, and she saved me from innumerable mistakes When I started this book, friends advised me that book editors very little Somehow I ended up with Webster Younce, a rare talent who poured himself into this project and helped shape every facet My agent, Gail Ross, was one of the first to believe in me and did a fantastic job (If you need an agent, look her up; several of my writer friends already have.) I owe thanks as well to my loving grandparents Miriam Chait, who passed away a dozen years ago, and Bunny and Leonard Seidman Arlene Swern, the best mother-in-law a guy could have, helped me find the time to write this book (I cranked out the first outline in her guest bedroom while she entertained my young daughter.) My equally sweet father-in-law, David Grayson, caught a cringeinducing mistake in the final drafts When I was young, I was terrified of and hopelessly inept with girls By sheer good fortune I ended up with Robin, my beautiful, sharp, funny, oh-so-sweet bride This was the greatest break of all I still don't know quite how it happened, but I give thanks every day that I get to spend my life with her The lesson here is that you don't have to be good, or even competent, at courtship—you just have to hit the jackpot once Robin cheerfully indulged my many late nights spent making up for unproductive days Our children, Joanna and Benjy, are a daily wonder I boast about them constantly This acknowledgment is all too short, and I have probably left out important people Here is why I simply forgot to write one until, shortly before publication, it occurred to me that I should I wrote this very quickly, and the publisher of this book heroically wedged it in at the las t—the very, very last—minute Nobody who knows me would find this the least bit surprising INTRODUCTION I have this problem Whenever I try to explain what's happening in American politics—I mean, what's really happening—I wind up sounding a bit like an unhinged conspiracy theorist But honestly, I'm not My politics are actually quite moderate (Most real lefties, in fact, think I'm a Washington establishment sellout.) So please give let me a chance to explain myself when I tell you the following: American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane (Stay with me.) The scope of their triumph is breathtaking Over the course of the last three decades, they have moved from the right-wing fringe to the commanding heights of the national agenda Notions that would have been laughed at a generation ago—that cutting taxes for the very rich is the best response to any and every economic circumstance, or that it is perfectly appropriate to turn the most rapacious and self-interested elements of the business lobby into essentially an arm of the federal government— are now so pervasive, they barely attract any notice The result has been a slow-motion disaster Income inequality has approached levels normally associated with Third World oligarchies, not healthy Western democracies The federal government has grown so encrusted with business lobbyists that it can no longer meet the great public challenges of our time Not even many conservative voters or intellectuals find the result congenial Government is no smaller—it is simply more debt-ridden and more beholden to wealthy elites And yet the right-wing ascendancy has continued inexorably despite continual public repudiation The 2006 elections were only the latest electoral setback The right has suffered deeper setbacks before, and all of them have proven temporary In 1982, after the country had entered the deepest recession since the 1930s, Republicans were slaughtered in the midterm congressional races, losing twenty-seven seats in the House of Representatives Ronald Reagan, whose election two years earlier had seemed to augur a new conservative era, trailed his likely 1984 Democratic challengers by double digits in the polls and seemed destined to be a lame duck "What we are witnessing this January," wrote the esteemed Washington Post reporter David Broder in the first month of 1983, "is not the midpoint in the Reagan presidency, but its phase-out 'Reaganism,' it is becoming increasingly clear, was a one-year phenomenon."1 We know what happened the next year And the conservative revolution has had its obituary written many times since In 1986, Republicans lost the Senate, and shortly thereafter Reagan saw his approval ratings sink as he became embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal In 1992, Democrats won back the White House along with both chambers of Congress, and there was widespread talk of "a conservative crackup." It happened again after the public turned on the Republicans