Steve Benen began a post on the upcoming battle over tax giveaways for the wealthy with this comment:

How to lose after being dealt a good hand…. The high-profile fight of the moment is over tax policy, and by most measures, Democrats are in a reasonably good position. Republican leaders are arguing amongst themselves; polls show President Obama’s proposal to be considerably more popular  than the GOP’s; and just weeks before the midterm elections, Republicans are prepared to fight tooth and nail to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage.

It’s not a bad scenario for Democrats, right? The only way for Dems to screw this one up would be for them to start breaking ranks and siding with Republicans on the minority party’s misguided, unpopular, and irresponsible plan, and start echoing bogus GOP talking points.

Well, Mr. Benen, I’m here to tell you that our poor Missouri Democrats, at least, are unable to seize opportunity when it’s offered on a silver platter. We’ve all seen how  Robin Carnahan went all wobbly on the topic right away and surrendered before the first shot had even been fired – for all the good it’s dong her. Blunt, who seems to have no inconvenient hang-ups about honesty, has an ad currently running that trumpets the over-the-top claim that she supports the “largest tax increase in history.”  

Our current Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, has been strategically silent on the topic. There are now, however, indications that she is finally crawling out of the cave where she’s been hiding in order to test which way the wind is blowing:

Sens. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) and Michael Bennet (D., Colo.) said their first priority was ensuring the continuation of the tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000, but both left the door open to a short-term extension of the lower rates for higher earners if it could lead to a compromise agreement with Republicans.

“I am inclined not to support [extending] the top rates, but I want to keep the door open to any possible compromises that in the long-term would be positive for our economy, and have a great impact on reducing the deficit,” McCaskill told reporters after a Senate vote Monday.

Bear in mind that this is the same deficit-obsessed McCaskill who just a few weeks ago was strutting around, pretending to be St. George confronting the budget dragon. She was firm that all new spending be offset by corresponding spending cuts.

So tell me, how could she even contemplate extending costly tax giveaways to the richest 2% of the country while opposing the less costly and potentially far more stimulative Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program because it wouldn’t be “fiscally prudent.” Just to underline the absurdity, note that TANF will add 2.5 billion dollars to one year’s spending, while the top bracket tax cuts will cost the economy 1.1 trillion dollars over a similar one year period decade.  

To date I have supposed that McCaskill has simply been pandering for political purposes, but in this case she seems not only inconsistent and wrong-headed in terms of policy, but, if you agree with Benen, politically tone-deaf, albeit in a timid sort of way. Could it be that the explosive Tea Party noise in Missouri has left her in such a state of shell-shock that she’s too dazed and confused to adequately function?  

Okay, this one has a great sense of humor:

Robin Carnahan: Congressman Roy Blunt, he seems to think he’s running for the Senate against Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

Hey, Roy, you’re running against me.

[Robin Carnahan, Secretary of State]

And while I’ve been here in Missouri looking out for consumers, you’re the one who’s been in Washington…

[Wall St – Blunt is man in the middle for bailout talks – Congressional Quarterly Today 9/26[…]]

…bailing out Wall Street and the big banks.

[More money from lobbyists than any member of Congress, October 4, 2009, USA Today]

And taking more money from lobbyists than any other member of Congress.

[Robin Carnahan manages her family cattle farm]

I’m Robin Carnahan. I approved this message because we’re all fed up with the bull from Washington.

[Robin Carnahan, United States Senate, RobinCarnahan.com

Paid for by Robin Carnahan for Senate. Approved by Robin Carnahan.]

This one’s a keeper. Nicely done, nicely done.

Robin Carnahan’s got a great new WebVideo up.* It is directed at the important, senior citizen voting bloc, makes real, documented points, and creates a foreboding atmosphere that almost makes me more afraid of Roy Blunt than I already am (and it can’t be easy to make make someone with Blunt’s Howdy Doody mug seem threatening):

My question? Wouldn’t this ad or something like it reach more of its target demographic if it were on TV as well? Or is there something like this on TV? (I haven’t seen lots of Carnahan ads period – but my TV viewing is a bit restricted.) It seems to me that while many seniors use the Web regularly, lots don’t, and many of those who do use the it, do so in a very minimal way.  

