The false equivalency commentators of the MSM are juxtaposing the speeches of President Obama and Speaker Boehner last night in predictable “on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand” reports. But WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. has a more perceptive take, for those who prefer to take it straight:

President Obama made clear tonight that the debate over the debt ceiling is not left vs. right. It’s center vs. right. There was nothing remotely “left” in this speech, unless you count higher taxes for corporate jet owners and a few other populist bits.
He summarized his approach this way: “Let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was president. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare — and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.”

Dionne adds that the exchange is likely to clarify the GOP brand for those viewers who were still unclear: “…Republicans have defined their party as being committed to low taxes for the wealthy above everything else. If anything good can come out of this strange episode, it is that no one will ever be able to doubt that proposition in the future.”
Dionne also credits President Obama with doing a good job of explaining the reasons for the economic crisis and nailing the GOP for their double standard: “It was a direct hit at Republicans who seemed not to worry about deficits until Obama took office — and now blame him for much of the red ink they themselves spilled.”
But “The most persuasive argument in Obama’s speech,” according to Dionne, had to do with calling the Republicans out on their plans for holding the economy hostage in the future:

Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach…And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.”

But Dionne believes the Republicans may be putting themselves into an indefensible position with just one way out:

Obama’s speech spoke more to middle-of-the-road Americans than Boehner’s did because Obama was clearly talking to them. Boehner has to prove over and over that he’s faithful to the folks at the right end of his caucus, and it’s starting to take a toll. That’s why Republicans may yet find themselves wanting to get the debt-ceiling matter out of the way without forcing another round of this madness.

Dionne acknowledges that “this whole mess is not making any politician in Washington look good.” In a struggle between a flexible centrist and a faction of increasingly rigid ideologues, however, any advantage is more likely to benefit the former.

More and more, it appears that Republicans are experiencing a severe bout of overconfidence regarding their intransigence in the debt ceiling negotiations, as TDS Co-editor Ruy Teixeira explains in his current ‘Public Opinion Snapshot’:

Here’s one of the reasons why: 53 percent of respondents in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll said that President Barack Obama cares more about the economic interests of the middle class, while just 35 percent thought that was true of the Republicans in Congress. In contrast, 67 percent thought Republicans in Congress cared more about the interests of large business corporations, compared to 24 percent who thought that of President Obama.

Teixeira adds, “…Conservative intransigence is starting to seem less a matter of principle than an expression of whose side they’re on.” In terms of what should be done, the public has little sympathy for the GOP position:

Reflecting these attitudes, the public believes Republicans should compromise on raising taxes in a debt ceiling deal. Sixty-two percent think they should give in and accept tax rises on the rich, while only 27 percent think they shouldn’t give in. But the public doesn’t believe Democrats should give in on cutting Social Security and Medicare, programs that are hugely important to middle-class economic security. By 52-38 the public believes Democrats should not agree to such cuts even if it’s the “only way” to get a debt ceiling deal.

The Republicans seem to think playing chicken in the debt ceiling negotiations is helping their image. But the latest opinion data indicates that their strategy is starting to look more like a very big turkey.

In his New Republic article, “How Tax Reform Represents Obama’s Greatest Shot at Hope and Change,” Mark Schmitt challenges Dems to seize the initiative “to move the whole country in the direction of greater fairness, growth, and financial stability.”

…Nothing about tax reform is going to be any easier than the debt-limit deal itself. Still, if a budget deal commits Congress to do something, the goal of tax reform can be much more than just moving the long-term revenue line a little closer to the spending line. Because the tax code sets some of the basic parameters of our economic structure, it can also be an opportunity to move the whole country in the direction of greater fairness, growth, and financial stability.
…While far from the only cause of structural inequality, the tax code is a big part of it, and tax reform can change it. The first step is to end the special treatment of capital gains and dividend income–not just because the wealthy get more of their income in that form, but because of the incentives it has created to increase inequality and risk. That’s a reform that would both clean up the code and give us more of what we want more of.
But imagine a tax code that tried to undo its own damage. When so much inequality is created within single companies, why not reward companies that are narrowing the gap and tax companies that widen it? The average CEO now takes home 350 times the pay of the average worker, a difference that’s more than tripled since 1990, and is unknown in any other country. Leo Hindery, a former telecommunications executive, has proposed a tax penalty for companies where executive compensation exceeds a certain level; another proposal, put forward by investor Steve Silberstein, would adjust the corporate tax rate based on the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker. A company with a ratio at the 1980 level of 50:1 would pay tax at the current rate of 35 percent, with the rate rising for companies with a higher ratio and lower for those with a narrower pay gap.