following their 1995 government shutdown, and once more after the public rebelled against the Clinton impeachment By the late 1990s, the Republican revolution had again been written off And yet the Republican right keeps coming back, and back, and back Their fortunes rise and then dip, but each peak is higher than the last peak, and each dip is higher than the last dip Consider the present situation Things have gone about as badly as they could have in George W Bush's second term A Republican administration started and lost a major war in Iraq; presided over an economy that has failed to deliver higher wages for most Americans; contributed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to the near-wipeout of a major American city; launched a failed assault on Social Security, the most popular social program in the history of the United States; and saw its members suffer an almost unprecedented string of sexual and financial scandals Still, Democrats find themselves holding only the slimmest of majorities in the House and Senate Even if they hold their majorities in Congress and win the White House in 2008, the structural forces in Washington will make it nearly impossible to roll back any significant chunks of the Bush tax cuts, let alone take on crises like global warming or the forty-five million Americans lacking health insurance Global warming, come to think of it, may offer the best metaphor for understanding the conservative ascent If you look at the temperature of the earth from month to month, it bounces up and down as seasons change and heat spells or cold snaps come and go If you look at it over the course of many years, however, it is clear that it is moving inexorably in one direction The arrival of winter does not mean the end of global warming To confuse the short-term blips with the long-term trend is to mistake the weather for the climate The 2006 elections are one of those blips, a pause in the right's three-decade ascent Permanent partisan majorities are not possible in American politics Power changes hands regularly Sometimes the other party's president will preside over an economic boom or win a war Sometimes yours will preside over a recession or sleep with an intern Short-term fluctuations, often driven by events beyond the control of the party in power, are inevitable So the way to win is not to win every election but to control the terms of the debate The conservative movement's signal triumph is to have done just this, reshaping what is possible in American politics over the long term This is not, therefore, a book about the political weather It is a book about the political climate forty fail to grasp how different American politics looked three decades ago For me, there is no better evidence of the rightward lurch than recalling that my father used to be a Republican A liberal Republican, to be sure, but a Republican By the time I was old enough to understand anything about politics, he had long since abandoned the GOP, and at first his former affiliation puzzled me In the political world in which I came of age—Ronald Reagan left the White House during my junior year of high school—it seemed inconceivable that someone like my dad, who today resides well within the center of the Democratic Party, could identify in any way with the Republicans But, of course, as someone my age could not have guessed, the parties of a generation ago bore only a faint resemblance to their modern versions After World War II, the Republicans accepted the new role of government in American life ushered in by Franklin Roosevelt The decades after the war saw a great American consensus Democrats were a bit looser with the purse strings, Republicans a bit tighter, but their general vision of the country was the same This vision was expressed by the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower just before his inauguration when he declared, "There is, in our affairs at home, a middle way between untrammeled freedom of the individual and the demands for the welfare of the whole nation This way must avoid government by bureaucracy as carefully as it avoids neglect of the helpless." This credo was the credo of the Republican Party my dad could identify with He looked up to GOP moderates like Nelson Rockefeller and William Milliken, the long-time governor of our home state of Michigan—men born to privilege who used their power for the benefit of all, not just their own class Eisenhower left the top tax rate at a staggering 91 percent, and he repeatedly preached the virtues of budget balance (When a colleague complained about this confiscatory rate, his treasury secretary, a wealthy former