Am I wrong about this?

*h/t Fired Up via The Turner Report.

Representative Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) via Twitter:

Americans lost another 54,000 jobs last month. Unemployment is now 9.6%. Missourians are asking, “Where are the private sector jobs?”     6:46 AM Sep 3rd  via mobile web  

[emphasis added]

Really?

Private employers add 67,000 jobs, but unemployment rate rises

By Motoko Rich

New York Times

Posted: 09/03/2010 08:00:55 AM PDT

Updated: 09/03/2010 10:47:29 PM PDT

U.S. businesses added more jobs in the past three months than originally estimated, calming fears of a double-dip recession. Yet the pace of growth signaled that the wheels of the economic recovery were still spinning in place.

The private sector added 67,000 jobs in August, with some of the strongest gains in health care, food service and temporary help, the Labor Department reported Friday. That was higher than consensus forecasts, but the continuing wind-down of the 2010 census, as well as state and local government layoffs, led to an overall loss of 54,000 jobs during the month.

In addition, the government revised its numbers for June and July, reporting that the economy had added more jobs in those months than it had previously said….

[emphasis added]

What is it about “add” that republican politicians don’t understand?

Such Chutzpah. And on August 10th Representative Blunt didn’t even bother to vote to save some of those jobs.

By the way, where was Representative Blunt’s concern about job creation in 2005 during dubya’s administration? Oh yeah, you and your cronies were pushing tax cuts for the top 1%:

No Correlation Between Bush Tax Cuts and Job Creation

Rate of Job Growth at Historic Low After 4 Years of Tax Cuts; Quality of Jobs Poor

BOSTON-As outrage in Congress stalls the Bush administration’s attempts this Thanksgiving season to extend tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy, a new study examines the administration’s claim that tax cuts create jobs-and finds it without merit.

Evidence shows that, historically, changes in tax rates have no discernible effect on employment. Moreover, during the Bush administration, job creation since 2003 has fallen millions of jobs short of the administration’s promises, and is significantly below what would normally be expected even without extraordinary economic stimulus.

“Contrary to what President Bush and his tax policymakers are saying, tax cuts do not automatically create jobs. Tax cuts are just one of many things that can affect job growth,” said Liz Stanton, director of research at United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and a co-author of the report.

“President Bush’s Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, far from delivering on the promises made to create 5.5 million new jobs, has carved out a new low in job recovery after a recession.” said Scott Klinger, another co-author and director of UFE’s tax policy group. “The president’s tax-cutting policy is a failure in this regard, and we need to recognize it as such….”

….While there is no evidence that massive tax cuts create jobs, there is considerable evidence that they contribute to economy-choking deficits….

[emphasis added]

That was then, this  is now. So where were you then, Congressman Blunt (r)? Just asking.

Another campaign ad smackdown of Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) from Robin Carnahan‘s (D) campaign:

Robin Carnahan: I’m Robin Carnahan and I approved this message.

Announcer: Congressman Roy Blunt, he got caught trying to insert a secret deal for tobacco giant Philip Morris into a bill just days after company executives gave him over thirty thousand dollars.

[“Big Tobacco’s Sweetheart.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Editorial, 6/13/03]

[FEC.gov]

He voted to weaken the rules on lobbyist gifts.

[Washington Post, 1/8/03, HRS 5, Vote #4, 1/7/03]

Rode corporate jets provided by a defense contractor convicted of bribery.

[Defense Contractor Sentenced to 12 Years for Bribery, The Washington Post, 2/20/08]

And he’s taken more money from lobbyists than any member of Congress.

[USA Today, 10/4/09]

Roy Blunt, he’s the very worst of Washington.

[Paid for by Robin Carnahan for Senate. Approved by Robin Carnahan.]

