Timeline of an immigration bill

June 21, 2007 – 9:43 am

Last week, after the seeming pause in the fight over the immigration bill, a number of people wrote that the delay in the immigration bill was either good or bad for John McCain. Now it seems likely that the immigration bill will pass the Senate, as Rep. Tom Cole indicated at the NRCC/Heritage blogger lunch. This issue will continue to have a profound impact on the GOP primary.

Let’s just be clear about the timeline, assuming that the bill passes:

  • The Senate votes this week or next.
  • The House writes a bill in July and holds floor debate in September, at the earliest. Pelosi has indicated, in CQ, that this may not start until September.
  • The bill goes to conference in September and either comes out in October (unlikely) or in 2008.
  • The final vote, and the President’s signature with a big ceremony, occurs in 2008. Question: will this occur before or after Feb. 5th? Note that Pelosi and Reid will get to make the timing decision.

The upshot is that the GOP candidates are going to get drilled on this through the primary season. It is clear what they would all like. After all, just one year ago, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee all expressed support for solutions to the Senate bill. Only John McCain and Sam Brownback have had the courage of their convictions. The GOP candidates want to rail against the bill and have it pass.Then they get their private policy preference and an issue.

But this means that the issue of "amnesty" will be live in the primary, but probably be off the table in the general. The general will probably focus on implementing border security.

Of course, the other option is that they go to conference and it never comes out, with Pelosi and Reid hoping for a Democratic President and more Democratic Senate. But Congress already has lower ratings than the GOP Congress, and they cannot afford a "do nothing" label being applied to them. And under the right circumstances, the GOP might just get the House back, and the Dems won’t get the bill they want.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Senate trying to fix loopholes, aka stopping people from making an honest buck

June 19, 2007 – 10:16 am

Now, I normally don’t get excited about tax policy. Mostly because it is obscure. But this got me annoyed, so here goes.

Senators Baucus and Grassley have introduced a bill to shut down a "loophole" in the tax code as it relates to private equity. The basic idea is that private equity partnerships are taxed as capital gains, not income. The long-term capital gains tax is around 15%, while the US has the highest corporate tax is the industrial world after, I believe, Japan. So they want to tax private equity partnerships as corporations under the higher tax rate.

Now there are reasonable arguments for this. One is that private equity has a significant advantage versus corporations because they get to keep around 25% more of their profits. So the current tax code could be said to create "unfair" competition. That is, if the current tax code had any sense of fairness in it at all, which it doesn’t. But that’s not what is going on here. This is a story of the government trying to stop someone from getting rich by outthinking Congress, something most Americans would argue isn’t that hard.

Let me start with a story about the tax code from a friend who was a Senate Democratic tax staffer:

A constituent had asked for a small tariff on a kind of purse several years before. The purpose of this tariff was to screw the less politically-connected competition. The goal was to create more demand for their bag by raising the prices for their competition. But, several years after the tariff was introduced, fashions changed, and this company wanted to move into this market, which had the tariff that they had asked for. So they went back to ask for a repeal of the tariff.

That’s how our tax code works. Some honest businessman got screwed because some other politically connected businessman made a bad decision. And that’s what is going on here. Private Equity looked at the tax code and figured out how to structure their companies so that they made money. There’s nothing wrong with people making decisions based on taxes or prices. I am driving to Canada for a family reunion this weekend. I will have to make decisions about when to purchase gas. I might buy it in NY, PA, MD, or VA. And most of the difference in cost is due to regulation (taxes plus varying environmental standards)

Now, if our Senators made the change take effect for partnerships created in the future, sure. I might be ok with that, because there really is a competition issue here. (don’t tell the credit unions!) But that’s not how this became a political issue. It became an issue because the unthinkable is about to happen. Somebody is about to make a boatload of money by out-thinking the tax code:

Meanwhile, Democrats, and some Republicans, are taking aim at the booming private-equity buyout industry, especially the much-ballyhooed public offering of Steve Schwarzman’s Blackstone Group. It seems these buyout guys are just too rich.

