Paul Waldman

Keep up with Paul!

Republican Candidates Pretending to Be More Conservative On Immigration Than They Actually Are

In 2008, John McCain, straight-talking principled maverick that he was, got into a Republican primary and saw that a position in favor of comprehensive immigration reform was causing him problems, so he disavowed the reform bill he had co-authored not long before, going so far as to say that if it came up again in the Senate, he'd vote against it. And now Marco Rubio, who like McCain attempted to pass a bipartisan comprehensive reform bill, is doing something similar. When the "Gang of Eight" bill Rubio championed passed the Senate in 2013 but died in the House, Rubio was skewered by tea partiers as a sellout and a traitor. So he changed his position, saying that he now advocates "securing the border first, " just like every other Republican.

But there may be less of a flip-flop here than meets the eye. In fact, I'd argue that many of the Republican contenders are less conservative on immigration than they're pretending to be. Here's what happened when Rubio got asked yesterday on "Face the Nation" about whether he'd vote for his own bill:

In 2008, John McCain, straight-talking principled maverick that he was, got into a Republican primary and saw that a position in favor of comprehensive immigration reform was causing him problems, so he disavowed the reform bill he had co-authored not long before, going so far as to say that if it came up again in the Senate, he'd vote against it. And now Marco Rubio, who like McCain attempted to pass a bipartisan comprehensive reform bill, is doing something similar. When the "Gang of Eight" bill Rubio championed passed the Senate in 2013 but died in the House, Rubio was skewered by tea partiers as a sellout and a traitor. So he changed his position, saying that he now advocates "securing the border first, " just like every other Republican.

But there may be less of a flip-flop here than meets the eye. In fact, I'd argue that many of the Republican contenders are less conservative on immigration than they're pretending to be. Here's what happened when Rubio got asked yesterday on "Face the Nation" about whether he'd vote for his own bill:

"That's a hypothetical that will never happen," he says, which is probably true, even if it's a way of dodging the question. But when you listen to him outline his actual position on immigration, it doesn't seem to have changed from the Gang of Eight bill, and indeed, it doesn't sound all that different from what many Democrats advocate. Rubio may not like the term, but he advocates a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants: he describes a lengthy process that goes from a provisional status to a legalized status including a work permit to eventual citizenship, and involves things like paying back taxes, but that's what Democrats want too.

Rubio could frame an answer to the question in a reasonable way if he wanted; he could say, "We tried to pass comprehensive reform and we couldn't, so what I'm proposing now accomplishes the same goals piece by piece and therefore has a better chance of satisfying my party's right wing because the 'tough'-sounding stuff comes first." Of course he wouldn't put it that way, because all the incentives in the primaries encourage candidates to say, "Grr, no amnesty, border security first!" There's a premium put on channeling the emotions of the Republican electorate on this issue, including anger, resentment, and fear. But the details of what Rubio is advocating are pretty moderate.

And it isn't just him. Jeb Bush has aroused conservatives' ire by talking about undocumented immigrants like human beings, and though he too now stresses the "tough" parts of his immigration plan, he has long supported a path to citizenship. Scott Walker has been a bit muddy on the question, but he has allowed that there could be a way to give the undocumented citizenship (after the border is secure, of course). He says he's against "amnesty," but doesn't say that he opposes any path to citizenship ever. Rand Paul supports a path to citizenship, even if he doesn't want to call it that. Bobby Jindal supports a path to citizenship. Mike Huckabee wants citizenship for DREAMers. In fact, the only major candidate I could find who has unequivocally ruled out any path to citizenship is Ted Cruz, and even he advocates some kind of legal status that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and work.

So what we have here seems to be a bunch of candidates who want to convince Republican primary voters that they're more conservative on immigration than they actually are.

Let's be clear that in practice, "Secure the border first, then we can get to what to do with the undocumented" can be and often is a way of saying that we'll never get to comprehensive reform. Almost no one who says this has a clear idea of what a "secure" border means — is it zero undocumented people getting in? — and so no matter how many miles of fence we build or how many thousands of new Border Patrol agents we hire, some people will always say the border isn't yet secure and therefore all the other elements of reform have to wait. And I'm not naïve enough to think that someone like Scott Walker would be working hard to get comprehensive reform accomplished if he became president. But it's revealing that even this group of extremely conservative candidates embraces many of the liberal goals of immigration reform — even if they don't really want to talk about that part of it until the primaries are over.

