We begin today's roundup with
Jay Bookman at The Atlanta Journal Constitution, who dives into Jeb Bush's announcement of his 2016 bid:
The shorthand economic message appears to be that “the failed tax policies, the failed regulation policies” of Democrats are the source of income inequality and reduced opportunity. The base may buy that argument, but then again, they’re presold on it. I’m not sure that’s going to sell real well with voters in general next year. After all, the policies in effect leading up to the economic collapse of 2008 — tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, etc., — surely can’t be described as Democratic, not after eight years with a Republican in the White House. (What was the president’s name back then? I’m sure somebody will remind us.)
Dana Milbank at The Washington Post:
If Jeb Bush is going to run for president as something other than a Bush, it will take a transformation worthy of Rachel Dolezal.
And yet the former Florida governor, who once accidentally checked “Hispanic” on a voter registration form, is doing everything but change his appearance to de-emphasize his inheritance. His presidential campaign logo, introduced over the weekend, is a simple exclamation: “Jeb!” His brother, the 43rd president, and his father, the 41st president, were not in attendance for his presidential announcement speech in Miami on Monday. He didn’t even mention them until nearly the end.[...] His name is the reason he is a leading contender on the presidential stage, the reason he has an enormous campaign war chest, and the reason he became Florida’s governor in the first place. Yet he is pointlessly running from it.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Paul Waldman at The Week:
Like so many candidates before him, Bush proclaimed that he is the man to clean up Washington and end all its dysfunction because he is an outsider, not tainted by the capital's corrupt ways.
Why do politicians keep serving us this particular helping of balderdash, and why do we believe them? Bush could barely be more wrong on both parts of this message: He's no outsider, and more importantly, no outsider could do what they always tell us they'll do. [...] [L]et's dispense with the absurd notion that Jeb Bush is some kind of outsider. He may have made his political career in Florida, but the man does have more than a passing familiarity with Washington. His grandfather was a senator, his father was the president, and so was his brother. Whatever his innate talents might be, his entire career, both in and out of politics, has been built on his name and its association with Washington-based power and influence. They don't come much more insidery than Jeb Bush.
But even if he really were an outsider, why on earth would we think that would make him better equipped to change the fundamental operation of Washington than anyone else? Does not knowing too much about how the system works help you change it? Is it that no one in Washington has ever considered that it might be better if lobbyists didn't enjoy so much influence? Or that only someone from the outside could bring the wisdom that moving legislation is preferable to gridlock?
Lawrence Noble at US News takes on Bush's campaign finance shenanigans:
By all accounts, Bush has for months been a candidate and his overdue announcement of his candidacy will do nothing to change that fact. If he has already violated the campaign finance laws, his campaign going forward will be built on a foundation of illegal activity.
While other candidates have blurred or broken the line regarding when they become a candidate, the nature and extent of Bush's reported activities are unprecedented and are strong evidence that his violations are "knowing and willful." This is significant because the Department of Justice has criminal jurisdiction over such violations. That is why my organization, the Campaign Legal Center, along with Democracy 21, has asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel to investigate the allegations and prosecute any violations.
It should never have come to this. The financing of election campaigns is governed by laws enacted to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption that damages our democracy by undermining the people's faith in the integrity of the very office Bush and the other candidates are seeking. While some reforms have been struck down by the Supreme Court, the core of the law remains intact and should be enforced. But a dysfunctional FEC has abdicated its responsibility to enforce these laws, apparently leading some to think there is little risk and much to gain if you violate the law. While the Bush campaign seems to have pushed the envelope much further than others, we have already filed complaints against other candidates and plan to continue to do so against Democratic and Republican candidates or groups, as warranted. The FEC's refusal to enforce the laws does not mean the laws can be ignored. In the end, it is our responsibility to obey the law, regardless of whether the police are on the beat. It is not too much to ask those who are applying for the job of president to take the laws that apply to them seriously.
Switching topics in today's roundup,
Kevin Drum looks at the future of Obamacare:
So how could repeal happen? Easy. Republicans will control the House in 2017, so that's no problem. Maintaining control of the Senate (narrowly) is a distinct possibility. There's also a perfectly reasonable chance of having President Walker in the Oval Office, and we all know he'd be perfectly happy to sign a repeal bill.
But even in a minority, Democrats would filibuster a repeal, wouldn't they? Sure. But so what? Republicans would simply make it part of a budget bill and pass it by reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority. Any Senate parliamentarian who isn't a hack would determine that this is a violation of the rules, but all that means is that Republicans need to install a hack as parliamentarian who will do what they want. They've done it before, after all. Problem solved. Obamacare repealed.
Now, granted, Republicans have to win both the Senate and the White House for this to happen. The odds are probably against that, but not by a lot. It's well within the realm of possibility. And that would leave only a very thin reed to stand on: the fact that repealing Obamacare would immiserate millions of people and once again turn health care into a living hell for the poor.
The New Jersey Star-Ledger points out that Senator Bernie Sanders has some pretty mainstream views:
[S]o far, the Senator is showing the electorate that a rejection of this "socialism" – the concept, not the brainless epithet – is something that most voters would probably find unthinkable.
And if you consult the polls, Sanders' claim is not only right, he is positively mainstream.
He has made income inequality a central theme, and he wants to revamp the tax system so that the wealthy pay a larger share. Check and check: Gallup reports that 63 percent call wealth distribution unfair, and 52 percent favor heavier taxes on the rich.
He is scathing about how big money has corrupted politics, and 61 percent of agree that Citizens United should be overturned. That includes 71 percent of Republicans who want to limit campaign contributions.
On a final note, speaking of Sanders,
Julian Zelizer at CNN explains why he draws crowds:
The senator from Vermont is gaining attention among candidates and the press. Although some observers have explained the Sanders phenomenon as a product of Democratic politics shifting to the left, the truth is that much of what he has to say resonates with a broad spectrum of middle-class voters. Even if some of his solutions are far too much government for a broad portion of the electorate, what he's saying about American politics is resonating with voters.
A brief look at Sanders' stump speeches quickly reveals the senator is not always as "radical" as many people believe him to be. In many ways, he is as American as apple pie.
One of the biggest issues that helped Sanders gain traction is his passion for revitalizing the middle class.