Schmitt argues that merely allowing the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250K would not raise enough revenue to “make a dent in the conditions of those in the bottom 60 percent who have gained almost nothing over the last 30 years.” He likens it to “dipping into great fortunes with a teaspoon, and sprinkling it over the rest of the country” and, besides, the revenue raised this way in the President’s proposal is “earmarked for deficit reduction.”
He also cites the tax code incentives for spiking executive pay upward as a major systemic injustice that must be corrected in any plan for meaningful reform, and adds that an historic transformation toward greater fairness is now a real possibility. “Taxation provides the basic structure of incentives in our economy, and the Bush and Reagan tax changes got them wrong,” explains Schmitt. “If the budget deal does lead to tax reform, it’s a welcome opportunity to get them right this time. ”

Attention Democratic campaign workers: Keith Pickering has a don’t-miss post up at Daily Kos “WOW! Simple wording change dramatically increases voter turnout.” It’s all about how pre-election surveys can make a significant difference in GOTV. Pickering quotes from a PHYSorg.com article by Bob Yirka about a new study conducted by Stanford University social psychologist Christopher Bryan and his colleagues, Gregory M. Walton, Todd Rogers, and Carol S. Dweck:

Bryan and his team first sent out surveys to just 38 people prior to the 2008 presidential election. Half the group got a survey asking if it was important to vote, the other half got surveys asking if it was important to be a voter. 87.5 [percent] responded yes to the second question while only 55.6 [percent] did so with the first.
Feeling he was on to something, Bryan then set his sights higher, for his next experiment, he and his team sent surveys to 133 registered voters in California one day before the 2008 election. Afterwards, using voting records, he was able to ascertain that 82% of those who got the “vote” question actually voted, while 96% of the “voter” group did [actually vote].

Bryan and his colleagues noted very similar results in a New Jersey test, which found a 90 percent turnout for the ‘voter’ group vs. 79 percent for the ‘vote’ group, “the largest ever measured effect on voter turnout.”
The authors attribute the increased turnout to leveraging the power of ‘personal identity’ as a motivating force vs. asking about behavior in the abstract — an “are you a good citizen?” subtext.
Pickering provides a handy never-say-this/always-say-this-instead chart for pre-election GOTV surveys, which campaign workers should study (e.g.: Say “Are you going to be a voter on Tuesday?” instead of “Are you going to vote on Tuesday?”)
It could make a difference in close elections. As Pickering concludes, “A 10% to 15% increase in turnout for a tiny word change? Miracles don’t come any cheaper. ”

Alright, Dems, don’t get too excited or overconfident. But state Sen. Dave Hansen’s victory in Wisconsin yesterday is a very good sign. Not only did Hansen get 66 percent of the vote to thwart a GOP-led effort to recall him in retaliation for Hansen’s fleeing the state to try and prevent Governor Walker’s union-bashing. But he did it in a fairly conservative district the GOP considered a prime target, and despite a healthy Republican turnout. A couple of graphs from Steve Contorno’s report in the Appleton Post-Crescent:

Hansen’s victory over a controversial candidate wasn’t a shocker. VanderLeest’s legal and financial troubles became the focus of his campaign, dragging down his bid even after he vowed not to discuss them anymore.
But the margin of victory and the turnout by voters were a first-round demonstration of the Democratic Party’s ground game going into August, when six Republicans and two more Democrats face recall elections with control of state government hanging in the balance….If Democrats can net three seats, they will win back the Senate and provide a check to Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s virtually unchallenged agenda….

