U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Banquo's Ghost]

On a serious matter, I would be interested in our US members' views on this article which has a rather concerning assessment of Senator McCain's economic competence.

Has McCain really claimed economic indifference/lack of knowledge?

Did he really rely on such a man as Gramm, and is this fellow as painted?

Since the economic situation is surely growing as a major issue, is the press covering this and how is the senator faring?

Warning: Naughty word in the original.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Johann Hari: We have everything to fear from McCain

Thursday, 17 July 2008

When the almost six billion of us outside the US watch the contest for The Most Powerful Man in the World, we tend to focus on the candidates' foreign policies. If I was Iranian, say, I'd be anxious that John McCain keeps joking in public about killing me. As a bravo-bow after singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys melody Barbra Ann, he responded to being told exports of cigarettes to Iran are high by guffawing: "That's a way of killing them!"

But there's a way in which the next US president will affect you even more directly than foreign policy. By his economic decisions, the next president will help swing the price of the food you eat and the wages you earn – wherever you live on earth.

So it's a little worrying that John McCain – who still has a reasonable chance of winning – says: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should... To be honest, I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."

This is a man who can't tell his Sunni from his Shia, and who opposed the Northern Ireland peace process as a capitulation to terrorism. And he admits he knows even less about the economy than that. On one occasion, he let his irritation with the subject slip by referring to it as "the credit ".

When he is forced to talk about the economy, McCain has always given the same answer: "I rely on the circle I have developed over many years – people like Phil Gramm." He has Herbert Hoovered-up his slivers of economic theory from this man – but who is Gramm? Until he briefly sputtered into the headlines a few days ago, nobody had cared to look.

Phil Gramm is an ornery old ex-Texas senator who seems to have swooped out of the most scathing H L Mencken sketch. He became McCain's "best friend in politics" – and started speaking to him every day – when they linked arms to stop Hillary Clinton's 1993 push to extend healthcare to poor Americans.

He calls for "ruthlessly" slashing government spending – but only focuses on spending on the poor. When he was told paying for healthcare plunged many 80-year-olds into poverty, he said: "Most of us don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them."

Later, one of those very 80-year-olds approached him because she was terrified she wouldn't be able to pay her medical bills. Gramm laughed and told her to find herself a rich husband. He chuckled: "People say I don't have a heart. I do. I keep it in a quart jar on my desk."

But most relevant to those of us outside the US is that Gramm – more than any other figure in American politics – made the two great financial scandals of our time possible, and nearly brought the global economy down with him.

How? Gramm says government regulation of the economy is "akin to communism", and must be destroyed. His first great step towards this goal came in the 1990s, when he championed and pushed through the law that exempted Enron from both government regulation and public disclosure, on the grounds these were "unacceptable fetters on the free market". Enron was his biggest campaign contributor, and employing his wife to the tune of a million bucks.

So thanks to Gramm, nobody was watching over Enron any more. As a result, they embarked on a massive programme of fraud and pillage. After taking over the electricity market in California, they deliberately engineered blackouts in entire cities to drive up the price for power. In a surreal move, Gramm blamed "environmental extremists" – the nearest bogeyman to hand – even after it was proven Enron execs had paid the power plants to "get creative" in turning out the lights.

Gramm learned from the Enron scandal – to go further and push harder. He turned his attention (and his fund-raising) to the mortgage companies. Since the 1930s, there had been an unwritten deal in US politics: the government would rescue the banks if they grew sick, but in return the banks had to take the sensible medicine of regulation. Gramm thought this was "crazy": why would banks ever need to be rescued in a free market?

So in 2000, while everybody was riveted by the Gore vs Bush stand-off in Florida, Gramm slipped into a vast 3,000-page bill 268 pages radically deregulating the banking system. A legal textbook later called this "a stunning departure from normal legislative practice"; few lawmakers noticed it was there when they voted. Suddenly, the roles that had been reserved in the US for regulated banks were handed over to a vast network of unregulated financial institutions called the "shadow banking system." They began to offer wildly unsustainable mortgages to the poor at supersonic interest rates. Through accountancy-acrobatics, they then bundled these risky loans into exotic packages of derivative commodities.

All this was only legal because of Gramm's legislative footwork. He swiftly moved on from the Senate to a megabucks job at UBS, one of the banks raking in billions from his changes.

Within a few years, the entire system began to collapse without the support beams of state regulation. Sub-prime mortgages predictably fell apart, with 2 million Americans – mostly black and Hispanic – facing repossession. The state has had to step in with a much heavier hand than before – and even that will not prevent a recession now.

