Morning Shots

Quick Hits

After a Meet the Press interview with Senator John Kennedy (R-La.), conservative analyst Charlie Sykes appeared on MSNBC and said Kennedy came off as "an addled Russian asset on television."

Sykes, founder and editor-at-large of conservative news website, The Bulwark, discussed Kennedy's TV appearance with MSNBC anchor, Nicolle Wallace, who played a clip of the exchange between the Louisiana senator and Chuck Todd.

"For the second Sunday in a row—in defiance of facts, intelligence assessments, reason—Senator John Kennedy was out peddling Vladimir Putin's talking points and demonstrating his utter capitulation to Putin and Donald Trump," Wallace said.

After the clip ended, Wallace said, "We have been watching these interviews, and we try not to amplify Russian propaganda here, but I keep airing that because I have not heard an explanation as to why."

"I wish I had one. I mean, this is the guy who has a degree from Oxford, he's not an unintelligent man, yet he comes off as an addled Russian asset on television," Sykes said.

"Is this the price now to be paid for currying favor in Trump world? Did he have to go full Devin Nunes on all of this?" Sykes wondered aloud, referring to the Republican representative from California who has repeatedly defended the president during impeachment hearings.

"And I think this is part of the dilemma dealing with impeachment, the willingness of people who ought to know better to pedal this kind of just flat-out B.S. It's just this torrent, this hurricane of misinformation from people who you would hope would keep a calmer head about them, a calmer demeanor," Sykes added.

The presidential candidate unveiled a set of tax hikes that still produce only about half of the $34 trillion needed to fund her healthcare proposals. Yet, despite her attempts to focus on favorite tax targets—corporations and the wealthy—many of these proposed taxes would in fact harm the middle-class. Perhaps the worst of the tax hikes is her proposal for a type of employee “head tax.” 

Making up just over half of the $17 trillion in tax increases under Warren’s plan to fund Medicare for All is an “Employer Medicare Contribution.” This would require businesses with 50 or more employees to calculate their average per-employee spending on health insurance coverage “over the last few years,” adjust for inflation, multiply that by their number of employees, then send 98 percent of that number to Uncle Sam as their Employer Medicare Contribution.

But despite the “contribution” window-dressing, this is essentially an employee head tax. Such taxes are an especially damaging type of tax because they assess a flat fee per employee. As any economist can tell you, taxing something gets you less of it—and employee head taxes are a tax on jobs.

Though employers are the ones that file the taxes, employees—particularly lower-wage employees—are the ones that would be harmed by Warren’s proposal. Because each employee increases the employer’s total Employer Medicare Contribution by the same, flat amount, lower-wage employees become comparatively more expensive to hire.

Attorney General William P. Barr has told associates he disagrees with the Justice Department’s inspector general on one of the key findings in an upcoming report — that the FBI had enough information in July 2016 to justify launching an investigation into members of the Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horo­witz, is due to release his long-awaited findings in a week, but behind the scenes at the Justice Department, disagreement has surfaced about one of Horowitz’s central conclusions on the origins of the Russia investigation. The discord could be the prelude to a major fissure within federal law enforcement on the controversial question of investigating a presidential campaign.

 HOUSE DEMOCRATS have released a two-minute-thirty-nine-second video that opens with this: “Two weeks of testimony … One story of betrayal.” It then ticks through most of the witnesses’ most damning testimony, describing their role in the impeachment. For example, this appears on the screen before Bill Taylor speaks: “The revered ambassador and decorated veteran … Who saw the pressure campaign up close.” The video

We’re not actually going to make college free any time soon, no matter who is the next president.

The next president, if a Democrat, is most likely to spend his or her initial political capital on healthcare expansion. Then maybe tax reform. If it’s Elizabeth Warren, maybe a wealth tax will come first. After that there will be fights on climate change or immigration reform. Free college will be so far down the list that it won’t be actionable even under the second term of a highly-successful Democratic president.

So it would be nice if, instead of making “free college” part of Democratic dogma now, the candidates and wonks used this time to figure out the best way to actually, you know, fix college. And getting into academic fights about whether and how to means-test a program that is still—at best—a decade away from being seriously considered is a recipe for getting locked into a policy proposal that might only help a little bit.

Or possibly even make things worse.

Don't miss the Bulwark Podcast, featuring Charlie Sykes, Bill Kristol, and a whole host of people willing to tell you what they really think.

Cheap Shots

Deep Thoughts

Which is why House Democrats’ milquetoast response to widespread defiance of  congressional subpoenas is both perplexing and disturbing. When faced with credible evidence of serious misconduct, Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the president accountable on behalf of the people. Yet House leaders have psyched themselves out of fully exercising that duty.

House leaders have left a long list of subpoenas for dead: Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney refused to testify about his knowledge of Trump’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine. So did Robert Blair, a top Mulvaney aide who listened to the July 25 call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the “favor” of announcing a criminal investigation into a domestic political rival, Joe Biden; John Eisenberg, a National Security Council lawyer who put a summary of the call on a top-secret computer server; Michael Ellis, Eisenberg’s deputy; State Department counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, who was also on the July 25 call; Brian McCormack, former chief of staff to Energy Secretary Rick Perry; Russell T. Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; and a White House budget official named Michael Duffey. The House also requested the testimony of former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman, but withdrew the subpoena on the curious rationale that Kupperman’s lawsuit seeking clarification on his subpoena obligations could slow down the impeachment investigation.

Subpoenas for documents also remain unanswered and unenforced. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Perry, and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani have all rebuffed requests. Meanwhile, none of these witnesses has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee—nor has former National Security Adviser John Bolton—despite their deep knowledge of the president’s role in the Ukraine affair.

There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas while at the same time maintaining the brisk pace of the impeachment inquiry thus far. Courts can move quickly—but only if asked.

If you have suggestions for tomorrow's quick hits, cheap shots, or deep thoughts, email me at cjaysykes@gmail.com

Charlie Sykes
Founder, Editor-At-Large
Host, Bulwark Podcast

Are you a fan of The Bulwark? Would you like to support our work? Even better. We're not a fan of paywalls, and we're not a fan of ads. But if you'd like to throw a few bucks our way to show your support, that'd make our day.