Dave Helling at the Kansas City Star remarks on the republican press release in response to the Carnahan campaign ad:

…The release, however, does not say that any of the claims in the Carnahan spot are inaccurate.

Ouch. That had to have hurt.

If you were really all that, would you be afraid to stand up for what you represent? FiredUp! points out that Roy Blunt not only didn’t respond to Robin Carnahan’s invitation to debates – he later tried to tell the faithful who tune into the Jamie Allman program that Robin is the one who is afraid to debate! Say what you will about integrity, you can’t say Daddy Blunt lacks brass.

And of course, there’s Ed Martin, the archetype for frat boy trickmeisters everywhere, who is so afraid of debating Russ Carnahan that he schedules pretend debates. An understandable ploy – it’s so much easier to make points against your opponent if you don’t actually have one.

Today, again via FiredUP!, we learn that Billy Long, the Republican running for Roy Blunt’s House seat, is not only trying to get out of a series of debates with his opponent, the putative Democrat, Scott Eckersley (and, like Roy Blunt, lying about it), but he won’t even participate in an environment only dreamed about  by other GOP candidates. As of this writing, Long just doesn’t seem to be able to find time for a debate sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and moderated by a chamber member who will, get this, “ensure that we remain on topic and that it doesn’t turn into a debate format.” A debate that doesn’t have a debate format and candidates who would want that to be the case – am I missing something here?

Which brings us to the eponymous question: Why are Republicans scared to debate? I admit that it’s a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. If you were intent on sticking to your focus group tested, to-the-gut-but-well-shy-of the-brain talking points and were incapable of defending said points with facts, you probably wouldn’t want to debate either.

Which is not to say that there isn’t an actual question we should be asking: How can any citizen of Missouri really want to vote for somebody with so little faith in their own policy positions that they can’t stand up in a real debate and defend them?  

Roy Blunt’s so-called jobs plan makes it clear that he’s going to go to the wall to defend the Bush tax giveaways for his rich friends – even though he hasn’t got the chutzpah to do it upfront, but instead tries to use the discredited claim that it will create jobs. As for Robin Carnahan, we all know that she’s opted for strategic camouflage, trying to blend into Missouri’s Republican woodwork when it comes to this question.

Arguments against the tax giveaways seem to fall just short of cutting through the GOP flim-flam in spite of the fact that it is clear that extending tax cuts for the wealthy will not only fail to create jobs, but will feed the dreaded deficit. You do remember the deficit, don’t you – the club that Republicans and a few neutered Democrats have been using to beat back initiatives, like the currently languishing small business aid package, that might actually create jobs?

Given this environment, a little perspective on the costs of extending tax cuts for the richest 2% of the population might be apropos. According to Kathy Ruffing and Paul N. Van de Water in their summary of the 2010 Report of the Social Security Trustees:

The 75-year Social Security shortfall is about the same size as the cost, over that period, of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans (those with incomes above $250,000 a year). Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.

If you like visual props, this graph demonstrates the relationship:

Shouldn’t somebody ask our senatorial candidates whether the 315,000 families with a minimum yearly income of a million dollars are more deserving than millions of Americans who can look forward to a secure old age thanks to Social Security?

As much as I would like to see both Blunt and Carnahan cornered and made to answer just that question, with no retreat into stale, dishonest talking points allowed, I’m not  taking odds that such a thing will ever happen. Consequently we’ll just have to guess where they would stand, and when we do so, we should remember these facts:

–When it comes down to floor votes, Blunt has always been firm that the top 2% of Americans, the richest of the rich, shouldn’t be expected to pay their way like the rest of us do. That’s why he get’s a 0% ranking from Citizens for Tax Justice.

–Carnahan … well, she has indicated that maybe she doesn’t think the Bush tax giveaways for the wealthy should be made permanent – and, hey, we’re Democrats after all. In Missouri it seems we have to take what little we can get.

Addendum:Some thoughts from Ezra Klein on the intra-pundit controversy generated by the CBPP  contention that the tax giveaways equal the projected social security shortfall.