The billionaire Warren Buffet pointed out that Phil Gramm has twice tossed "financial weapons of mass destruction" into the US economy. Yet instead of shunning him, McCain made Gramm the co-chair of his presidential campaign, and hinted he might make him Treasury Secretary. McCain – the supposed scourge of buying influence – was even happy for Gramm to be simultaneously a paid lobbyist for the mortgage industry and helping to write his speeches about the mortgage crisis. The Gramm-grip on McCain's policies shows: incredibly, the wannabe-president responded to the credit crunch caused by deregulation by calling for even more deregulation.

The biggest question in US politics should be: would you buy a mortgage from this man? But it's a sign of how shallow the media coverage is that Gramm's ideological fanaticism passed almost without comment; he only became an issue when he made a silly verbal gaffe, claiming America is only in a "mental recession". (In CEO-Land, this is true: they are walking away with $100m bonuses from their failures.) Only then did McCain distance himself.

So it seems for this putative president, causing two major economic crises is fine – but speaking about them crudely is a step too far. Yessir: if you liked the credit crunch, you'll love McCainomics.

[Marshal Murat]

So, Banquo, are you saying that we need to kill Phil?

[CrossLOPER]

My dog for Treasurer.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Banquo -

when they linked arms to stop Hillary Clinton's 1993 push to extend healthcare to poor Americans.

That basically tells you the man is not near objective.

And a very good reason to keep Obama out of the white house:
An argument against Obama's tax plan

Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

That sort of tax increase on small business would be terrible.

CR

[Marshal Murat]

decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

Which Obama will blame on failed Republican tax policies under Bush.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

Funny stuff.

A Republican in Congress has suggested going back to the gold standard and eliminating the FDA...if you elect McCain THIS WILL HAPPEN!!!!

[Lemur]

Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist, who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.

[PanzerJaeger]

Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist, who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.

Don't refute the points or anything.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That basically tells you the man is not near objective.

I don't disagree, but its not the objectivity of an opinion piece that I was asking about but the allegations contained therein.

If there is some substance to them, McCain may be a serious liability for a world entering a complex and challenging few years. Perhaps the economy is not a relevant topic for presidential elections anymore but I am interested in the impact a candiate's record may have on how he handles the next few years.

Because I know Mr Hari is not objective - but does often do his research - I was asking for American colleagues' opinions to balance out what was written - or to confirm it. This stuff is of real interest to those of us who don't get to vote, but whose lives will get affected substantially by your choice in November.

(You might remember the sense of unease that grew in a previous era of lives impacted by decisions not balanced through representation ).

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't find the article to be truthful; Hari distorts the reasons behind the banking crisis, which began with the rising home market and sub standard mortgages being given out by the banks. Now, as a result of that bad decision, the banks are suffering.

In short, McCain's advisor does seem to be solidly on the right economically, but not to the radical extent Hari alleges, and he has sensationalized his record.

Let's be clear here -- that editorial from Politico was written by Grover Norquist, who is so violently anti-tax that he compares the estate tax to the Holocaust.

And let's be clear that you're being disingenuous.

Norquist stated that "the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage."

Don't refute the points or anything.

Really. Any way you cut it, such a rate increase on small business owners, who do employ most Americans, would be very bad.

Sasaki - the GOP is in the minority in congress. Also, as a party they are not fond of pushing the gold standard, like the democrats like to push tax increases (especially on those nasty rich).

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sasaki - the GOP is in the minority in congress. Also, as a party they are not fond of pushing the gold standard, like the democrats like to push tax increases (especially on those nasty rich).

The point is you can't attribute the statements of congressman to a presidential candidate just because they are in the same party. Which is exactly what your article did.

In other news,

Bush agrees to "Time Horizon" for withdrawal from Iraq

You see, it's not a "timetable". It's a time horizon.

[Lemur]

Yeah, Bush appears to be following Obama's positions every chance he gets. It's likely that the difference between the McCain and Obama plans for Iraq/Afghanistan will be too narrow for daylight come November.

As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.

Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.

Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.

[PanzerJaeger]

As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.

Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.

Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.

Some more lame character attacks, this time based on an even more innocuous quote and associations with Karl Rove. Ironically, in the mind of a Lemur, Barack escapes the "EXTREMIST!~!" label despite his 20 year association to a certain close spiritual mentor - among others.