Why Media Coverage of Campaign 2016 Will Be As Bad As Ever

Let's spare a bit of sympathy for the reporters who found themselves running after Hillary Clinton's van last week in the hopes that they might get a few seconds of video of her stepping out of it and into whatever momentous event she was arriving at. I'm sure that as they took off in hot pursuit, more than a few thought to themselves, "This is pretty ridiculous." But they kept running anyway, and when they finally caught their breath, perhaps they had a chance to sit down and pen that blog post on Clinton's order at Chipotle that their editors were demanding.

Reporting from the presidential campaign trail is of a rite of passage in political journalism (even if some poor souls find themselves doing it again and again), and though it can have its moments of excitement, it's also a trial. Subsisting on unhealthy food and too little sleep, away from their families, the journalistic legion trudge from one event to another, hearing the same talking points repeated again and again, and trying to wring something resembling news from what everyone acknowledges is a bizarre and absurd charade.

Clinton in particular is making life difficult for those following her. First, she has little or no opposition; how can you spin exciting tales about a contest in which there's only one contestant? Second, her campaign is conducting a kind of soft rollout—no big speeches, nothing planned too far in advance, just some "spontaneous," small-scale meet-and-greets with voters that reporters are either barred from or not given much notice about. If you were assigned to the Clinton beat and it was your charge to report news from this campaign, you might be getting desperate already. And so you'd find yourself chasing after her van as it rolled into a parking lot, hoping desperately that something exciting might happen when it came to a stop. Maybe the door will open to reveal her in a passionate embrace with Justin Timberlake, or someone will throw a pie at her when she emerges. Something, anything.

That endless need to produce content—and fast—is the source of many if not most of the pathologies of contemporary campaign coverage. And the easiest way to put the "new" in "news" is to write about the horse race, because even if it hasn't changed since yesterday, it still sounds current even if you're repeating yourself.

And unlike deep, substantive dives into issues, the horse race is inherently dramatic in a way a comparison of the candidates' varying ideas about monetary policy isn't, though the latter is much more consequential for people's lives. The horse race has conflict, antagonists, twists and turns leading to an eventual climax in which a victor rises and foes are vanquished.

So is there a way to reconcile these two competing needs—to inform the public about things that matter, and to produce daily news that moves the larger story of the campaign forward? It's hard, but I'd make one suggestion: Reporters could do their best to tie whatever controversy or conflict or "gaffe" we're consumed with at a particular moment to the job one of these people will be doing come January 2017. If you're going to say something a candidate said or did "raises questions," tell us what those questions are. For instance, Marco Rubio (43) is presenting himself as the youthful alternative not only to Clinton (67) but also to Jeb Bush (62). That could be interesting, but instead of just saying, "Ooo, Rubio made a reference to a rapper!" why not ask what this issue might mean for the presidency? Is there something the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton (the three youngest upon taking office) had in common that reveals something about what a Rubio presidency would be like? Is there any reason to believe Clinton or Bush would be hindered in their energy level (or in any other way) by their relatively advanced ages?

You ought to be able to come up with similar questions focused on the presidency about whatever the candidates have decided to put on the agenda. And if it's difficult or impossible to determine what the micro-controversy of the moment has to do with what the next president will face in office, maybe it isn't worth talking about.

The trouble is that putting the day's events in context to reveal something important can be difficult and time-consuming. So instead, what we get from the campaign trail is a thousand stories that sound like this:

Here's what the candidate did today.

Here are the parts of the electorate she/he is trying to appeal to.

Here's how the day's message tried to appeal to those people.

Here are her/his weaknesses and the negative parts of her/his image.

Here's where she/he stands in the polls.

Back to you, Bob.

The good news is that there's never been a better time in history to be a citizen looking to be informed about presidential politics. There are more news outlets than ever before, and more easily available sources of information than someone living 50 or 100 years ago could have dreamed of as they contemplated their votes. Whatever you're looking for in campaign coverage, whether it's fine-grained background analyses of issues, detailed examinations of the candidates' records, or up-close-and-personal profiles of their pets, you can find it somewhere.