Up to now, Blackstone’s authoring statement had envisioned some kind of two-tiered tax plan, where ordinary corporate compensation would be taxed at the 35% corporate rate while high-risk investment-fund profits would be taxed at the 15% capgains rate. And now, Senators Baucus of Montana and Grassley of Iowa want Blackstone to pay the much higher corporate tax on all its income.

Better stop those guys from making that money. That just ain’t right.

If the Dems want to make an issue of people using the tax code in innovative ways, they need to start with a redesign of the tax code from scratch that introduces some notion of fairness. Get rid of all the various loopholes and tax earmarks. Get rid of all the tax breaks for their buddies and all the other corporate welfare. But don’t go grabbing the money of the guys who just ended up being smarter than Congress.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Employers getting unhappy with immigration bill

May 28, 2007 – 10:55 am

While I am a supporter of immigration in general and some sort of comprehensive immigration proposal, I am not yet decided on this immigration bill. Earlier, I pointed to a place where business is unhappy with the current bill. Today, the NYT reports one place where these problems are becoming clearer. For example, Microsoft’s head lobbyist says:

The deal is worse than the status quo, and the status quo is a disaster. We are troubled by the grand bargain.

Specifically, on the high-tech worker side:

“The reforms in the Senate bill do not help the business community. Indeed, they hurt the business community. Under the current system, employers file petitions with the government to show why a particular employee is needed and should get a green card. The Senate bill would eliminate the employers’ ability to petition for specific workers.”

The bill would increase the number of visas for highly skilled workers, a goal long sought by the high-tech industry. Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, won adoption of an amendment that would increase the fee charged to employers for such a visa, known as an H-1B, to $5,000, from $1,500. The money would be used to finance scholarships for American citizens studying engineering, mathematics, computer science or health care.

Life isn’t any better on the low-skill worker side:

“It’s a travesty,” Mr. Silvertooth said. “It eviscerates the temporary worker program, which was one of the central reasons for the business community to be involved in the immigration debate.”

"It" is an amendment that lowered the number of temporary worker visas to 200k and removed the provision that would increase that with demand. Note that all the amendments made that make this a worse bill were offered by Democrats.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

McConnell on immigration bill

May 26, 2007 – 12:00 pm

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had some thoughts on the immigration bill. It is a useful check on the hysteria on the right:

“This is a divisive issue'’ for both parties, said McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. But, he said, “I don’t think there’s a single member of either party next year who is going to fail to be re-elected over this issue.'’

He also expressed support and compared it to last year’s bill, which he also supported:

McConnell, who last year was among 23 Republicans who voted for a Senate-passed immigration bill that died in the House, said he probably will vote for the latest version.

“It’s a big improvement over the bill that passed the Senate last year,'’ McConnell said. “I would rather act than not act, and I am not looking for an absolutely perfect piece of legislation.'’

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Romney loses Congressional Whip

May 25, 2007 – 12:37 pm

The Washington Prowler has the story and the analysis:

Any doubts former Sen. Fred Thompson isn’t getting into the race have probably flown out the window based on the news this morning that Rep. Marsha Blackburn has jumped off the Mitt Romney Bandwagon and endorsed Thompson. Given that Blackburn is friends with Thompson and from the same state, the endorsement isn’t a surprise. But the timing is. Thompson isn’t announced yet. This leads us to believe that Blackburn must know something other folks don’t. Otherwise, why so publicly go out on a limb and embarrass the Romney camp? According to Romney insiders, Blackburn was slated to help run the "Women for Romney" operation and was in line to be a key national surrogate for the campaign down south. This isn’t a huge blow to that campaign by any stretch. But it is an interesting little twist to a race that is getting more interesting by the hour.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

Majority Accountable Project

April 28, 2007 – 6:25 am

Last week, I wrote about the Dems use of technology. On Tuesday, I learned about the Majority Accountability Project. One of the people at that presentation said something to the effect of, "This is the first good idea that narrows the gap between the right and left online." I think that this is right, and I think that there is much to learn from that statement.

What is MAP? MAP a research operation dedicated to spreading the message that the Democratic Congressional majorities will not uphold their commitments to the American people, and are therefore unsuitable to lead Congress. There are three components to this.

