Politics Blog

For several months now I’ve been making a simple suggestion:

Stop issuing visas to citizens of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, except for diplomatic purposes. Alternately, make it much more difficult for citizens of these countries to obtain a visa (for instance, institute a 6 month waiting period.)

Now, the Bush administration seems to have found an indirect way to do just that:

The State Department has ordered Foreign Service officers in many nations to begin face-to-face interviews with millions of visa applicants who previously have not merited such scrutiny, a step that will result in months-long backlogs, according to officials and documents.

…

The heightened scrutiny will be applied to about 90 percent of visa applicants from countries in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, with general exceptions for diplomats and people 16 and younger or 60 and older. The rules will not affect citizens of Canada and 27 other countries – most of them in Europe – who are not required to obtain U.S. business or tourist visas, and who make up about half of the 35 million people who visit the United States each year.

Why did this take so long to happen? Because, previously, the State Department was in charge of visas. Now the newly created Homeland Security Department is setting visa policy:

For months, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security have advocated increasing the number of visa interviews. The Homeland Security Department now has jurisdiction over visa policy.

The genius of the plan is not in the face-to-face interviews, which are unlikely to catch terrorists. The genius of the plan derives from the fact that it throws the visa system into gridlock, making it exceedingly hard for people from non-European countries to get visas. This is because no increase in personnel is planned for the vast amount of work required to do face-to-face interviews:

But many in U.S. diplomatic circles strongly opposed the new rules, in part because applicants already must wait three months or more for visas in many locations. The cable announcing the policy change warned that the additional interviews must be handled “using existing resources” and without offering overtime hours to employees.

Foreign posts “should develop appointment systems and public-relations strategies to mitigate as much as possible the impact of these changes,” the cable read.

…

The State Department cable notes that the department will “try to provide the resources necessary to cope with any additional workload, but expects and accepts that many posts will face processing backlogs for the indefinite future.”

As a recent, legal, immigrant, I have mixed feelings about a policy that makes the already dysfunctional visa system worse. On the other hand, making it impossible/unpredictable to get US visas can bollix up terrorist plans.

I’m glad to see the Bush administration cleverly implementing the policy I’ve been clamoring for. I just wish they could have been more straightforward about it and simply denied visas to all citizens of Arab and muslim countries. That way we wouldn’t hassle the millions of other non-European people who need to visit the US for legitimate purposes.

The Hill’s Albert Eisele has a surprising hunch: Tom Daschle may not run for re-election in 2004:

If what I read in my own newspaper is right, and it usually is, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) better get ready to face a stiff challenge from former Rep. John Thune next year.

Thune, who was the handpicked choice of President Bush - and Karl Rove - to knock off Daschle

The NY Times’ Adam Clymer (remember the “major league a**hole” from the 2000 campaign?) has a surprisingly unbiased article on Republican plans to break past party parity and become the majority party.

John Edwards’ re-elect number for his Senate seat back in North Carolina has fallen to 32 percent. 35 percent say they will vote to replace him. And, even though half the voters haven’t heard of him, likely GOP nominee Richard Burr holds Edwards to a 47-36 lead.

These are very dangerous numbers for an incumbent and make Edwards one of the most vulnerable Democrats in 2004. My full 2004 Senate analysis is here.

Fred Barnes has a wonderful tribute to General Tommy Franks.

So Annika Sorenstam gets into a PGA tournament, without qualifying for it like the men did. She does not “make the cut” and comes in ahead of eleven men and behind seventy.

I know next to nothing about professional golf and couldn’t care less about this story. That said, why, given her ho-hum performance, are the “mainstream” media rhapsodizing about Saint Annika?

Ye Olde York Times is showing its age again.

Last September, I noted the similarities between Presidents GWB and JFK. Michael Barone agreed a couple of months later.

Now James Lileks agrees (non-Star-Trek-geeks please bear with me):

Star Trek TV shows explicitly mirror the geopolitical climate of its times. Each one is an analogy for the era in which it

The New York Times has a long, grudging acknowledgement that young conservatives are gaining influence on college campuses.

Of course, this is merely the latest in a string of “discoveries” about the existence of campus conservatives over the last few years by the liberal media.

The US Senate has approved a conference report with the House on a $350 billion economic recovery package. Unless the president is struck by lightning, he will sign the legislation immediately. If the president is struck by lightning, Dick Cheney will sign the legislation immediately.

Even the liberal LA Times concedes that most people would benefit from this bill.

I’ve refrained from commenting on this process so far; but here are some of the things that stand out. First, the good things:

1. Democrats did not come along. As you can see from the roll call, the vote was 50-50, with the vice president breaking the tie. Three Republicans voted against the package, while two Democrats voted for it. As I’ve noted, Democrats, blinded by their hatred of the president, have lost all sense of political perspective. This vote will come back to haunt the nine Democratic senators who will be running for re-election in Bush states in 2004. Imagine the attack ads: “Blanche Lincoln voted against increasing the child tax credit. She voted against eliminating the Marriage Penalty. Blanche Lincoln wants higher taxes on your family. Vote for Mike Huckabee in 2004.”

2. The package’s official “cost” over ten years is $350 billion, allowing Republican Senator George Voinovich to vote for it. However, the cost was achieved by “sunsetting” popular provisions quickly, while leaving the less popular ones in place for several years. Thus the dividend tax cut will sunset in 2008, while the child tax credit increase will sunset in 2004. This will leave congress in the position of letting popular tax cuts lapse in an election year, or renewing them. Congress is unlikely to commit political suicide; so the provisions that sunset next year will likely be renewed, putting the real “cost” of the tax cut above the $726 billion that the president wanted. Remember last December, when the president was supposed to want a $300 billion tax cut and the conventional wisdom was that he’d get about half that?

3. The “sunsetting” of popular tax cut provisions in 2004 is designed to provide Republicans a political cudgel against Democrats in 2004. All the Democratic presidential candidates (except mealy-mouthed John Kerry; as usual, no can figure out what he thinks) have come out for a repeal of the 2001 tax cuts and opposed the 2003 tax cuts. They’re going to find these positions highly unpopular in 2004, when popular tax cuts are sunsetting and the Democratic presidential nominee will have to say he wants to let them expire and raise taxes on the American people. Will Americans vote for a candidate who says he’ll raise their taxes? Just ask Walter Mondale.

4. Income tax rates will be lowered immediately. Working people will reap the rewards in the form of fatter paychecks starting in July. Families with children will receive checks to cover the increase in the child tax credit.

5. The tax on dividends wasn’t completely eliminated; but the president got over a 60% reduction in the dividend tax and a 25% reduction in capital gains taxes. This is far more than anyone expected a few months ago and the cut in capital gains wasn’t even on anyone’s radar a month ago.

6. The real “cost” of the tax cut is, of course, nowhere near $350 billion. This tax package will help the economy recover, resulting in a net increase in revenues, like the Reagan tax cuts achieved in the eighties.

Now, for the few bad things about this package:
1. There’s $20 billion in aid to the states. This was necessary to get Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s vote; but the thought of rewarding the profligacy of state governments by bailing them out is repulsive.

2. The idea of “sunsets” is valuable as a political tool to keep the official “cost” of the package low. The “sunsets” are also carefully designed to provide political ammo against Democrats in election years. However, good tax policy should keep tax rates predictable, which “sunsets” don’t do.

So there you have it. Another virtuoso performance by the president in pushing for this package. Another reason for Democratic party leaders to go into convulsions of rage every time someone mentions the president’s name.