Which you'd think would spur those more traditional media of newspapers, radio, and television to devise new ways to bring their audiences compelling and edifying news. And maybe it will, someday. But they're still trying to figure out how. 

Photo of the Day, Long Time Ago In a Galaxy Far, Far Away Edition

Flickr/Betsy Weber

I'm not even going to bother linking to the new trailer for the new Star Wars movie, because it's been out since yesterday, and if you haven't watched it already there's obviously something wrong with you. I'll just give you this picture of cookies.

Two More Candidates to Begin Doomed Runs for Presidency

What leads a man to look in the mirror and say, "I could be president of the United States"? Anybody can say they should be president, of course—after all, aren't all your ideas the right ones?—but it takes a remarkably optimistic spirit to think that you can do what it takes to make it to the White House. Can you raise all that money, run that huge organization, out-strategize your opponents, overcome the inevitable stumbles and controversies, have the stamina and fortitude and cleverness to do it all better than anyone else, and convince the American people that you're the one?

Somebody has to do it, of course. But if you're a politician who last ran for office thirteen years ago, who had a relatively undistinguished record, who represents a wing of your party that no longer exists, and whom nobody ever accused of being charismatic in the first place, what makes you look in that mirror and say, "Yeah. I'm ready. Let's do this"?

America, I give you George Elmer Pataki:

Ready to get on that train to Victorytown? No? No matter, Pataki is in New Hampshire, pressing the flesh and winning hearts and minds. And he's not the only one with visions of electoral glory dancing through his head:

Mike Huckabee, who stepped down from his Fox News Channel show, "Huckabee," in January, is expected to return to Fox this evening to make his 2016 presidential campaign official. Huckabee said Friday he is "moving toward" announcing a second bid for the White House.

Huckabee told reporters in Washington this morning he would make a little news on "Special Report with Bret Baier," which airs on FNC at 6 p.m. ET.

Huckabee's bid is, if equally destined for failure, at least a little easier to understand. Unlike Pataki, Huckabee isn't a walking Ambien, and he's kept in touch with the Republican electorate since his last run in 2008 by being a ubiquitous presence on radio and television. But he's also a con artist who seems to spend most of his time devising ways to separate gullible conservatives from their money. Not only is that likely to be raised by his opponents should he actually gain any momentum in the primaries, running for president isn't a good way to make money, at least in the short term. He already had what I assume is a lucrative career. So he must really believe he can win. After all, Huckabee is a man of fervent and sincere faith.

Maybe it's the imperfections of the announced candidates that lead people like Pataki and Huckabee to give it a shot. After all, Jeb Bush is a Bush, Marco Rubio is a whipper-snapper, Scott Walker is untested nationally—if you were motivated enough, you could come up with a scenario in which everyone else falls and you're left as the obvious choice. But these guys? I'm sure Hillary Clinton is quaking in her boots.

Jeb Bush Was Born On Third Base. Does He Think He Hit a Triple?

Jeb Bush, you may or may not be aware, spent much of his adult life as a "businessman." I put that word in quotes because from what we've learned so far Bush doesn't seem to have risen in the business world the way we normally think of people doing, by creating some kind of product or service that can be sold to people, by managing a growing operation, and so on. Instead, his work, such as it was, consisted of opening doors and making deals, something a succession of partners brought him in to do because of his name.

Which isn't in itself a sin. I'll get to that in a minute, but first, an article in today's Times discusses some of Bush's deals that didn't turn out so well, and how he reacted:

Yet a number of his ventures before he entered politics have invited criticism that Mr. Bush traded on his family's name and crossed ethical lines. His business involvement, as the son of a president, was inevitably vetted in public view, subjecting Mr. Bush to so many questions that he angrily accused the news media of treating him unfairly.

"By definition, every single business transaction I am involved with may give the appearance that I am trading on my name," Mr. Bush wrote in The Wall Street Journal during the final days of his father's re-election campaign in 1992, responding specifically to stories about his involvement with the sale of M.W.I.'s water pumps. "I cannot change who I am."

Months earlier, he had written a 1,400-word defense of his business dealings in The Miami Herald in which he condemned reporters for having "gone too far in delving into the private lives of the families of public figures."