First, it MAP is a research operation dedicated to spreading a message. It is not a fancy technology. Still, the most powerful tool that the online right has is the Drudge Report which is run with mid-nineties era technology. (the 2007-era features just make it profitable!) Ultimately, the video and Web 2.0 features have at best marginal value. If MAP has an impact, and I suspect it will have a large one, its impact will be solely due to its content. Remember: content is king.

Second, MAP intends to spread a partisan message: that the Democratic Congressional leadership will not uphold its commitments. Most of the blogs on the right are, ultimately, intended as personal reflections about what is going on. There is neither a message nor an attempt to stay "on message". The right blogosphere has been effective at moving messages when there is a clear focus, such as electing George W. Bush and defeating John Kerry. Most of the rest of the time, it has been unfocused, unlike much of the infrastructure of the left which has had (and to some extent still has) a clear purpose.

Third, and somewhat corollary to the second point, the partisan message has a clear electoral instrumentality. MAP intends that the information it produces will be used to defeat Democrats in elections. I can think of very, very few websites on the right that are not run by a candidate, PAC or party committee that have that kind of agenda. But there are clearly quite a large number on the left.

I would also make a fourth point. MAP was conceived by political operatives to achieve a political objective. This is not quite a rehash of other points. Perhaps Redstate is the only major conservative website that is run by political operatives. (perhaps Newsbusters too?) However, Redstate’s impact is well out of proportion with its readership because it is relatively focused.

In the end, MAP will be the TPM Muckraker of the right. That’s a good sign.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Why the Democrats shouldn’t run Congress…

April 9, 2007 – 6:10 am

Sorry for being a little off-topic, but I thought this was classic. Don Wolfensberger, one of the great Congressional procedure wonks, described in Roll Call ($) the procedure that allowed the GOP to amend a the DC vote bill with a DC gun ban provision. The whole event is a brilliant lesson in the hypocrisy of the House Democratic leadership. This is a long post and a little esoteric. So, if you are interested in Congressional procedure and Democratic hypocrisy, read more after the jump.
Read More »

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

House Armed Services stops using “Global War on Terror”

April 4, 2007 – 6:06 am

A little off the 2008 theme, but… Wow.  The Military Times has the story:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

…

Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.

…

“You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

SBC’s Land supports comprehensive immigration reform

March 29, 2007 – 7:06 pm

I think that the press, and bloggers, sometimes misunderstand the power of people like Richard Land, an SBC leader. Today, according to the Hill, he joined Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina (and John McCain supporter) to help introduce a bill on comprehensive immigration reform:

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) joined a group of Democratic senators and evangelical leaders in calling for action on so-called comprehensive immigration reform.

…

The lawmakers were also flanked by a group of Hispanic evangelical leaders and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Church.

Now, Hispanic Evangelical leaders shouldn’t be surprising, although, I should point out that they are probably Republican. Richard Land is the one that I want readers to think about.

He is considered a conservative leader. This probably tells us that the SBC will have, at least, a positive stance towards comprehensive immigration reform. Will they say that much about it? Probably not, and few churches are likely to mobilize over it. (although, speaking as the chairman of the Missions Board at my baptist church, some pastors and lay leaders are acutely aware of some of this because it may impact the legality of some of our programs)

Will this protect candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback from conservative criticism? My gut is, probably not. A leading Member of Congress on this issue even told me that social conservatives consider immigration reform to be as much a danger to the country as gay marriage. I told him he was over stating it.

However, will this help with outreach to social conservatives and religious voters? Maybe. Marc Ambinder at the Hotline wrote an interesting post on this question.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

McCain on the House Iraq Supplemental

March 26, 2007 – 12:47 pm

John McCain has harsh words for the House Democratic Leadership on the Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill that they just passed. This is what he said at a town hall meeting in Plymouth, NH:

McCain has been taking some heat for skipping some votes recently. But he is canceling some fundraisers to participate in the debate in the Senate. He called the Democratic approach a "new recipe for defeat".

Tags: , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)