steel executive, replied acidly, "I pay 91 percent, and yet I don't complain MOST PEOPLE UNDER and you all the time."2 His line reflects a sense of social obligation totally alien to today's GOP.) This tradition of moderate Republicanism remained strong well into the 1970s A Republican president, Gerald Ford, actually vetoed tax cuts proposed by Democrats as fiscally irresponsible There were, of course, Republicans of a more conservative bent in those days as well, but conservatism meant something altogether different from what it does today Indeed, the whole face of American politics has changed Opposition to deficits, which once made up the right wing of the partisan debate, is now closer to the left wing ("I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans," Bill Clinton once noted wryly in a Cabinet meeting "We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market.") Today's right-wing position—upper-bracket tax cuts wherever and whenever possible—was off the right edge of the political spectrum three decades ago The ground has shifted very far under our feet, and its manifestations are everywhere In 1979, the highest-earning one-tenth of percent of all taxpayers—the richest of the rich—took home only percent of the national income Today they take home 10 percent And over that same span, their average tax rate has dropped from 32 to 23 percent The minimum wage has lost nearly half its purchasing power The health care plan proposed by Richard Nixon in 1974, if introduced in Congress today, would be considered radically liberal and probably could not gain the support of any but a handful of the most left-wing Democrats American politics has been transformed, yet in this change lies the deeper mystery The public has not clamored for it While it is true that, starting around the late 1960s, polls showed a growing backlash against the welfare state, that backlash petered out during the 1980s and actually began to reverse itself a few years later Which is to say, the public has actually grown less receptive to conservatism in general, let alone the particular upper-class variety practiced by today's GOP How I know this? Here's one example The National Election Survey has been asking voters for many years whether they would prefer a larger government with more services or a smaller government with fewer services In 1982, the first year of the poll, 32 percent favored smaller government, and 24 percent preferred larger government (with the remainder right in the middle or expressing no opinion) By 2004, it had completely flipped, with 43 percent preferring bigger government and just 20 percent wanting a smaller one Other polls have showed that the public has turned away from its antigovernment mood of the 1970s and favored a more active government and more progressive taxes The public has been moving steadily left for twenty years, while Washington has lurched rapidly in the opposite direction This isn't supposed to happen Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public sentiment is everything With public sentiment, nothing can fail Without it, nothing can succeed." This is the core of the American civic religion But over the last thirty years, something has happened that strikes at that core The underpinnings of American democracy have slowly frayed, and in the place of the great moderate consensus that once prevailed we have seen the rise of an American plutocracy for the triumph of right-wing economics, familiar to readers of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, is that cultural issues have obscured pocketbook ones Conservatives have tricked the masses into voting on the basis of social issues, thus ignoring their economic self-interest It is certainly true that tens of millions of potential Democratic voters support the Republican Party on the basis of its opposition to abortion, gays, and the like But the phenomenon of conservative elites using culture and patriotism to win support from the masses is an old one LeftONE POPULAR EXPLANATION Prados, John, [>] President We Deserve, The (Walker), [>] press See media productivity growth, [>], [>] Progressive Era, [>]–[>], [>]–[>] Public Interest, The, [>], [>], [>] pundits See opinion journalists Quayle, Dan, [>], [>], [>] Quayle, Marilyn, [>] Rabushka, Alvin, [>] radical right, [>]–[>] Rauch, Jonathan, [>]–[>] Rayburn, Sam, [>] Reagan, Ronald apologists for, [>]–[>] character analysis of, [>]–[>] concessions to opponents, [>]–[>] conservative alignment with, [>]–[>] election of, [>], [>] embrace of supply-side theory, [>], [>] ideological infidelity, [>]–[>] as moderate, [>]–[>] pro-business policies, [>] retrospective