However, I was fascinated by the broad brush attack/rant/gibberish against the evil right wingers intent on making the government "bad" to prove its "bad" and other passive aggressive tendencies. A tin foil hat would have made the experience all the more enjoyable, though.

[Lemur]

Mustn't ... feed ... troll ...

[Marshal Murat]

Troll! Fresh Virgin!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, Bush appears to be following Obama's positions every chance he gets. It's likely that the difference between the McCain and Obama plans for Iraq/Afghanistan will be too narrow for daylight come November.

As for Grover Norquist, what's to say? The dude is an extremist. He wants to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub." Uh, okay. He's Best Friends Forever with Karl Rove. We're not talking about a mainstream figure here.

Norquist is yet another right-winger intent on proving that government is bad by ensuring government is bad. It's in exactly the same vein in which "conservatives" prove that all sources of news are biased by creating and funding blatantly biased news sources.

Amazing how you can prove negatives when you set out to create them.

Play the ball, not the man Lemur.

CR

[m52nickerson]

Banquo -



That basically tells you the man is not near objective.

And a very good reason to keep Obama out of the white house:
An argument against Obama's tax plan


That sort of tax increase on small business would be terrible.

CR

Funny it seems that only 2% of small business would be affected by Obama's plan. Link

Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates. Tax Policy Center, 4/27/07

I wonder were Norquist gets his data?

[PanzerJaeger]

Mustn't ... feed ... troll ...

Weakness and personal attacks... business as usual.

Really though Lemur, how hard is it to hold one's own in a discussion forum? You swooped in like the Caped Liberal Crusader to discredit the author of a piece without even mentioning one point he made, and all it took was the mere mentioning of that fact to turn you into the proverbial fat girl on the play ground chanting "Sticks and Stones"...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen, please.

[CountArach]

Which Obama will blame on failed Republican tax policies under Bush.

Because they are at fault :nod:

As for CR's article, I just want to point out that:

Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income.
...
What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that “taxing something more and getting less of it” would apply. Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses. Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry. Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well. Plants and equipment will go unused. Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

is simply untrue. First off the economy is already in a recession...

Secondly I looked into the idea that economists wouldn't support Obama and I found this list of economists who support Obama (Including two Nobel laureates). So it is far from one-sided.

I then looked into the bolded quote some more and came up with this article which quite simply states:

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush’s tax cuts, the true cost of McCain’s policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

So McCain would just leave the budget in an even more disgraceful state than Obama's tax plan.

That's all I can be bothered to do for today, but I will leave this link up for TuffStuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Lemur]

And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?

Meanwhile, go ahead and rationalize this away:

[Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." [...]

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

Not that it matters, since McCain will move toward Obama's position as quickly as he decently can. Hell, even President Bush is copying Senator Obama's playbook these days ...

[m52nickerson]

And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?

Meanwhile, go ahead and rationalize this away:

[Iraqi Prime Minister] Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." [...]

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

Not that it matters, since McCain will move toward Obama's position as quickly as he decently can. Hell, even President Bush is copying Senator Obama's playbook these days ...

Now if that is not foresight, what is?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Funny it seems that only 2% of small business would be affected by Obama's plan. Link

Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates. Tax Policy Center, 4/27/07

I wonder were Norquist gets his data?

No, 2% of people who report some income from small businesses. Not the same thing. 21% of people have some income from small business. That's not the same as people who own small businesses.

Secondly I looked into the idea that economists wouldn't support Obama and I found this list of economists who support Obama (Including two Nobel laureates). So it is far from one-sided.

And here's the list of economists supporting McCain. Five Nobel Laureates. So it is pretty lopsided.

So McCain would just leave the budget in an even more disgraceful state than Obama's tax plan.

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:

Now if that is not foresight, what is?

The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.

And now that Norquist's article has been refuted, I expect the entire line of attack will be dropped with never another mention. 'Cause it never was about tax policy and small businesses, was it?

What ... ? You expect me to stop attacking Obama's stupid economics? What do you think it was about? The octosquid conspiracy?

CR

[Lemur]

Or, he'd cut the budget. :lightbulb:

Yeah, 'cause Republicans have such a great track record on cutting the budget. Why, after the last seven years, there's hardly any budget left to hate! It's not as though a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress passed the biggest increase in entitlement spending since the New Deal. And if we'll just keep giving the Republicans the keys to the kingdom, we can expect more of the same!

The only reason we can consider that is because of the surge, which Obama strongly opposed, saying it would not stop the violence.

Uh, no, he said it wouldn't address political reconciliation, not that it would not stop the violence.

