A video surfaced this week of an interview with Harry Reid, by a man named Jan Helfeld, which tackles the subject of taxation. In it, Reid repeats an idea floated a few months ago by Charlie Rangel, which is that we have a “voluntary tax system.” Now, it appears that this is a standard term used in tax policy circles, and it describes the fact that US citizens are responsible for paying their own taxes to the government, and that the government does not forcibly extract such taxes from each paycheck as in other countries. In addition, it is supposedly tied to the concept of deductions which may be made from tax payments for various items, which again are not present in other countries (although my experience of the British tax system suggests that the two needn’t go together – the UK uses a pay as you earn (PAYE) tax system in which the taxes are subtracted from paychecks but there are still various deductions, albeit not as generous as in the US).

However, both Reid’s and Rangels’ insistence on using this phrase in the context they do makes clear that it has nothing to do with arcane policy discussions and everything to do with trying to make it sound like we live in a utopian society where paying taxes really is “voluntary”, which most would take to mean optional. This it clearly isn’t in the US or in another other real-world country. And it is a fallacy which must be tempting to believe in when you believe the government has the right to demand extortionate rates of taxation from its citizens in order to pay for a multitude of government programs not authorized by the constitution. As long as it’s all voluntary, then it doesn’t really matter, does it?

But of course the interviewer in the Reid clip rightly presses him on that point and suggests that it is not voluntary in any sense a normal person would recognize. Instead of simply agreeing that it is an inappropriate use of the word in the context and moving on, Reid digs in and insists that the tax code is voluntary and that this is somehow important. This just reinforces the perception that Reid is willfully misrepresenting the situation out of political necessity, but he just comes off as being ridiculous at worst and irretrievably wonkish at worst.

Is this just wishful thinking on CNN’s part? In a story about the fact that Alan Greenspan has endorsed John McCain, the caption on the picture reads, “Greenspan said he is supporting Obama.” Obama, who is mentioned nowhere else in the article, and who does not appear to be the object of Greenspan’s support or endorsement. I wonder if CNN will correct this at some point…

Click through on the screenshot for a fuller version.

What is it with the Democratic candidates and trade agreements? Although both of them are reportedly against elements (or all) of NAFTA, and criticize most others, they have both now had senior advisers talking up such agreements to foreign governments. In Obama’s case, of course, it was the advisor who told the Canadian government that Obama didn’t really mean what he was saying about NAFTA and that they shouldn’t take it too seriously. It still isn’t 100% clear whether he was acting on his own or on behalf of the campaign – but it is clear there was a disconnect between his own beliefs and those of the candidate.

And then this week we had a similar situation with Clinton. Mark Penn, a lobbyist who advises Clinton, reportedly met with the Colombian government to promote a trade agreement that Clinton opposes. In his case, he was at least clearly promoting the agreement in his capacity as a lobbyist and not as a Clinton staffer, but there is once again a massive disconnect between the candidate and the adviser.

On the one hand, this suggests some laxity on the part of the candidates in choosing their advisers on these topics. On the other, it suggests that even prominent people within their campaigns disagree with them about their positions on these trade agreements. Is it really that hard to find an adviser who holds similar positions on these issues? And if so, isn’t that a sign that the candidates’ views are dangerously at variance with what the best minds think about trade agreements? Should the candidates perhaps be revisiting their views on these issues and moderating their criticisms? If not, then they should at least replace these advisers with ones who will parrot their union-driven, economy-destroying opposition wholeheartedly instead of undermining and contradicting their positions.

Just saw Fred Thompson and John Edwards provide the closing keynotes for the CTIA Wireless conference in Las Vegas. The political theme carried over from last year, when George H W Bush and Bill Clinton were the closing speakers. A step down, perhaps, but two former presidential candidates is interesting nonetheless.

John Edwards spoke first and appeared very much as I have always suspected he would. There is John Edwards the trial lawyer, confident and methodical in laying out a compelling narrative. But there is also John Edwards the rich man who wants to be the friend of the little guy, with a vague air of superiority. His charm runs over to smarminess on occasion.

He covered several themes but did so in a way which appeared to flow well from one to another. He talked about the flawed political process, but did so good-naturedly rather than bitterly. He spoke of climate change and emphasised population growth as a factor, making several exaggerations in the process. And he repeatedly made reference to the wireless industry and its contributions to the political process.

