Worst Policy Ever

Bush's tax plan has Broder pissed:

…I asked one of my favorite Republican economics guides what he thought of the new Bush tax plan. He did not mince words. This man — a veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations and a friend and adviser to many officials in the Reagan and two Bush administrations — said, "It may be the least defensible policy ever." I would amend that slightly: It is probably the most ill-considered since Treasury Secretary John Connally persuaded President Nixon to freeze wages and prices in 1971.

Like that move — designed to help Nixon's reelection in 1972, whatever the damaging long-term consequences — this latest pack of proposals reeks of politics. The proposal to eliminate taxes on dividends — the centerpiece of the plan and the source of more than half its staggering cost — looks like "the wrong reform at the wrong time," my mentor said.

I have a really hard time getting a bead on Broder, but on this occasion, he's dead on.

Whence Iraq?

Washington Post: U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past. "The decision to confront Iraq was in many ways a victory for a small group of conservatives who, at the start of the administration, found themselves outnumbered by more moderate voices in the military and the foreign policy bureaucracy. Their tough line on Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001, was embraced quickly by President Bush and Vice President Cheney after the attacks. But that shift was not communicated to opponents of military action until months later, when the internal battle was already decided."

But while the "war on terrorism" changed the administration's line on war with Iraq, it isn't obvious why that would be the case. Iraq has not been convincing linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and you don't hear the White House using that as a reason anymore. What I see, rather, is a White House that hasn't really thought things thru very well, and had its agenda on Iraq driven by a few hardliners that had very different reasons for wanting to go to war. Bush was an easy sell on this new policy, since he had very personal reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam.

Now, we are told, the issue is weapons of mass destruction. But even there, it remains unclear what actually justifies war. The administration says it knows Iraq has such weapons, but it refuses to offer public proof. Indeed, according to another story in the Post today, proof is irrelevant: "'The idea that the inspectors have to find something, or that we have to show them where to go to find something' is incorrect, the [senior administration] official said."

So the US prepares for war, and seems unable or unwilling to give a clear and coherent reason why. Is there such a reason? Perhaps, but we certainly haven't heard it yet from the Bush administration, and perhaps we never will. What a mess.