How Many GOPers Does It Take To Recognize a Collective Action Problem?

Warren Buffet recently took to the New York Times to argue that the very rich -- like himself -- were under-taxed. It's not even that bold of an argument -- tax rates for the ultra-wealthy are exceptionally low, and the American government needs revenue. But obviously, for the death-before-taxes wing of the GOP (i.e., all of it), this was heresy.

My former co-blogger Michael Van Der Galien was the first person I saw to snidely comment that Buffet was free to donate as much money as he wanted to charity (or the IRS), of his own volition. I thought about responding to point out that the question of tax rates for the rich is a collective action problem -- Buffet obviously was not declaring that he alone could solve America's budget crisis if only he were allowed -- but I figured it was a one-off, and decided to let it lie.

But alas, as usual, I can't set my expectations low enough. Jon Chait collects the same argument being made by Michele Bachmann and the Wall Street Journal. In addition to making the obvious collective-action point, Chait also notes that -- between the "why don't you just donate" then argument made against folks like Buffet, and the "class warfare" charge made against everyone else -- it turns out that nobody has standing to argue against raising a top marginal rate that currently is 15 points lower than where it was for the majority of the Reagan administration. Neat trick, that.

Grouchy V-Day Roundup

Jill and I typically don't really celebrate Valentine's Day (coming so soon after my birthday, we're all celebrated out). But I'm feeling a little bit grumpy this week, so I think snuggling up with some candy and a movie might be just what the doctor ordered.

* * *

Bill Russell gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Justice Thomas' silence on the bench reaches 5 years. While my feeling going into the article was that I didn't really care whether Justice Thomas felt compelled to speak or not (viewing much of oral argument as a bit of a charade), I did think one attorney had a point when he noted the unfairness of Thomas deciding cases on grounds not briefed or argued, yet not giving lawyers the opportunity to at least respond to his concerns.

Two posts at TNC's place on Black people getting away with things.

Maryland Democrat joins the state legislative Tea Party caucus, chaos ensues.

Scott Lemieux on the individual mandate and federal power.

Dutch parliament voices opposition to unilateral Palestinian statehood, urges Palestine to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as part of a final peace agreement.

Jordan's Justice Minister calls for a pardon of a Jordanian soldier who murdered 7 visiting Israeli schoolchildren. The Minister previously served as the convicted criminal's defense attorney.

The Iranian government is vigorously suppressing Egypt-inspired protests cropping up in Tehran, Hillary Clinton remarks that Iranians and Egyptians deserve the same rights.

CPAC in a nutshell: "I witnessed someone calling Ron Paul people a 'cult' while eating a cake shaped like Reagan's face."

The Right Man at the Right Time

I've said before that Al Gore has the distinct quality among modern politicians of being right on nearly every major issue, years before they become popular. It was true on the environment. It was true on terrorism. And it was true on Iraq, where Al Gore holds the rarefied position of being correct about both Gulf War I and II.

However, some conservatives have taken his hawkish Gulf War I words and tried to accuse Gore of "shameless political opportunism" and being a "craven opportunist". And the righties have piled on.

This is almost (a few years ago I'd have dropped the "almost", but my standards have dipped since then) unbelievably dense. It's as if they can't even conceptualize that the threat Iraq posed America could have possibly changed in the decade between Gulf War I and II. Amazingly enough, the world continues to spin, and things do change. Can you imagine hearing this argument?

"In 1918, Democrats said that Italy was an ally in our fight against Germany. But now we have a clip from 1942 where Democrats say that Italy's actually a fascist regime that threatens the free world? Which is it, you craven flip-flopping opportunists?"

Iraq, in the 1980s, was a brutal dictatorship that was actively committing genocide (with chemical weapons), with our support. Iraq, in the early 90s, was a brutal dictatorship that still had said chemical weapons and had proven itself to be an international threat by invading another country. Thus, Al Gore made the right decision, supporting the first Gulf War, while noting that much of this unpleasantness could have been avoided if Reagan/Bush hadn't decided to get cozy with Saddam Hussein in the first place. Iraq, in the 90s after the war, was contained and disarmed through the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration. And thus, as the 21st century began, Iraq, while still a brutal dictatorship, was not a threat to America or the region, nor did it have WMDs, and thus Al Gore (again) made the right decision to oppose launching an unnecessary war. Speaking as someone who was not on Gore's side on Gulf War II, this logic is not difficult to follow.

Steve Benen sets the record straight:

Gore said Saddam Hussein was dangerous in 1992. That’s true. Gore said Bush 41 looked the other way while Saddam got more dangerous. That’s true. Gore said the U.S. needed to do more to address the Iraqi threat, and then was part of the administration that disarmed Saddam’s regime. That’s true. Years later, Gore said a war against Iraq was unnecessary and would be a tragic mistake. That’s true.

It's all true, and thus we get back to the title: Al Gore was right then, and now, and throughout the last 15 years. That deserves accolades, not scorn. Unfortunately, they say that folks will forgive you for being wrong, but they'll never forgive you for being right. Al Gore's finding that out right now.

The real irony is that part of the "old" Gore speech, the one he gave in the early 90s before he got all lily-livered and flip-floppity, was that Reagan and Bush actively cooperated with Saddam Hussein, aligning themselves with a psychotic dictator who (with our support) gassed his own citizens. That, too, is true, but do these bloggers really want to make an argument of which the base premise is "Reagan supported the terrorists?" Apparently so.