"Being part of America's 'First Family' is both wondrous and challenging," he wrote in the newspaper, adding that he desired to have his successes or failures "measured by his own performance and behavior, not those of his parents."

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with making money the way Bush did. He had a famous name and connections that that name produced, and people were willing to give him large quantities of money to use it to their advantage. Every once in a while we hear of some wealthy heir who gives away all their inheritance and makes a fresh start with nothing, but most of us wouldn't have the guts to do that. Connections and renown were Bush's inheritance, an invaluable currency that could be traded for riches and power. He accepted that inheritance, like most people would.

But what I'd like to know is how Bush himself thinks of his career, and how self-aware he is today. At the 1988 Democratic convention, Jim Hightower said of Jeb's father that he "was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple." What does Jeb think he hit?

I'm sure he would like to believe that every dollar he ever made came because of his skills, smarts, and hard work. But it didn't. Like his brother George (who had a similar business career in which people lined up to give him money), Jeb had opportunities that are available to almost no one else in America.

So imagine if he said, "Look, I know that my career has been different from most people's. My grandfather was a senator and my father was the president. Did that ease my way? Of course. It would be ridiculous of me to claim otherwise. But I tried to operate as honestly as I could, work hard, and learn as much as possible in the business world." If Bush said that, he could earn a lot of respect, even from his political opponents.

When he was born, Jeb Bush won the lottery. We don't condemn anyone for winning the lottery, but we do judge what they do afterward. Some people win it, buy a nice house, and then set up a foundation to help other people. Other people win the lottery and blow the whole thing on hookers and cocaine. Bush's history seems to be somewhere in between.

Most of the people Bush is running against in the primaries are the dreaded "career politicians," and those who have made their careers outside of business (Ted Cruz was a lawyer, Rand Paul and Ben Carson were doctors). Since Republican ideology has it that businesspeople are the most noble and heroic among us, it will be tempting for Bush to tout his business experience as a key credential during the primaries. It will also be tempting for his opponents to criticize him as a scion of the elite, particularly since it fits well into the narrative that he's the "establishment" candidate while they're representatives of the grassroots. The question is whether Bush will deny that he's any different from any other successful businessman.

Photo of the Day, Cold Day In Hades Edition

A bunch of politicians at a press conference, you say? Nay, this is something far more momentous. This is Democrats and Republicans at a ceremony signing the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, better known as the "doc fix" bill, or more properly, the bill that ends the annual absurdist ritual that was the doc fix. Democrats and Republicans. Together. Agreeing. Mark it well, for you may not see its like any time soon. I do think the photo captures Boehner's and McConnell's enthusiasm for sharing a podium with Nancy Pelosi, however.

The Real Reason Social Security Is the Third Rail of American Politics

Chris Christie still harbors hopes of becoming the Republican nominee for president, and in search of a way to convince conservatives that he's one of them—and reinforce the idea that he's a bold truth-teller who doesn't care whose feathers he ruffles, and you might not agree with him but you'll always know he's telling it like it is—Christie has announced a plan to cut Social Security benefits. He would do it in two ways. First, he would means-test benefits, reducing them for those who have over $80,000 in income and phasing them out entirely past $200,000 in income. Second, he would raise the retirement age to 69 (it's currently 66 and will soon rise to 67).

As Matt Yglesias explains, the cut in upper-income benefits is getting most of the attention, which works to Christie's benefit because it sounds like his plan hurts rich people. But in fact, the number of people affected would be fairly small, while increasing the retirement age would be devastating to people of modest incomes. That's particularly true of people who do manual labor, which in your late 60s becomes increasingly difficult. So Christie is proposing a plan that is actually an attack on retired poor and middle-class people, but it's being described as an attack on the rich.

I should point out that even means-testing benefits can be a clever way to undermine the program as a whole. It eliminates the understanding that it's a program for everyone and instead changes it to a program just for people of modest incomes, which then opens it up to further cuts and changes in the future. This is why most liberals oppose means-testing, even though it sounds like something they would support.

In any case, I want to return to this idea that Chris Christie is willing to tell the hard truths. Every story about Social Security mentions that it is the "third rail of American politics," meaning you can't touch it without being zapped. Anyone who would do so naturally deserves praise for their courage and for doing what's right despite the risk. But why is touching Social Security dangerous?

