Interesting choice of issues. Let me comment on the tax issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

Watch this video above of Ronald Reagan championing exactly the same issue as President Obama is today. Ronald Reagan spoke in 1985 of a letter he received from 'an executive who is earning in 6 figures'.

What's puzzling is why, in 2012, the exact same policy is considered personal grandstanding and grist for the Democrats where as in 1985 it was considered conservative, fair policy.

Kudos on Afganistan.

"I keep wondering why the GOP does not also support the legislation, since it means so little substantively."
If you're going to be a national politics pundit specializing in promotion of the wonders of non-partisan politics , you might want to absorb the fact that the current Republican line is 'No Common Ground with Obama'. Yes, Republicans are partisans and they're very good about behaving that way. Better than that loose collection of politicians of various leanings claiming the Democratic brand. If they discover some common ground, refer to the line. Richard B's excellent link illuminates the results of that approach very well.

Damning Selig for stealing the Pilots excuses many complaints, Thank You! But who if not the Commissioner of Baseball should be in charge of deciding on ownership proposals? His pay grade of $10M per annum doesn't get much higher. Goldman Sachs. perhaps? Certainly a fine example of how insider grifters loot public wealth for personal gain without public benefit. An all-too popular contemporary theme in business and politics.

Good comment by Richard Borkowski. I'd like to see TVD actually take a position on President Obama's proposal to increase the capital gains tax, a la Ronald Reagan, rather than engaging in even-handed scorn for both sides, which really is false equivalence. BTW, the statement that Afghanistan in the longest U.S. military engagement ever is dubious. If you count 1961 as the start of our adventure in Vietnam, that was a longer war. See this excellent perspective piece on the "Vietnam Syndrome" and Afghanistan.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8439-the-afghan-syndrome

Forgot to add that the top rant about modern journalism while using Fox and MSNBC is also typical in another way. While complaining about terrible reporting of these networks, TVD speaks of his personal connections to the offending "headliners" and then doesn't call them out by name, absolving them of any responsibility thereby. Be the change you seek, Mr. Van Dyk- or are your personal relationships with these men (and they would be men, wouldn't they?) more important than offering public criticism of their work?

This is an appropriate moment to quote Paul Krugman's dead-on comments about "bipartisan centrist" commentators:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html?_r=1&hp;
Well, ask yourself the following: What does it mean to be a centrist, anyway?
It could mean supporting politicians who actually are relatively nonideological, who are willing, for example, to seek Democratic support for health reforms originally devised by Republicans, to support deficit-reduction plans that rely on both spending cuts and revenue increases. And by that standard, centrists should be lavishing praise on the leading politician who best fits that description — a fellow named Barack Obama.
But the “centrists” who weigh in on policy debates are playing a different game. Their self-image, and to a large extent their professional selling point, depends on posing as high-minded types standing between the partisan extremes, bringing together reasonable people from both parties — even if these reasonable people don’t actually exist. And this leaves them unable either to admit how moderate Mr. Obama is or to acknowledge the more or less universal extremism of his opponents on the right.

Thanks for the early comments. I plead guilty to not naming the Fox and MSNBC
anchors who have transitioned from serious journalism to party-line advocacy.
There was a time when I respected both and prefer to remember them that way.
They are incidental, in any case, to the point that both networks now calculatedly tilt their programming toward identifiable groups in the marketplace---in this case, political true believers on the two ideological flanks. It's all about ad revenue.

On tax reform and other policy: I do not counsel non-partisanship. I have always been and will remain personally a Democrat. I do, however, counsel bipartisanship when it is necessary to address big national problems. Among other things, it is next to impossible now to pass an important Senate bill
unless the majority party can muster more than 60 votes. Legislation can be jammed through on a one-party basis---if the majority party has enough strength to do so. But, historically, vital and significant legislation has required
at least some support from across the partisan aisle---literally in the Congress, figuratively in the country. It is particularly dangerous that we are polarized now, when the financial system and economy are still fragile and
bipartisan cooperation would be needed to address any fresh rescue effort.

On taxes, I've written often about the need for comprehensive tax reform, which would include a thorough scrubbing from the tax code of the many preferences,
subsidies, loopholes, deductions, and other breaks which favor the politically connected but distort economic activity and reduce the federal revenue base. I thought the 1986 Bradley tax reforms were a good start---fewer brackets, lower rates, elimination of expensive tax breaks. (We need exactly the same medicine, by the way, in Washington state). But, since then, these so-called "tax expenditures" have become more prevalent than they were in 1986. Broad tax reform can only be successful if undertaken on a bipartisan basis.

The optimal cap-gains tax rate would depend on the overall tax code in which it existed. The U.S. cap-gains rate is generally higher than in many other industrialized countries. On the other hand, levels of investment do not depend wholly on that rate. So both President Obama and GOP candidate Romney should be expected in the fall campaign to offer us complete reform packages, not bits and pieces such as the politically appealing but basically meaningless gesture of taxing more highly those earning over $1 million annually. As I've made clear, I see no reason to oppose such a measure. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking its adoption would have any real effect on the larger financial and economic landscape. I like the fact that the President and Rep. Ryan have issued dueling budgets which could serve as points of departure for real, substantive fall debate. The country needs that.

We also need bipartisanship in addressing entitlement-program reform. The
bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, appointed by Obama, came up with
solid proposals there (as well as for tax reform). But the President chose not to support its recommendations. Several House-Senate bipartisan efforts,
based on Simpson-Bowles, have gotten nowhere because they lacked support from the administration and congressional leaders of both parties.

