Tom Keane

The Midterms Are 98 Days Away. Could Democrats Be Thwarted — Again?

As Donald Trump careens through America and the world, upending convention, destroying alliances and committing offense after offense, there has been one saving prospect on the horizon: the midterm elections.

Just over three months from now, runs the thinking, the jig will be up. The Democrats will take the House; they may even take the Senate. Trump’s hold on power will be broken. The Republicans who have covered for him will be cover no more. Investigations will proceed apace and the new majority will be able to stymie the Trumpian dismantling of everything from environmental protection to consumer protection. If the president wants to accomplish anything in his next two years in office, he’ll have to bend to the wishes of the Democrats. As Gerald Ford once said of Richard Nixon, “our long national nightmare” may soon be over.

Or perhaps not. Democrats are confident victory will be theirs. Pollsters too. But there are good reasons to think they’re all wrong. Not only the Senate but also the House may very well remain safely Republican.

Granted, I’m in a distinct minority here. The Economist’s midterm forecasting model projects the Democrats have a 71 percent chance of taking the House — by flipping at least 24 Republican seats — in November. Political analyst Larry Sabato reckons the House goes Democratic. The president remains deeply unpopular: FiveThirtyEight’s poll of polls shows that only 42 percent approve of Trump; 53 percent disapprove. The champagne corks are already being popped.

Uh oh. Haven’t we seen this show before? In the days before the 2016 presidential election, nearly all pollsters predicted Hilary Clinton would win. FiveThirtyEight, for example, gave her a 71 percent chance of becoming the next president. Natalie Jackson and Adam Hooper, in the Huffington Post, gave Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning.

So maybe, at least when it comes to anything Trump, we should treat polls skeptically.

Two other factors provoke the most worry, however. First, Trump is actually delivering on what he promised.  And second, the Democrats are alienating precisely the folks they need to attract if they are to win.

The conventional wisdom is that politicians promise one thing but actually do something else. Not Trump. He promised to keep out illegal immigrants and cut taxes. He promised to get the US out of the Paris climate change treaty and pick truly conservative judges. He promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and get rid of Obamacare. On all fronts, he has delivered — or a least tried to deliver. No backpedaling for him. And if you’re a voter who cast your vote for Trump because of those promises, it’s hard to imagine why you would be having second thoughts. Yes, he’s crude and impolitic (which to many is part of the allure). But more importantly, he’s keeping his word.

And while he’s been keeping his word, the economy has been humming. Unemployment is low, wages are increasing, the GDP is expanding, and stocks are through the roof. A May survey by CBS found two-thirds of Americans rating the economy as “very good” or “somewhat good,” with 68 percent giving Trump the credit. And since then things have only gotten better: GDP in the second quarter grew by a sizzling annual rate of 4.1 percent.

Voters don’t get rid of the folks who they think are doing a good job.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party seems to be running away from the voters it needs to win. Elections aren’t won at the extremes. Twenty-seven percent of voters identify as Republicans; it’s probably safe to assume they are in Trump’s camp. Twenty-nine percent identify as Democrats; they doubtless will vote Democratic. But the vast plurality — 43 percent — call themselves independent. Politically agnostic, mostly moderate and willing to vote for either party, they are ones each party needs to woo.

Yet instead of reaching towards the center, Democrats are veering ever more left. Almost with glee, they are dumping those — such as New York’s Joe Crowley — of a more moderate stripe. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have energized those on the left, but Mitch McConnell is right to be overjoyed at her win: Democratic socialism doesn’t appeal to independents and calls for the abolition of ICE only drive them into Republican hands.

Younger, energized voters may well flock to the polls in November, making for Democratic wins across the country. If not though — and historically, turnout among the young has been low — regular older voters, happy with the results of Trump’s presidency (although admittedly, often unhappy with the man himself) and turned off by the Democrat’s leftward tilt, could easily vote GOP.

Two more years of an unrestrained Donald Trump? Unimaginable? Impossible? Sadly, yes, very possible indeed.

Gov. Baker Just Signed A Tax Increase. But He Doesn't Want You To Call It That

When is a tax increase not a tax increase? When it’s signed into law by Gov. Charlie Baker.

Or so runs the governor’s thinking.

Baker just signed into law a 0.63 percent payroll tax that funds a brand-new entitlement: 12 weeks of paid family leave and 20 weeks of medical leave.

I can hear some of you grumbling. Maybe you’re one of the roughly one-third of Americans who won’t have kids and you’re thinking, “Why should I have to pay for someone else’s decision to have a child?” Well, if you’re thinking that way, you’re just mean-spirited. Plus, it’s important to encourage people to have children in ever-greater numbers because otherwise Disney World’s park attendance will drop and we can’t have that. In addition, the tax is really small: If you make $50,000 a year, it works out to around $6 a week, about the cost of one of those highfaluting craft beers. A beer for a baby — is it really too much to ask?

In any event, this isn’t about you. It’s about our governor. Four years ago, we had a spirited contest between Republican Charlie Baker and Democrat Martha Coakley. As is typical in these races, the Democrat promised us a lot more taxes and a lot more government goodies, while the Republican promised us no new taxes and governmental restraint. The Republican won and so we got … a lot more taxes and a lot more government goodies.

To be fair, Baker was not a tax hardliner in that 2014 race. Four years earlier, however, he had been. In his 2010 attempt — a losing race against incumbent Deval Patrick — Baker took the infamous Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Pushed by activist Grover Norquist, the pledge is a firm and unequivocal promise not to increase taxes. Baker even said at the time, “Read my lips: No new taxes” -- a repeat of George H.W. Bush’s promise in his 1988 campaign. An interesting repeat, by the way, because Bush ended up breaking his word. “Read my lips” has since become synonymous with deceit. So at the altar, for example, if the groom says, “Read my lips: Forsaking all others,” you can be pretty sure he’s going to cheat.

Anyhow, by the time the 2014 race rolled around, Baker had gotten wobbly on taxes. He refused to sign the pledge — although he still said he wouldn’t support any new taxes. After he won, Norquist expressed misgivings. “There's only one reason not to take the pledge and that's because you want to raise taxes, and if you're not going to do it, you put it in writing,” he said about Baker. And you can see why. Baker has over the years flirted with extending the hotel tax to cover Airbnb rentals. And he refused to stake out a position of the proposed (but now dead) 2018 ballot question for a so-called “millionaire’s tax."

So really, no one should be surprised that the no-new-tax vow would eventually be broken. Although wait! It hasn’t been! In what amounts to a piece of breathtakingly ridiculous rhetorical legerdemain, Baker says a tax isn’t a tax if it relates to some “new service” offered by the government. It’s only a tax, he says, if you’re using the money to “balance the budget.”

But of course, pretty much the entire budget is about services: building highways, paying for health care, enforcing regulations, and so on. And how you pay it — through income taxes, sales taxes or payroll taxes — is irrelevant. It’s still a forced extraction of money from a citizen’s pocket.

Granted, a veto by Baker wouldn’t have derailed the new tax. Both the House and Senate passed the measure by veto-proof majorities. Nevertheless, Baker could have taken a stand. And the fact that he didn’t basically scotches his future within the national Republican party. New taxes are a heresy that the party simply won’t countenance.

All of which leads to this question: Maybe it’s time for Baker to switch parties — or at least dump the Republican label. He’s been uncomfortable — indeed, appalled — from the get-go with the man now in the White House. Baker likes government, he likes new government programs, and he has no problem finding the money to pay for those programs. So, governor, why not hitch your star to a different wagon?

And while you’re at it, please just admit the truth: It is a tax.

This column was first published by Cognoscenti on July 3, 2018.