Contorno cautions, however,

Hansen’s victory may not be indicative of the rest of Wisconsin, where the eight remaining recall races are the first opportunity for voters to take decisive action for or against the direction Walker and Republicans have taken the state since January. That test will come Aug. 9 when six GOP senators face Democratic challengers followed by the Aug. 16 recall elections of Sens. Jim Holperin, D-Conover, and Robert Wirch, D-Pleasant Prairie.

The outcome of these recall elections could have a significant impact on the future of both the labor movement and the Democratic Party. Those who want to help are directed to ActBlue’s web pages for the Wisconsin recall.

If you had the feeling that there is way too much congressional energy and media coverage being lavished on the debt ceiling negotiations, you are not alone. As TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira reports in today’s edition of his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot,’

For most Americans the most important issues are still the economy and jobs. In a late June CBS/New York Times poll, 53 percent said the economy/jobs was the most important problem facing the country today, compared to just 7 percent who said the deficit/debt was most important.
What’s more, 62 percent thought reducing unemployment was more important than reducing the deficit in a just-released Quinnipiac University poll, compared to just 32 percent who thought reducing the deficit was more important.

As Teixeira concludes, “Wake up, policymakers! We’ve got 9.2 percent unemployment, and the public isn’t interested in endless disputes about how much and how fast to cut the deficit. They’re interested in jobs.”

It’s beginning to look like GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor may be the congressional Democrats’ secret weapon in the battle for public support in the debt ceiling talks. In a CBS News Poll conducted July 15-17, 71 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the handling of the debt ceiling negotiations by Republicans in congress, with only 21 percent saying they approved of the Republicans role. Slightly more than half of Republicans, 51 percent, said they disapproved of how members of their party in congress are negotiating.
Not that the figures favoring Democratic members of congress were all that great, with 58 percent expressing their disapproval of Democrats in the debt ceiling negotiations, and 31 percent approving. But most Dems are no doubt OK with a 13 point edge over the GOP House members in the disapproval figures.
President Obama did significantly better in the poll, with 43 percent approving of his leadership in the debt ceiling negotiations, and 48 percent disapproving. It can be argued that there are no big winners here. But it’s clear enough which party is the biggest loser.

A new Quinnipiac University poll conducted July 5-11, affirms the findings of recent polls — that the public will blame Republicans if the debt ceiling not negotiated in time to prevent an economic catastrophe. As Jordan Howard explains the findings in his HuffPo report:

A plurality of registered voters said congressional Republicans are to blame in the event the debt ceiling is not raised in a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University from July 5-11.
When asked to whom they would assign responsibility should the limit not be raised, 48 percent of respondents chose the congressional Republicans; 34 percent said they would blame the Obama administration.
These results echo a Pew Research Center poll conducted from June 16-19 which asked the same question as the Quinnipiac poll. According to that survey, 42 percent of respondents said they would blame Republicans in Congress if the debt ceiling were not raised; 33 percent chose the Obama Administration.

Among the other findings of the Quinnipiac poll:

The country is in a recession, 71 percent of American voters say, but by 54 – 27 percent they blame former President George W. Bush more than President Obama.
The president gets a 47 – 46 percent job approval rating, unchanged from the June 9 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. That tops a 64 – 28 percent disapproval for Democrats in Congress and a 65 – 26 percent disapproval for Republicans.
…Voters say 67 – 25 percent that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, not just spending cuts.
…By a 62 – 32 percent margin, American voters say it’s more important to reduce unemployment than to reduce the federal budget deficit. But they say 49 – 43 percent it’s more important to reduce unemployment than to reduce government spending.

Interestingly, Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling institute, notes that “The key voting bloc, independents, say 49 – 24 percent that Bush is more responsible for the economy than Obama.” Independents are not much of a “voting bloc,” as Alan Abramowitz recently explained. But the 2-1 gap certainly suggests that even Republican ‘leaners’ are clear about who created the current economic decline.
Howard quotes GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: “If we go into default he [Obama] will say Republicans are making the economy worse…and all of a sudden we have co-ownership of a bad economy.”
They way things are going for Republicans, “co-ownership” sounds like wishful thinking.