veneration of, [>]–[>], [>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>] taxes, [>], [>]–[>], [>], [>], [>], [>], [>] use of imagery, [>] recess appointments, [>] recession, [>]–[>], [>], [>]–[>] reconciliation bills, [>] Reed, Ralph, [>]–[>], [>], [>], [>] Regan, Don, [>] Reich, Robert, [>], [>], [>] Reliant Energy, [>] religious conservatives, [>], [>], [>], [>] Republican Party See also conservatism; specific individuals and issues class implications in agenda, [>]–[>], [>] in consensus era, [>], [>]–[>], [>] conservative ideology, [>]–[>] cultural changes, [>], [>], [>]–[>], [>] economic base, [>]–[>] electorate versus elite, [>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>] government expansion, [>] moderates, [>], [>] necessity for dishonesty, [>] radical right appropriation of, [>]–[>] resiliency, [>]–[>] on social conservative issues, [>] in state government, [>]–[>] unity of party line, [>]–[>], [>]–[>] Republican Study Committee, [>]–[>] rhetoric, [>], [>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>], [>], [>]–[>] Rice, Condoleezza, [>] Rich, Andrew, [>] Rich, Frank, [>]–[>] Rich, Mark, [>] Richardson, Elliot, [>] Ridge, Tom, [>] Right Man, The (Frum), [>] right-wing See conservatism Riley, Bob, [>]–[>] Roberts, Cokie, [>] Roberts, John, [>], [>] Roberts, Paul Craig, [>] Rockefeller, Nelson, [>], [>] Rogers, Mike, [>] Roll Call, [>], [>] Romney, George, [>] Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, [>] Roosevelt, Franklin D., [>], [>], [>], [>], [>], [>], [>], [>] Rosen, Jeffrey, [>] Rosenthal, Howard, [>] Rostenkowski, Dan, [>] Rove, Karl, [>], [>], [>] Rules Committee, [>]–[>] Rusher, William A., [>] Russert, Tim, [>] Russo, Marty, [>] Safire, William, [>] Scalia, Antonin, [>] Scanlon, Michael, [>] Schlafly, Phyllis, [>], [>] Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr., [>] School Is Hell (Groening), [>] Scully, Thomas, [>], [>], [>] Securities and Exchange Commission, [>] Seduction of Hillary Rodham, The (Brock), [>] Senate, [>]–[>], [>] September [>] commission, [>]–[>] Shirley, Craig, [>] Shore, Andrew M., [>] Shultz, George, [>] Skocpol, Theda, [>] Slate, [>], [>], [>] Smith, Brad, [>] Smith, Nick, [>] Snow, John, [>]–[>] Snow, Tony, [>]–[>], [>], [>] social conservatism, [>], [>]–[>] Social Security, [>]–[>], [>]–[>] Souter, David, [>] Soviet Union, [>] special interests See business lobby spending, [>], [>]–[>], [>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>], [>], [>] See also deficits; fiscal conservatism Stein, Ben, [>] Stein, Herb, [>] Stelzer, Irwin, [>] Stephanopoulos, George, [>], [>] Stevens, Ted, [>] Stevenson, Adlai, [>] Stewart, Jon, [>] Stimson, James, [>] Stockman, David, [>], [>], [>] Stormer, John, [>], [>] Strassel, Kimberly, [>] subsidies, [>]–[>], [>]–[>], [>] Sullivan, Andrew, [>], [>]–[>] supply-side theory academic scrutiny of, [>]–[>] budget surplus projections, [>]–[>] in G W Bush's policies, [>]–[>] conservative embrace of, [>]–[>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>], [>], [>], [>]–[>] versus Keynesian theory, [>] Laffer Curve, [>]–[>] origin of term, [>]–[>] predictions of Clinton failure, [>]–[>] in Reagan administration, [>]–[>] seductiveness of, [>], [>], [>]–[>] seminal writings on, [>]–[>] as totalistic ideology, [>], [>]–[>] use of jargon, [>]–[>] Suskind, Ron, [>], [>] Tanner, Michael, [>] tariffs, [>], [>]–[>], [>] Tauzin, Billy, [>]–[>] tax, progressive, [>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>] tax code structure, [>]–[>] tax cuts See also supply-side theory apportionment, [>], [>]–[>], [>]–[>] G W Bush's commitment to, [>], [>], [>], [>] in Reaganism, [>], [>], [>] rise in spending and, [>]–[>] tax increases and government expansions G.H.W Bush, [>]–[>], [>]–[>], [>], [>] Clinton, [>]–[>], [>] Eisenhower, [>], [>] Ford, [>] Hoover, [>] Kennedy, [>] Nixon, [>] Reagan, [>], [>], [>] F D Roosevelt, [>], [>] Truman, [>] Taxpayer Protection Pledge, [>]–[>] Tax Policy Center, [>] tax rates, [>], [>]–[>], [>], [>]–[>] tax reform, [>], [>]–[>], [>] think tanks, liberal versus conservative, [>]–[>] See also specific think tanks This Week, [>]–[>] Thomas, Bill, [>] Thomas, Cal, [>] Thomas, Clarence, [>] Thurmond, Strom, [>] Time, [>]–[>], [>] Tomasky, Michael, [>]–[>] Treasury Department, [>] Triplett, William C., [>] Trudeau, Garry, [>] Truman, Harry S., [>] Trump, Donald, [>] Ueberroth, Peter, [>] Unity '08 activist group, [>] Unlimited Access (Aldrich), [>] U.S News & World Report, [>], [>], [>] USA Today, [>] Van Houweling, Robert, [>] Vogel, David, [>] Voinovich, George, [>] Walker, Charles, [>] Walker, Martin, [>] Wall Street Journal character propaganda, [>], [>] class