It isn't because of some magical incantation that FDR spoke over the bill as he signed it. It's because, with the possible exception of Medicare, Social Security is the most successful and therefore beloved social program in American history. Before Social Security, aging was almost a guarantee of falling into poverty. If you're below a certain age, you've probably never heard the cliché of old ladies eating cat food to survive, but at one time in America that was an actual thing.

But don't we need to do something before Social Security goes broke? No. Social Security is not going broke, and if we want to fix the funding problems that we will confront a few decades from now there are relatively easy ways to do it; I discussed that years ago in this piece, and not much has changed since.

But back to Christie: Is it courageous to propose a policy change that would be tremendously cruel to millions of Americans? I guess it is in a way. But that doesn't make it praiseworthy.

Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Marriage Equality Shows How Change Happens, and Why Parties Matter

Over the last few days, Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed has been documenting Hillary Clinton's evolution on the issue of same-sex marriage, an evolution that may now finally be complete. First Geidner posted some interesting documents from the 1990s showing Clinton and her husband explaining their opposition to marriage rights, then he got the Clinton campaign on record saying that she now hopes the Supreme Court will rule that there is a constitutional right to marriage for all Americans, which is actually a change from what she was saying just a year ago, when her position was that this was an issue best decided state by state.

So does this all tell us that Hillary Clinton is a chameleon willing to shift with the political winds, lacking in any moral core? Not really. Like every politician, she'll tell you that her shift on this issue was a result of talking to people and searching her own soul, not some political calculation. If that's true, then it mirrors how millions of Americans have changed their own minds. But even if it isn't true, it doesn't matter. She is where she is now, and if she becomes president, her policies will reflect her current position, whether it's sincere or not. That's how change happens.

We spend a lot of time in campaigns trying to figure out if politicians are honest or authentic or real, and one of the supposedly important data points in that assessment is whether they've changed their positions on any important issues. "Flip-floppers" are supposed to be feared and hated. But most of the time, that judgment is utterly irrelevant to what they would actually do in office.

For instance, few party nominees had in their history the kind of wholesale ideological reinvention that Mitt Romney went through. But what does that actually mean for the kind of president he would have been? Does anyone seriously believe that had he been elected, Romney would have flipped back to becoming a moderate Republican, just because deep down he's a flip-flopper? Of course he wouldn't have. Romney changed when his sights moved from liberal Massachusetts to the national stage, which also happened during a period when his party became more conservative. He would have governed as the conservative he became.

When public opinion on an important issue is in flux, politicians are emphatic followers. They figure out what's happening, particularly within their own party, and then accommodate themselves to that change. It often looks like they're leading when what they're actually doing is taking the change in sentiment that has occurred and translating it into policy change. For instance, Barack Obama has taken a number of steps to expand gay rights, like ending the ban on gays serving in the military and pushing the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. But he did all that after public opinion demanded it, not before.

In the end, what's in a politician's heart may be interesting to understand, but it doesn't make much of a practical difference. Does it matter that Lyndon Johnson was personally a racist who spent his early career as a segregationist? No, it doesn't: When his own party and the American public more broadly moved to support civil rights for African Americans, he passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and became an advocate for equality.

It's possible that Hillary Clinton believed in marriage equality all along, but didn't have the courage to advocate it publicly until she finally did so in 2013. Or maybe every shift in her public stance was a perfectly accurate reflection of her views at that moment. Either way, now that the Democratic Party is firmly in support of marriage equality for everyone in every state, that position is going to guide her if she wins.

And let's not forget that almost every major Republican politician has gone through their own evolution on this issue as well. The first time it was a major issue in a presidential race, in 2004, Republicans advocated a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage everywhere. Most of them even opposed civil unions. But today, the opinion supported by every presidential contender who has been explicit on the topic is that the decision should be left up to the states, meaning it's OK with them if some states have marriage equality while others don't. A few do advocate a constitutional amendment—but not one to ban same-sex marriage nationwide, just one to preserve the ability of individual states to ban it if they choose.

That's where the Republican Party is now, so that's what the next Republican president's policies will reflect. Until they evolve again.