Fred Thompson was a crusty old Republican, with a lazy demeanor that said a lot about why his campaign never took off. His first five minutes was made up of set-piece jokes, some funny, some less so, though his biggest laugh (and deservedly so) was when he said that he had flown in earlier today into Las Vegas “under heavy sniper fire.” He meandered here and there, covering some of the same ground as John Edwards though tempering his criticisms of the process by saying that it could be changed (but not talking about specifics). A lot of his remarks were very self-referential in a way Edwards’ were not. And he didn’t mention the wireless industry until the last minute of his 20-30 minute remarks.

In a brief Q&A session at the end, both candidates were asked who their professional heroes were. Edwards said his hero was Bobby Kennedy, primarily because of the attention he paid to the issue of poverty. A second was Terry Sanford, Governor and Senator from North Carolina, who had apparently handled issues of de-segregation sensitively.  Fred Thompson’s hero was Howard Baker, who preceded him as Senator from Tennessee and acted as something of a mentor to Thompson.

A second question asked whether the two former presidential candidates would accept the VP slot if offered it. Edwards, who knows whereof he speaks, simply said no. Thompson said that to answer the question would be presumptive since he hadn’t been asked it by the one person who mattered, but also said that he would not accept it.

Overall, although I have far more sympathy with Thompson’s politics than those of Edwards, I found that Edwards came across as the more congenial, the more interested in the industry he was speaking too. Last year, the roles were reversed, with the Republican (George H W Bush) being the more humble, giving more credit to the wireless industry and generally coming off better, and Clinton very self-centered, keen to impress and relatively uninterested in his audience. Edwards still seemed alternately snooty and smarmy at times, but largely presented himself better than Thompson.

Just saw a poll on the CNN site. Looks like the Bosnia thing (and one or two others) have really hurt Hillary’s reputation for trustworthiness:

What’s more surprising is that Obama and McCain are even in this, even though Barack has undoubtedly been much worse in trying to pad his resume and make his achievements sound more grandiose than McCain has. Arguably, McCain has the opposite problem – over-honesty about his weakness in financial matters, for example. But I guess that can be put down to partisanship as much as anything else. Obviously this isn’t scientific – it’s just an online poll with self-selection and no attempt to make the result representative, but it’s telling nonetheless.

I occasionally catch some Republican talk radio – Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levine and the rest – though I usually find that I’m put off pretty quickly by their obnoxious attitudes. I often find myself in agreement with most of what they say, but in violent disagreement with their tone.

At any rate, the few times I have caught these shows, I’ve been struck by the listener call-in segments, and the fact that there appear to be a very small number of personality types who call in:

• Sycophants – those who call in merely to suck up to the host. On Sean Hannity’s show, they begin by telling him he’s a great American, and he returns the favor. The host’s response? Talk over them as soon as he’s figured out which personality type they are
• Belligerent Marxists who think they’re going to do their cause some good by arguing with the host. The host’s response? Belittle their beliefs, and talk over them, as soon as he’s figured out which personality type they are
• People who are basically on board but want to disagree with one thing the host has said. The response? Talk over them as soon as he’s figured out which personality type they are.

I’d say 90% of the people who call in fit into one of these three categories. And the host responds in pretty much the same way to all of them: figure out which type they are, and then start interrupting and talking over the top of them. Kind of makes you wonder what the point of the call-in segment is. I think I want to inaugurate a prize for the caller who can speak for 20 consecutive seconds without being interrupted and shut down by a host.

The Wall Street Journal had a piece a couple of days ago on Chris Cox, currently SEC Chairman and a former Congressman and Reagan staffer, suggesting that he is being considered by some as a VP option for McCain. The Journal’s suggestion is that his financial knowhow would counter-balance McCain’s self-confessed weakness in that area. But does McCain really need a VP with financial credibility enough to worry so little about everything else?

Now, no-one is suggesting that Chris Cox is a liberal in conservative clothing. His time working for Reagan is reassuring, and the fact that he earned law and business degrees from Harvard (though not, apparently, at the same time) reminds me of another VP candidate… It’s also an intriguing thought that we might have a ticket with two men with severe physical handicaps. But the Journal’s case for this man seems to rest entirely on his financial street cred and the strongest words it uses in support of him are “serious,” “sober minded,” “careful,” and finally “successful” (in reference to his stint at the SEC).

