Yep, definitely could be the case even if change happens on its own (which I don't think is a given at all).

T-10.

No one is sounding confident. I can hear the tea party saying I told you so.

As Deadline Nears, Debt Reduction Panel Weighs Undoing Its Own Rules | Fox News

Of course not in 9 days they will claim its impossible and that if we don't reach some sort of "debt extension" and cancel the automatic across the board cuts then the world economy will collapse.

I thought Obama was on record as saying he'll veto any attempted extension.

They did give Ron Paul a whole 90 seconds during the first hour of the debate to present an alternate viewpoint. At least Obama can now be the hero and oppose these crazy republicans and their war mongering!

Obama criticizes GOP over Iran, torture

If only a Republican candidate had these viewpoints!

Obama is on the record saying a lot of things but what if the world economy is on the brink of collapse!!! (Sarcasm intended)

Woo hoo. Lets get this thing out of the way or tossed once and for all (I hope).

Supreme Court will hear health care case this term - Yahoo!

From a PR standpoint, I think the Supreme Court decision could be a nightmare either way for Obama.

Assuming they follow tradition, the decision would be announced a couple months prior to the election.

IF health care is upheld then I think Republicans flock to the polls trying to get someone in there to change/undo things.

IF health care is found unConstitutional then I think Republicans are buoyed by this and Obama ends up undermined.

The timing of this, at least in my opinion, couldn't be worse for Obama.

I disagree. If the law is upheld by the majority conservative Supreme Court, that'll be a great talking point for him. The conservatives that are motivated by that would mostly be motivated anyways.

I really doubt the Obama administration is worried about that. The Justice Department pushed for SCOTUS to hear the case before the election.

Interesting polls if valid.

Obama Administration Eager for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Health Care Law - Fox News

I can't see where those poll numbers come from. Sounds more like statistical noise

SI

Senator Coburn's report on federal subsidies given to millionaires just came out. I haven't read it all the way through, but here's the key paragraph from the summary.

I read that as a reason for less big government bureaucracy but I am sure somehow Sen Coburn sees it as a reason for more.

Of course you do, panerd

Wait? Is that crazy Tom Coburn? Not the first Senator I had pictured making something like this. That's interesting

SI

So because a small number of people who don't need to benefit from a program (note I'm not judging whether or not they should be able to benefit from it, just saying that they don't NEED to) do benefit, we should abolish the programs that benefit millions who actually need them instead of addressing the problems?

That's just lazy panerd.

Given it's Tom Coburn, I'm guessing he doesn't.

Also, that's an awesome photoshop on the first page. And who are the 18 people that made $10M+ in 2009 yet still decided to collect unemployment benefits?

What is considered a millionaire.... net worth? income? or something else?

I guess it's possible we have some sort of "I was unemployed to start the year and then created a $10M company overnight" story but I'm a bit skeptical. If not, can we just improve society by shooting them into the sun?

SI

In this particular report it it looks as though it's defined as income throughout. In some cases it says that explicitly, in others it doesn't, but because they got the data from the IRS, it's safe to assume that's the case.

More oversight and more government regulators will solve this problem!

Lazy is not realizing these monsterous programs lead to widespread fraud.

Should the government not build roads because people might drink and drive?

Not the roads thing... how about a comparison to the Nazi's also?

If you had a more nuanced argument, perhaps I could engage in a more substantive debate. But since your argument against government programs seems to lack any real analysis aside from the fact that if you increase government welfare programs fraud will go up, I'm not sure what other arguments to present beyond the most basic ones. Is your argument that fraud exponentially once the size of government programs increase? Is your argument merely that you accept only a certain absolute level of fraud regardless of what additional benefit it might add?

I'm also curious why government "fraud" is so offensive to you. Sure, some of your tax dollars might be wasted. But additional roads also encourage more driving--imposing the costs of accidents and pollution. Are those not equally offensive? Or are you willing to admit we need to consider the cost and benefits of any government action. And if that's the case, what's the cost-benefit analysis you're proposing for limiting government benefits programs?

Somemore interesting polls. The race angle shouldn't be a surprise I guess.

CNN Poll: Obama ranks low among recent incumbents – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Your argument is that if you're in favor of roads, it's inconsistent to be against anything else government does. You can't get any less nuanced than that.

Edit: I'm going to go out there and proclaim that I am PRO-road. In fact, in some states especially, government needs to be way, way, more involved in infrastructure maintenance and improvements.

Did you read the rest of my post? That's clearly not my position. My point was merely that an argument that states only the most obvious point--if you increase a government program, you will increase some other bad thing--tells us absolutely nothing about why that's unacceptable.

Can't one believe that some government actions have a greater risk of harm than others?