Obama argued that the claim of success for the troop "surge" made by McCain and Bush "misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face." [...] And yet, Obama argued, "Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the 'surge.'"

(Which ignores the fact that it's impossible to make political progress without a reduction in violence, but still, you should slam the guy accurately.)

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

What ... ? You expect me to stop attacking Obama's stupid economics? What do you think it was about? The octosquid conspiracy?

I think there's more tribalism at work here than anyone would like to admit. Go team!

[m52nickerson]

No, 2% of people who report some income from small businesses. Not the same thing. 21% of people have some income from small business. That's not the same as people who own small businesses.

I'm sorry, how do you make money from a small business and not own a small business?

Plus your statement has little to do with the fact that only 2% of all small businesses would be affected.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think there's more tribalism at work here than anyone would like to admit. Go team!

Well now we know where you're coming from.

Yeah, 'cause Republicans have such a great track record on cutting the budget. Why, after the last seven years, there's hardly any budget left to hate! It's not as though a Republican president and a Republican-controlled congress passed the biggest increase in entitlement spending since the New Deal. And if we'll just keep giving the Republicans the keys to the kingdom, we can expect more of the same!

Where's the 'gridlock is good' Lemur? Voting McCain in with the current dem congress would be giving noone the keys to the kingdom.

Uh, no, he said it wouldn't address political reconciliation, not that it would not stop the violence.

Obama argued that the claim of success for the troop "surge" made by McCain and Bush "misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face." [...] And yet, Obama argued, "Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the purpose of the 'surge.'"

(Which ignores the fact that it's impossible to make political progress without a reduction in violence, but still, you should slam the guy accurately.)

I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

Well, that's funny, considering here's a video containing him saying the surge will not solve the violence "but will do the reverse".

I'm sorry, how do you make money from a small business and not own a small business?

Plus your statement has little to do with the fact that only 2% of all small businesses would be affected.

Guess what; Obama's using spin. According to his data, 21.5% of US taxpayers get income from a small business. His site took this to mean 21.5% of taxpayers own a small business, which I don't think is true.

Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.

CR

[m52nickerson]

Well, that's funny, considering here's a video containing him saying the surge will not solve the violence "but will do the reverse".

This is true, but try to stay on point. Obama has been stating that it is time to get out of Iraq, and now so is Bush and soon McCain will also. Your point has only shows he was wrong about the surge.

Guess what; Obama's using spin. According to his data, 21.5% of US taxpayers get income from a small business. His site took this to mean 21.5% of taxpayers own a small business, which I don't think is true.

You did not answer my question, how does one get income from a small business and not own one.

Plus it does not matter if 50% or 10% of people in this country own a small business. Only 2% of those who do own a small business would be affected.

Oh, and Obama says 'one bomb' fell on Pearl Harbor. Good to see he's got such a good grasp of history.

Your mean this part of the transcript "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world."

So someone typed "bomb" instead of "bombs" and this is your big come back. Weak, very weak.

[Marshal Murat]

Your point has only shows he (Obama) was wrong about the surge

If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)

I will agree with CR concerning the spending. Spending has always decreased when one party owns Congress, the other the White House. Republicans + Clinton = Decreased spending, budget surplus. Republicans + Bush = Dramatic spending increase.

When Obama refers to the 'bomb', he clearly doesn't understand that the first attack on Pearl Harbor was actually a submarine assault! Duh!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)

That's silly. Obama said the surge would be counterproductive, and we needed a timetable for withdrawal. McCain said the surge would solve our problems and that timetables would be surrendering. Hindsight tells us that the surge provided temporary relief and that we still need timetables (you know a funny thing about calling it "time horizon" is that you never actually reach the horizon) for withdrawal. I don't see why you'd be more pleased with McCain's approach and backpedaling.

Not to MENTION supporting the war in the first place.

[m52nickerson]

If Obama was incorrect about the effects of the surge, what does that show about his decision-making skills (especially on the world stage?)

I will agree with CR concerning the spending. Spending has always decreased when one party owns Congress, the other the White House. Republicans + Clinton = Decreased spending, budget surplus. Republicans + Bush = Dramatic spending increase.

When Obama refers to the 'bomb', he clearly doesn't understand that the first attack on Pearl Harbor was actually a submarine assault! Duh!

1. Well I guess others have perfect records on make decisions.

2. Didn't Clinton have a majority of Democrat's in congress when he was first in office? Plus that fact Bush has had a Republican controlled congress for most of his 8 years.

3. I hope you for got your [sarcasm] tags.