The point of all this: You can make short-term political points, whether Democrat or Republican, with tactical proposals which generate applause among
those disposed to support them. But, to do anything real or important, you've got to reach wider and generate support among independent voters and moderates in the other party. Otherwise you can win an election and, then, find yourself
unable to govern after the swearing-in. If you want to know what that is like, consider the situation since January, 2011.

What this country needs is genuine tax reform, not an increase in tax-law complexity. Real reform broadens the tax base, eliminates targets and exemptions, and reduces rates. A perfect example of how messed up our tax code is can be found with the business tax. The US has the highest statutory business tax rate in the world (something like 35%) yet large corporations who can employ whole departments filled with tax accountants and lawyers can, if they play the system astutely (like GE infamously did in 2010) pay next to nothing in actual taxes. This is fine for giant firms, but it punishes the small to midsize firms that account for most of the innovation and growth in our economy. Bereft of legions of tax experts, they're the suckers stuck with the statutory rate.

The president can't complicate the tax code into fairness. And the fact that he thinks he can is just one more example of how he is totally ignorant of some of the most fundamental principles of economics. A business tax code which, in essence, said "How much profit did you make last year? Send us 20%" would work wonders for the economy. Yet neither Republicans nor Democrats are likely to champion such a reform because it would destroy that which they hold most dear: The power to order the affairs of others who just want to be left alone.

Congratulations on an excellent piece. Some of this could even qualify as Serious Woofing -- high praise indeed! Who says an old dog can't learn a few new tricks?

The exponential increase in information generated by the electronic age has produced a more than exponential increase in deceit, hypocrisy and plain old mental laziness. We are drowning in fatuous nonsense and our public discourse suffers for it. I don't know that there is a simple answer to this problem, but at least a necessary first step is to stop pretending to take knavery and foolishness seriously. Crap is crap -- and needs to be so identified in explicit terms. This article is a move in the right direction.

We're still waiting for TVD to take a position on raising the capital gains tax. Contrary to his assertion, raising taxes on wealthy people would have a major impact. Just letting the Bush tax cuts for wealthy people expire at the end of the year would produce hundreds of billions in revenue over 10 years.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/1102/Super-committee-Let-Bush-tax-cuts-expire-and-your-work-will-be-done
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html
That would go a long way toward paying for health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, reducing the impending cuts in military spending which Republicans and Leon Panetta are screaming about, or simply reducing the deficit. Hard to see how that's "meaningless," as TVD claims.
It's also worth reading Matt Bai's piece on why the Obama-Boehner "grand deal" broke down to see which party was willing to compromise and which party was not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?_r=1&scp;=1&sq;=bai&st;=cse

I entirely disagree with the statement in the article that FOX Noise Channel and MSNBC are both propaganda channels, as if they are equivalent. Not even close.

The Trayvon murder case is clear evidence of the differences. Fox came out portraying the 16 yo murder victim as a thug who beat the crap out of George Zimmerman. They interviewed Zimmerman's father who said his son feared for his life and that Trayvon bashed his head against the sidewalk and broke his nose. When the police video was aired and clearly showed Zimmerman was lying as there was no shred of any broken nose, or blood or gashes, Fox continued their propaganda war, in defense of the legalized murder laws in Florida.

Contrast this to MSNBC, who has consistently questioned the 'facts' of this case and they interviewed the parents of Trayvon Martin. Far from being a propaganda channel, MSNBC should be congratulated for keeping this story alive and stirring the outrage of millions of people around the country who want justice for this 16yo boy who was murdered by Zimmerman.

Now that George Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd degree murder, it's plain to see that Fox is the propaganda station and MSNBC is not. MSNBC did what media is supposed to do. Namely, dig through the facts when government agencies (and other media outlets) are clearly engaged in a coverup. Kudos to MSNBC. This murder case is going to be one of the top stories of the year as it exposes the NRA's advocacy of legalized murder laws in many states throughout the nation.

Buffett’s antics are a distraction from the real consideration of the Bush tax cuts and their stated and agreed upon provisions that they EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2010. The pending 30 percent minimum tax talks hopefully will also fail and the emphasis be returned to following the sunset provisions contained in the Bush bills.

Taxes aren’t preventing job-creating investment by upper-income folks…it’s just good old fashioned GREED.

Ted Says-
"We also need bipartisanship in addressing entitlement-program reform. The
bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission, appointed by Obama, came up with
solid proposals there (as well as for tax reform). But the President chose not to support its recommendations. Several House-Senate bipartisan efforts,
based on Simpson-Bowles, have gotten nowhere because they lacked support from the administration and congressional leaders of both parties."

Sorry, Ted, but the Simpson Bowles commission was crippled by its "bipartisanship" and DID NOT make any "solid proposals".
In fact, they could not agree on anything, and the commission made NO proposals whatsoever.
Simpson and Bowles, themselves, did, indeed make a list of recommendations- but far from being the result of a bipartisan commission, it was the work of 2 guys who arent very far apart ideologically- both are pretty right of center.
They could not get 14 of the 18 members of the commission to agree. And those commissioners were hardly left wing anarchist bomb throwers- it was solid centrist democrats, nobody very left of center.

And, the chairman's report recommended 1 part revenue increases to 3 parts spending cuts- and Obama proposed an even more conservative budget- 1 part revenue increase to 4 parts spending cuts- and the republicans heartily refused it out of hand.