Presidents have Treasury Secretaries to deal with the detailed economic stuff (although you hope they’re committed to some basic principles like low taxation, tight spending and sound monetary policy). Does McCain really need to give away so much of what the VP choice could provide just to solve the financial issue? Does anyone believe that either Obama or Clinton has the financial chops to make this a serious problem for McCain? It seems misguided to believe any of that, and McCain would do much better to select a VP who would provide a more clearly conservative counter-balance to his own more centrist positions on some of the issues.

John McCain is apparently not afraid to say what many of us are really thinking about the mortgage crisis: the two sets of people most to blame are the lenders who lent the money to people who couldn’t pay it back and the lenders who took those loans:

Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don’t lend people money who can’t pay it back.

The past decade witnessed the largest increase in home ownership in the past 50 years. Home ownership is part of the American dream, and we want as many Americans as possible to be able to afford their own home. But in the process of a huge, and largely positive, upturn in home construction and ownership, a housing bubble was created.

A bubble occurs when prices are driven up too quickly, speculators move into markets, and these players begin to suspend the normal rules of risk and assume that prices can only move up – but never down. We’ve seen this kind of bubble before – in the late 1990s, we had the technology bubble, when money poured into technology stocks and people assumed that those stock values would rise indefinitely. Between 2001 and 2006, housing prices rose by nearly 15 percent every year. The normal market forces of people buying and selling their homes were overwhelmed by rampant speculation. Our system of market checks and balances did not correct this until the bubble burst.

A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like “can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?” Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don’t lend people money who can’t pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn’t afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.

…

I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.

When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.

Apparently, Barack Obama doesn’t like this truth-telling, although he disguises in it in the robes of a critique of the supposed lack of concrete proposals from McCain:

“John McCain has admitted he doesn’t understand the economy as well as he should. Yesterday he proved it in a speech he gave on the housing crisis.” Obama told a town hall audience Wednesday in Greensboro, North Carolina.

“According to John McCain he said the best way for us to address the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes is to just sit back and watch it happen. In his entire speech yesterday he offered not one policy, not one idea, not one bit of relief for the nearly thirty five thousand north Carolinians who were forced to foreclose on their dream in the last few months. Not one, not one single idea or a single policy prescription.”

John McCain’s campaign pushed right back on this:

John McCain 2008 spokesman Tucker Bounds today issued the following statement on Barack Obama’s old-style political attacks today:

“Senator Obama’s blatant mischaracterizations aren’t the new politics he’s promised America, they’re the old attack and smear tactics that Americans are tired of.

“Barack Obama’s diagnosis for our housing market is clearly that Barack Obama knows best — raise taxes on hardworking Americans and give government a prescription to spend.

“John McCain has called for an immediate and balanced approach to provide transparency and accountability in an effort to help homeowners who are hurting, while Barack Obama has made a $10 billion election-year promise that is sure to raise taxes and handcuff an already struggling economy.”

Good that they came back to effectively and challenged the allegation head-on, but you can’t help but feel that they should also have capitalized on McCain’s straight-talking approach to the whole issue too. If he won’t be honest about it, who will?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has the latest inconvenient truths on climate change, which appeared the same day as a scare story about a major piece of polar ice breaking off. No time now to cover it here but go see Ed’s piece for a great summary.

Carl Bernstein is guest blogging on Anderson Cooper’s site (and in typical CNN.com fashion it’s not really obvious that it’s not Mr 360 himself from the word go). His subject is Hillary’s lack of candor, in light of the Bosnia / Tuzla story this week. The most striking thing about the piece is how hard Bernstein seems to find it to call Hillary a liar. He goes out of his way to avoid this construction, using almost comically contorted language and double negatives to make it implicit but never explicit, mostly quoting from his own biography of Hillary. Some samples:

Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”

“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

The book concludes with this paragraph:

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”

What’s behind this? Is Bernstein really worried that he’ll be sued for using the obvious word to describe this obvious behavior? Or did he get just enough cooperation from Clinton and her people in writing the book that he couldn’t go the whole hog?

The most invidious thing about all this, though, is his assertion in the third-to-last paragraph quoted above that in being an inveterate liar, Hillary is really just like the rest of us: “She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.” No, Mr Bernstein: the rest of us may not see clearly some of our shortcomings, encumbered with beams in our eyes that obscure our self-image. But the rest of us do not stretch that lack of clarity about who we really are to invent from whole cloth stories about our past or entirely distort versions of our personal histories when speaking in front of the national news media. That honor is Hillary’s alone.