Arguing Iraq: The benefits of complexity

Paul Begala’s recent post to Talking Points Memo is worth checking out. The former Clinton strategist basically turns conventional wisdom on Iraq and the Democrats on its head, making the salient point that unanimity in favor of bad policy may be fatal to the GOP. “Democrats can and will win the Iraq debate,” he says, “if they embrace the fact that they disagree and contrast it with the slavish, mindless rubber-stamp Republicans.”

The only place in the American government where there is an honest and spirited debate over Iraq is within the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are not on the same page – and that’s a good thing. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry disagree. Hooray for that.

If anyone tells you the solution to Iraq is easy or obvious, they’re a liar or a fool (a false choice in the case of our president). So why not feature the debate? At least someone is debating what to do.

The fact is the American people want a new direction in Iraq, and the Democrats offer several. The Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing more than a four-word strategy: more of the same.

Democrats should seize this moment to attack the rubber-stamp Republicans for their lemming-like devotion to a failed strategy and a set of incompetent and dishonest leaders. Republicans have a faith-based Iraq policy. They have faith in Donald Rumsfeld, they have faith in Dick Cheney, they have faith in George W. Bush. We don’t. They are liars and nincompoops – and the lives of tens of thousands of our best are in their hands.

Every time the GOP says “cut and run,” Democrats should say, “rubber stamp.” Every time they say we’re weak, we should say real strength is standing up to your president and your party when American lives are on the line. When they attack our patriotism, we should challenge them to sign their kids up for the military: “Since when did the sons and daughters of working people corner the market on patriotism, Senator? If this war is so wonderful, so noble, so vital, why the hell is your son throwing up on his date at Ivy League frat parties?”

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

An interesting compromise

The Record offers an interesting approach to the sales tax fight: Make the hike temporary and revisit the discussion next year.

If next year at this time, the state’s economy has rebounded, then the tax hike can lapse. If the economy still lags, lawmakers will have had a full year to determine where state government can be most effectively reduced by $1.1 billion. If Trenton can’t come up with the cuts or find new revenue sources by this time next year, then the sales tax hike should stay.

Skeptics raise the legitimate concern that taxes that are pitched as “temporary solutions” invariably end up as permanent, but that’s not necessarily the case. Three years ago, for example, Idaho adopted a one-cent sales-tax increasethat expired — on schedule — in 2005.

We are one of the most fiscally dysfunctional states in the nation. As an editorial in The Wall Street Journal pointed out yesterday, at least 40 states are operating in the black, while only a handful, including “perpetually hapless New Jersey,” still find themselves in budget holes.

Mr. Corzine is trying to finally put this state’s financial house in order. Last-minute, panic-driven “solutions” are the last thing New Jersey needs right now.

We won’t be getting an 11th-hour donation from Warren Buffett. A temporary 1-cent tax increase is the best way to solve the budget impasse.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press