Sure, you can--that's exactly what I said my post. If that's his point, he can can explain why he believes that's the case in this particular instance and perhaps lead to a discussion about whether that's true.

You're a lawyer, so presumably, drawing analogies and making distinctions is basic piece of your analytical toolkit. I'm not demanding he can't hold these two positions, I'm just asking him to articulate why he distinguishes some government programs from others. And to the extent he believes any government benefits programs are OK, what principles should we use in deciding which ones to allow. Logically, the more government benefits are going to create more fraud, but I don't know if his problem if the absolute level of fraud (which seems sort of silly if it's providing a requisite benefit) or an increase in rate of fraud per dollar spent or something else.

I think this was a great piece by Mark Cuban. Also thought he was fantastic on CNBC the other day shredding the "tax us more and we won't hire" crowd and how stupid that argument is.

My Views on Corporations & Taxes « blog maverick

T-5

Debt committee: 11th-hour cheat sheet - Nov. 18, 2011

What's the best budegt plan? Do nothing.

T-3.

I wonder if its too harsh to say these folks did not have the courage to come to a compromise. What a waste of an opportunity.
Aides: 'Super Committee' likely to announce failure to reach debt deal - CNN.com

It's more of the same. Most would have been surprised if a deal was actually reached. That's why the cuts were put in there if they didn't do anything.

Doing anything the super committee could complete is a waste. Just let the spending cuts trigger and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and we'll be in far better shape than any compromise.

I don't understand...the dems still control the senate, so what's preventing them from just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You would think they would have some leverage as the tax cuts can't increase without their votes...

Why come to a compromise though when you can do nothing? I am sure this will end up being a D vs R reason or because they want to avoid "economic collapse". At least more people seem to see through this bullshit this time around. (I also credit Obama if he follows through and doesn't allow them to play this game)

Congress may try blocking cuts if debt panel fails - Yahoo! News

It looks like those projections are based on the CBO's extended baseline scenario where revenues increase to 23% of GDP. Since revenues have ranged from 15% to 20% over the last 40 years (with an average of 18%), I think that scenario is unrealistic. Letting the tax cuts expire will certainly help, but it's unlikely that we will be able to balance the budget without further cuts in spending.

I think it's also unreasonable to believe that Congress will get rid of the AMT relief and the Medicare Doc fix. That's $1 trillion of revenue gone from the $7 trillion.

Sure, but it's all the things they'll do that will increase the deficit. There's no reason to panic if they do nothing.

Are there spending measures that would expire as well? If the answer is "do nothing", then wouldn't the extra war spending go away, the extensions to unemployment, and the like? No COLA increases for federal wages or social security? No pay raises for Congress? Etc?

I'm pretty sure all of that is included in the CBO numbers that graph is based on. Note that even with the sequestration cuts, total federal spending will still increase, just not by as large an amount. I assume that "doing nothing" means leaving already budgeted increases in place.

One of the smart things in the previous deal - if we can't decide on anything, we'll just have an automatic trigger.

The triggers will get rolled back though. They're toothless.

Because lowering the defense budget by less than 10% will mean the end of America!

I'm with you on even bigger defense budget cuts but couldn't your above statement be said about any federal program? Private, municipal, and state employees are all suffering cutbacks here in Missouri what makes working for the federal government immune from salary freeze or god forbid a 10% salary reduction? (Besides spineless politicians that are worried about re-election I should add)

EDIT: I'm not going to say it's as easy as the movie "Dave" but something tells me they could cut 10% of pork and bureaucracy from any program and still not affect its recipients.

T-2 ... it's official now. The post mortem analysis should be fun.

'Super committee' fails to reach agreement - CNN.com

Screw it. Lock them all in a room and slug it out with their fists. Last one standing, gets their budget agreement plan approved.

What a great question, actually.

"Wait? Higher taxes on everyone but professional wrestlers? Who let Ric Flair in the room?"

SI

I don't like a flat 10% cut. There are areas, say food inspectors for one, that are already severely understaffed.

Of course a 10% cut to discretionary spending won't do much anyway. Defense and healthcare are the problems going forward. Without plans to deal with those anything else is purely window dressing.

This idea of cutting the military by a ton is a good thing. I have a feeling these 10% cuts will primarily come from salary and other things that affect the "little guys". The large scale defense contractors are protected I bet

Not all Federal programs are alike. Some have been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years since they don't have the lobbying interests to support them.

The only way Flair would win is if he snuck in some brass knucks in his tights. He'd have to get his ass beat for about 20 minutes first though, then he would lay em all out and figure four their asses one by one while they all rolled around pretending they were exhausted all of a sudden.

Come on.. these are senators we're talking about. THey'd be sucking wind after two minutes. But that's ok, cuz Flair's the sixty minute man.... WHOOO!