warfare rhetoric, [>], [>], [>] conservatism, [>]–[>] paranoia, [>]–[>] Reaganism, [>]–[>], [>], [>] as Republican operative, [>], [>], [>] supply-side theory support, [>], [>], [>], [>], [>], [>], [>] Wall Street Journal reports Barton's connections to energy industry, [>] battle between tax reformers and lobbyists, [>] G.H.W Bush's tax hike, [>] G W Bush's spending hikes, [>] G W Bush's tax cut plan, [>], [>] Cheney's secret meetings, [>]–[>] Clinton, popular opinion of, [>] Clinton's health care proposal, [>] Clinton's tax hike, [>]–[>] Hillary Clinton's secret meetings, [>] Darman's ouster from party, [>] deficit growth, [>] Dole's commitment to Reaganism, [>] electoral redistricting, [>] Kerry's character, [>] Livingston's resignation, [>] McCain's military service, [>]–[>] recess appointments, [>] tax revenues under Reagan, [>] 2000 election recount, [>]–[>] Wanniski, Jude, [>]–[>], [>], [>], [>]–[>] Washington Monthly, [>] Washington Post, [>], [>], [>], [>], [>]–[>], [>], [>], [>]–[>] Washington Post reports Blumenthal's removal from New Yorker staff, [>] Boehner's mainstream sensibility, [>] Bonior's expectation of Democratic contentment, [>] Cheney's secret meetings, [>] Forbes's presidential candidacy, [>]–[>] fuel economy standards, [>] Gilder's belief in ESP, [>] Kerry's character, [>], [>] lobbyist fees, [>] lobbyist influence on energy policy, [>]–[>], [>] newspeak training, [>] Reagan's standing in polls, [>] staging of rally, [>]–[>] tax burden for wealthy, [>], [>] tax cuts in relation to higher spending, [>] tax treatment for businesses, [>] Washington Times, [>], [>], [>], [>], [>]–[>] Washington Times reports G W Bush's attack on Daschle, [>] G W Bush's reception by American Conservative Union, [>] Cheney's secret meetings, [>] Hillary Clinton's secret meetings, [>] DeLay's ties to lobbyists, [>] Dole's presidential defeat, [>] Gingrich's fall from power, [>] McCain's moral concerns, [>] Reagan's core ideas, [>] Reagan's tax cuts, [>] Way the World Works, The (Wanniski), [>], [>]–[>], [>] Wealth and Poverty (Gilder), [>]–[>] Wednesday Group strategy meetings, [>]–[>], [>], [>] Weekly Standard, [>], [>], [>], [>], [>], [>] Weekly Standard reports, [>], [>], [>], [>], [>]–[>], [>] Weinberger, Mark, [>] Weisberg, Jacob, [>] Weisman, Jonathan, [>] Weyrich, Paul, [>] What's the Matter with Kansas? (Frank), [>] When Character Was King (Noonan), [>]–[>] Whitman, Christine Todd, [>] Wired, [>] Wolf, Naomi, [>] Wolfowitz, Paul, [>] World Trade Organization, [>] Wright, Jim, [>] Year of the Rat (Triplett), [>] Young, Bill, [>]–[>] Zakaria, Fareed, [>] Zelizer, Julian, [>] * The supply-siders seized on the fact that in 1998 Clinton made a deal in which he cut the capital gains tax in return for higher children's health spending They portrayed the capital gains tax cut as responsible for the boom This view has, needless to say, several crippling flaws First, the boom began several years before the capital gains tax cut Second, the capital gains tax cut was far smaller than Clinton's income tax hike And third, Jimmy Carter signed a capital gains tax cut in 1978, yet supply-siders claimed no responsibility for anything the economy did after that—or, indeed, until 1983 [back] *** * Possibly the most notable thing about Moore's op-ed piece was that, in its efforts to convey what he saw as the impressive rise in tax revenues, he seemed to be aping the style of e-mail spammers hawking fake Viagra Consider Moore's use of capital letters ("New York City, which suddenly finds itself more than $3 billion IN SURPLUS") and his vivid descriptions of rising revenue, which included such phrases as "eye-popping," "surged," "exploded like a cap let off a geyser," and "unexpected gush." Come to think of it, "unexpected gush" may not be the result you want from a sex pill [back] *** * In the course of endorsing the first Bush tax cut, Miller asserted, "If we don't send this overpayment of taxes back to those who paid it, most of it will just be frittered away." Apparently handing out payments to wealthy farmers did not constitute frittering away money [back] *** * In 2005, when DeLay was asked about cutting wasteful spending, he replied that there was no waste to cut "After 11 years of Republican majority, we've pared it down pretty good," he insisted [back] *** * How conservatives reconcile their veneration of Reagan and their dismay at the Tax Reform Act? Very carefully Their main technique is to keep discussions of the policy and discussions of Reagan in separate spheres In the context of a discussion of tax policy, they will denigrate the 1986 Tax Reform Act and glance over their hero's role in signing it In