Surrender, Dorothy

Quite a day for Democratic capitulations.

Early this August, recall, Democrats were asked by the administration to cooperate in passing a technical fix in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so the NSA could listen in on foreign-to-foreign calls looped thorugh U.S. facilities. Democrats replied, "yes, of course, that's perfectly reasonable"—which it was.

Then the Administration promptly sandbagged them by ramming through a radical bill that went far further than what had just been agreed to—"seemingly subtle changes in legislative language," the New York Times reported, that "would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States." Even the neo-cons now running the Washington Post editorial page judged it an outrage—"strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law — or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions."

Then, two weeks ago, we learned that they greased the skids for this madness by laundering a bogus terror threat against Capitol Hill.

Not to fear, Democratic leaders assured us. The blanket eavesdropping was authorized for a mere six months, at which time they promised to fix the outrage.

Apparently, they changed their mind.

"Democrats Seem Read to Extend Wiretap Power", the Times today informs us—now, not in six months.

Why the rush? It turns out to be very simple. The Justice Department said "jump!" So how does a majority party that, had they resisted, would have been both politically and morally in the right respond? By replying, of course, "How high?" Because, the Times quotes some professor, "Many members continue to fear that if they don't support whatever the president asks for, they'll be perceived as soft on terrorism."

How I wish these members would read Glenn Greenwald, who demonstrates that those fears are absurd.

But then, moving to our second astonishing Democratic capitulation of the day, these are the same people who can't get through, or refuse to get through, a bill to tax the income of private-equity firm execs—billionaires!—at the ordinary rate of 35 percent, instead of the current 15 percent. The Washington Post is reporting that Harry Reid met with private-equity firms and told them not to worry: no bill on carried interest would get through this year. He claims there's simply not enough time. And that it has nothing to do with one of the largest lobbying campaigns on record, encompassing some twenty firms and a single payment by one private-equity firm, the Blackstone Group, of $3.74 million, to its own Gucci Gulf denizens—"one of the largest recorded fees to any lobbying firm during a six month period."

Yes, not enough time. For if the measure doesn't pass this session, it won't go anywhere in 2008—for, as the Post points out, recording the conventional wisdom of a city gone mad, "lawmakers and lobbyists agree that if the tax is not raised this year, its chances are not strong in 2008, either; Congress tends to be leery of tax increases in election years."

Even tax increases on billionaires. What a world!

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future