*2nd paragraph edited slightly for clarity.

It’s gonna be a long election season on television. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee started running this ad in Missouri:

Announcer: Roy Blunt’s Washington, a culture of corruption and special interests where Missouri gets left behind.

And when our economy collapsed Washington is where Roy Blunt took the lead and voted for the seven hundred billion dollar Wall Street bailout. Where Blunt has taken over one point six million dollars in contributions from Wall Street.

And Washington is where Roy Blunt was named one of Congress’s most corrupt politicians.

Roy Blunt, he isn’t just in Washington, he is Washington.

Second Announcer: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Again, with the tux.

This evening KY3/MSU released a poll of 785 people taken statewide. The online report did not indicate the date(s) of the interviews, the margin of error for the full sample, or the voter screen. The results were weighted. The results do indicated the margin of error for the three congressional race subsamples.

The poll shows that Robin Carnahan (D) and Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) are tied:

…If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate from Missouri were held today, would you vote for Robin Carnahan, the Democrat, or Roy Blunt, the Republican?

Robin Carnahan – 48.4%

Roy Blunt – 48.8%

Other – 2.8%

The formula to calculate the margin of error (95% confidence level) is 1.96 x the square root of the multiplied percentages of each candidate which has been divided by the total sample.

1.96 x square root ((Carnahan x Blunt)/785)

For our purposes here we’ll call ’em even at 50% each. That’s a 3.5% margin of error (3.497%, if you don’t want to round to one decimal place).

A commenter responding to questions about the poll added the following:

….Margin of error is +/-3.5 and although there were more female respondents, the data was weighted appropriately to compensate.

[….]

Since the poll was conducted with Random Digit Dialing. Since most younger people use only cell phones (cell numbers are not included in this type of poll) there are more older respondents. Again, though, the data is weighted to compensate. The poll results gained from this sample can be generalized to the larger state population with a 95% confidence level….

It’d be nice to know the interview screen – adult, registered voter, or likely voter – and the period of time in which the interviews took place.

Robin Carnahan has maybe realized that she really stepped in it when she voiced her support for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans last week. After all, it isn’t as if retaining the tax cuts is even a popular position, but quite the opposite. According to Jo Mannies at the St. Louis Beacon, Carnahan:

… clarified her position on the Bush tax cuts by saying that she eventually may support a phaseout of tax reductions for the wealthiest Americans once the economy was back on track.

Can we take that as an effort to wade out without losing face?

She’s still seriously wrong. The tax cuts for the wealthy –  which, as Paul Krugman points out, means cutting “checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country” – will cost us big at a time when government revenues are seriously depleted, and give us little to nothing in return. However, given that she’s facing off against Roy Blunt, arguably one of the most corrupt wheeler-dealer blasts from the BushCo past, we may have to accept it for what it is.

Aside from this pander – which, by the way, in light of the cost of the tax cuts, directly contradicts the point of her earlier deficit pandering – Carnahan is preferable to Blunt on so many levels it almost hurts to think about it.  The same Beacon article, for instance, quotes her remarks at a meeting of the National Educational Association (NEA) where her views on No Child Left Behind legislation not only seem sane and sensible, but also underline the role Roy Blunt played in its failure:

Carnahan said that Blunt deserved part of the blame because he had voted for No Child Left Behind but also voted against the additional money that backers say was needed.

As little as it may be, this type of distinction is important. Think for a minute about Social Security. Do you have any doubt that Blunt would gut it, privatize it, whatever, in a heartbeat?  Carnahan’s recent performance might make some worry about how easily she would cave in a hard fight, but at least there’s a good chance she would do the right thing. Nor is the question academic since I guarantee this particular fight will be coming to a theater near you soon.

So the sad moral of this story is (enthusiasm deficit, anyone?): Boo Blunt! Go Carnahan! But maybe, jut maybe, Robin, try to stand up for Democratic principles in the future – then maybe you won’t have to back down with your dinner all over your chin. I promise that there are some of us who won’t extend the benefit of the doubt a second time.