the context of discussing Reagan's legacy, they will praise the fact that the act reduced marginal tax rates and ignore the other provisions that made it so abhorrent to them [back] *** * Who profiled Norquist and four other movement figures in her outstanding book Gang of Five [back] *** * With the exception of the 2004 corporate tax bill described in chapter [back] *** * It's remarkable how many conservatives take seriously such an obviously witless analogy Cutting the government's "allowance" does not limit its capacity to spend The proper analogy would be reducing your child's allowance but giving him unlimited use of your credit card [back] *** * Some conservatives argued that temporary tax cuts wouldn't work because people wouldn't spend the windfall if they knew it would disappear the next year But the idea of permanently cutting taxes every time the economy slows down is ludicrous After enough turns of the business cycle, the government would go bankrupt [back] *** * Ferrara later broke with Cato on the grounds that the latter was too militant in its opposition to the program "Cato wants to get rid of the entire Social Security system, and I don't," he complained [back] *** † Of course, Social Security privatization fell flat in 2005 The lesson here is that the disposition of the media matters, but it doesn't guarantee anything Privatizing Social Security was not only overwhelmingly unpopular, its unpopular aspects (lower guaranteed benefit checks) were readily visible Tax cuts that benefit a tiny proportion of the voting population, on the other hand, impose costs (higher debt, less opportunity for more popular alternate uses for the same money) that are hard for average voters to detect The privatization debacle showed the limit of pushing unpopular policies with exposed costs [back] *** * One can argue that the call for Patients' Bill of Rights was overblown, or possibly even a bad idea, but my point rests on the popularity of the issue rather than its importance [back] *** * The hilarious postscript to this sorry episode occurred the following year Bush browbeat Norwood into denouncing his own bill, arguing that Republicans had to stick together and deny victory to the Democrats As a result, the bipartisan coalition for the bill, which until that point had appeared unstoppable, fell apart, and the bill died Thus a saga that began with Bush promising to bring the parties together and to "get something done" ended with Bush tearing the parties apart and preventing something from getting done [back] *** * The use of symbolism of imagery to create a misleading impression is hardly new to the Bush administration Presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan made a regular practice of using televised imagery or token concessions to hone their public image But Bush pushed it so much further that a difference in degree became a difference in kind; he used symbolic measures to create a political identity false in its very essence, not just around the margins [back] *** * Rob Corddry of the Daily Show memorably spoofed this ethos when he declared to his host, Jon Stewart, "I don't have opinions I'm a reporter, Jon My job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says and half the time repeating the other Little thing called objectivity Might want to look it up someday." Stewart replied, "Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence and calling out what's credible and what isn't credible?" To which Corddry shot back: "Well, well, well, sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter Listen, buddy Not my job to stand as a filter between the people talking to me and the people listening to me." [back] *** * The examples were almost laughably weak For instance, the article cited Gore's statement that he had visited a Florida classroom so overcrowded that a student was forced to stand without a desk This was true, but after Gore cited it, the embarrassed principal hastily procured a desk Thus when Gore cited the student the next day, it was no longer true, and therefore a "lie." Gore also "lied" when asserting that he had visited a 1998 disaster cite in Texas with FEMA's director, James Lee Witt In fact, Gore had visited other disaster sites with Witt, but in that particular instance he visited with Witt's assistant Furthermore he "falsely" claimed that as a baby his mother had serenaded him with the song "Look for the Union label" as a lullaby, which was not true, but which Gore insisted was a joke And so on [back] *** * U.S News & World Report has noted that, according to one White House insider, Bush "can't get enough of fart jokes" and is "also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides" (Paul Bedard, "Washington Whispers," U.S News & World Report, August 20, 2006) This would seem to undercut the theory of Bush as ultradignified executive [back] *** * By Bush's second term, when his poll numbers sank and conservatives turned sharply against him, Noonan began to discern serious personality flaws in the forty-third president Of course, this is simply another demonstration of how silly her style of analysis is: her view of politicians is rooted in politics, but she expresses it entirely in personal terms Bush was a perfectly wonderful man until he became a burden to the conservative movement [back] *** * It also revealed a bit too much about how the government has worked under Bush's presidency The Constitution makes the legislative and executive branches equal Bush views Congress as a subordinate branch, as suggested by his defining "leadership" as something Congress is not part of [back] *** * In the end, Bush had to capitulate on some of his more extreme demands But this reflected the highly unusual circumstances of the case The 9/11 attacks captivated public attention unlike any other event in recent history And the families of the victims, who demanded that Bush testify, were unusually sympathetic and unusually able to command media attention In almost every other instance of the administration's rebuffing attempts to hold it accountable, it has won unconditionally [back] *** * And since Cannon frequently defied fellow Republican presidents, his iron-fisted rule made it hard for a single party to dominate [back] *** * The stimulus bill was, in my opinion, a bad idea, given that the economy was already growing out of a recession Still, the point is not that Clinton's ideas were all praiseworthy but that he lacked control of Congress [back] *** * Brad Smith did lose his primary campaign, and Cunningham was eventually convicted of taking a bribe from a defense contractor, which certainly helps explain his contempt for Smith's refusal to accept a payoff [back] *** * Free trade is a more complicated case Clinton supported free trade agreements that included provisions to protect labor rights and the environment abroad, and he was able to bring many Democrats with him George W Bush has advocated trade deals that not include those concessions, and many previously pro–free trade Democrats have therefore opposed him Many observers have mistaken this as a wholesale abandonment of free trade principles when in fact it's a revolt against the different kind of free trade deals that have prevailed under Bush [back] *** * In a December 6, 2004, article, David Corn, writing in the Nation, rebutted many of the arguments alleging that the vote in Ohio had been stolen "Suspicion needs reality checks ,"he wrote."A recount in Ohio is well and good But it probably won't change the results." [back] *** * The evidence on this point is massive and fairly well documented In 1996, while still working as a Fox News anchor, Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for president in Rising Tide, a magazine published by the Republican National Committee (New York, November 17, 1997); Andrew Kirtzman interviewed for a job at Fox News and was asked about his party affiliation ("They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice on October 15, 1996) Those still needing persuasion should see the documentary Outfoxed, which, among other evidence, has memos from Fox managers describing how news stories ought to be spun [back] *** * Brooks immediately proceeded from this observation to write, "A similar transformation has occurred on the left—as the Lewinsky scandal made clear, when liberal groups universally betrayed their feminist principles to stand by their party leader." The implication that liberals' principles would normally compel support for impeaching a president for committing adultery is, obviously, absurd It is typical, though, of a conservative mindset that resolutely insists its movement character merely reflects the same behavior on the other side [back] ... www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Chait, Jonathan The big : the true story of how Washington got hoodwinked and hijacked by crackpot economics / Jonathan Chait p cm Includes... firms All of them understood that the destruction of the old Republican ethos of restraint opened up the public coffers to them, and they have availed themselves and their clients of a massive... that the extremism of their agenda did not doom the new GOP at the ballot box Somehow it didn't, and the second half of the book explains why In a nutshell, the answer is that the culture of Washington