Photo of the Day, Theater of Protest Edition

I happen to think that most protests of this type range somewhere between useless and counterproductive. But I still love this photo, because it's so dynamic—the flying paper, the confetti, the movement of European Central Bank president Mario Draghi (that's him on the left looking like he's ready to catch a football) and the other people in the shot. So, confetti woman, we'll give you a qualified thumbs-up for your dramatic but ultimately futile protest against "ECB dictatorship." Just this one time.

Where the Candidates Stand On Taxes

Tax day is a good time to wonder just what sort of changes to the tax code we might expect when we get a new president 21 months from now. Most of them haven't produced lengthy position papers yet, but we can get at least a preliminary idea of where they'd like to take the tax code. So let's take a look at what we know so far about the candidates and their ideas on this topic:

Jeb Bush: Bush hasn't released a tax plan, but he has refused to sign Grover Norquist's pledge to never ever, ever raise taxes, as most congressional Republicans—including Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio—have. In a 2012 congressional hearing, Bush was asked about a question Republican candidates got at a presidential primary debate, where they were asked whether they would accept a deal that included one dollar of tax increases for every ten dollars of spending cuts. Everyone had said they'd walk away from such a deal, so horrifying would even a tiny increase in taxes be. Bush replied, "If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we're going to have $10 of spending cuts for $1 of revenue enhancement—put me in, Coach." Remarkably, this is taken by many Republicans as evidence that Bush is some kind of fiscal apostate.

Will Bush deal with these questions by coming out with a tax plan full of upper-end cuts? I wouldn't be surprised.

Marco Rubio: Rubio has the most specific plan of any of the candidates so far. His plan contains some provisions that would benefit people of modest incomes, but it also has huge giveaways to the wealthy. He would reduce the current seven income tax brackets down to two: 15 percent for individuals earning under $75,000 a year, and 35 percent for everyone over that. It would mean a tax increase for some people in the middle—for instance, if you earn $100,000 a year, you're currently paying a marginal rate of 25 percent, so your taxes would go up—but it also means a cut for those now paying the top rate of 39.6 percent.

But the real favor to the wealthy is the fact that Rubio would completely eliminate all taxes on capital gains, stock dividends, and inheritances. That's right, eliminate them. To zero. So congrats, Paris Hilton, you'll never have to pay a dime in taxes.

Rand Paul: Paul hasn't been all that specific about taxes, though he has said he wants to cut them by "hundreds of billions of dollars." He rejects the idea that cuts ought to be "deficit neutral"—that is, neither raise nor lower the deficit—meaning that his cuts would increase the deficit. He might argue that his dramatic spending cuts would offset the decreased revenue, but he also believes in the Tax Fairy, i.e. the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue. The section of Paul's website on taxes is 159 vague words about a "plan" that as of yet doesn't exist. "My tax plan will get the IRS out of your life, and out of the way of every job creator in America," it reads. "My plan will also cut spending and balance the budget in just five years. It will be the largest tax cut in American history and a tax cut that will leave more money in the paychecks of every worker in America." Paul has also advocated a flat tax.

Scott Walker: Walker doesn't have a campaign yet, nor does he have a tax plan. But his record in Wisconsin is such that it's been touted by none other than Grover Norquist himself. Walker has slashed taxes so much that because of the decreased revenue he was forced to miss a payment on the state's debt. He has toyed with the idea of eliminating the state's income tax, and said that eliminating the federal income tax "sounds pretty tempting" and that he'd like to reduce income tax rates.

Ted Cruz: Though Cruz hasn't released a formal plan either, he proposes eliminating the IRS and instituting "a simple flat tax that allows every American to fill out his or her taxes on a postcard." Without an IRS to read and process those postcards, the task would presumably be taken up by a cadre of tiny magical creatures, each with gossamer wings and the face of Ayn Rand.

Hillary Clinton: As yet, we've heard nothing from her on this subject.

Presumably, all or most of these candidates (and whoever else ultimately decides to get in the race) will produce more details in the coming days. But at the moment we can say with a fair degree of confidence that the eventual Republican nominee is going to be advocating a reduction in income tax rates, likely along with some kind of reduction in investment taxes (not to mention corporate taxes, which all Republicans want to reduce or eliminate, but which I haven't discussed here). They will surely say that therein lies the key to spectacular economic growth and a rising tide for all. Democrats will respond that Republicans just want giveaways for the wealthy. In other words, it'll be like most presidential elections.