This is even funnier if you didn't read the Grantland piece from a few months ago detailing Flair's financial problems with people and paying taxes.

I was trying to go with a wrestler about the age of most Senators ;)

And, no, didn't know he had financial issues so that does make it even funnier :D

SI

Can you give an example of a program that has been on the blunt end of cutbacks for years?

I'll go with the aforementioned food inspectors. I don't know if there have been cuts, but they certainly haven't grown at the rate food producers have over the past three decades.

Officer I was only going 80, at least I wasn't going 100!

I'm good with this. Haven't seen any polls yet but suspect Obama comes out of this looking better than Congress.

Obama To Veto Any Attempt To Roll Back Automatic Cuts After Committee's Inability To Reach Debt Deal | Fox News

I love these commitments. He may only be in office for another year or so, but by golly he can promise what's going to happen 10 years from now. Presidents love to pull this garbage, from both sides of the aisle.

You just have to translate his "promises" into "vague statements of preference that will happen if there is zero opposition from anyone." The latter phrasing is more honest, but not very useful in a campaign.

If it comes down to the last two standing are Ric Flair and Roddy Piper...oh man! I'd pay to see that.

Yeah, that's pretty accurate. He's honestly taking the easier of two roads by not vetoing. If he vetoes, he'd look silly.

My favorite Presidential montage was on the Daily Show where they showed every President since Nixon promising to get off foreign oil in the next 10 years. (The perfect number to not happen at any time during their presidency) Its hilarious watching Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, W Bush, and Obama all make almost the exact same empty promise.

Possibly too good to be true but interesting read.

Al-Qaeda targets dwindle as group shrinks - The Washington Post

Some fact checking on the GOP candidates/accusations on Obama.

NBC Politics - FACT CHECK: Hyperbole on terror interrogations

Right, if I'm running for President, I don't try and convince anybody that Obama isn't willing to kick some foreign ass for the safety of our country.

Because all he has to do is point at Bin Laden and the other members of Al-Qeda killed and you look like an idiot. Not that it's unusual for Bachmann to look like one, mind you!

Not to mention his successful continuation of our nation building efforts in Iraq, his strong determination to keep Gitmo open and away from here, and the continuation of the Patriot Act. He's done much better than expected. I've no idea what she's talking about.

This came out of the blue for me. Didn't know we were still working on star wars missile defense - not sure if ground, satellite or combo. I remember reading about alot of failures in the 90's ... hopefully its more robust now.

Medvedev: Russia may target US missile shield - World news - Europe - msnbc.com

Government website on missile defense. No lasers used that I saw, too bad.

The Ballistic Missile Defense System

This is the most interesting GOP primary I can recall.

Georgia Woman Claims 13-Year Affair With Cain, As Candidate Denies Latest Allegations | Fox News

I think we can quibble on whether all combat troops are out of Iraq but I think Obama has fufilled his promise. Only time will tell if Iraq was worth the price.

Obama and Iraq Leader, Maliki, Mark Shift to Postwar Ties - NYTimes.com

Dangerous game Boehner is playing ... I think this will come back and hurt the GOP but it is good to see a person stand behind their beliefs (if that's really the case).

I did not see any opinions from the GOP candidates.

Obama, Boehner square off in payroll tax fight - CNN.com

I think its more about trying to screw up the economy before the elections tbh than any 'standing behind their beliefs' .... the more they can mess things up before the election the better their chance of getting into power, at the moment things are starting to look like they're improving so expect spanners to be thrown at the works as often as possible imho ...

If that's the case, the Republican Party should be banned.

I mean, they've said in the past that their main goal is to get Obama out of office, so I wouldn't put it by them. I agree with Boehner that it sucks to pass a 2-month bill to just start the same negotiations. I don't agree with a 1% surcharge on rich people, but I don't think the Republican party is offering anything on their side to cut (defense, etc), rather just expecting the removal of regulations to somehow spur the economy and equal more revenue.

But it's a stupid game of chicken because the R's think Obama has more to lose in an election year.

There are legal ways to do this though. That's my point. If they are actively trying to tank the economy, they should be banned as a party.

It's a two month extension because the GOP won't agree to a year extension. The Dems would take a clean year extension if they could get it, but the GOP will only go for a year if a bunch of non-related riders are included.

Of course I don't believe the House freshmen would even agree to that. Obama is for it, so they have to b against it. It would be interesting to see Obama embrace a Tea Party platform just so the freshmen could abandon it entirely.

Well, Boehner blinked.

I was watching Fox News yesterday and they were telling saying for Boehner to move on.

Glad to see so many saying that tax cuts are good for the economy.

Can't ban a party if people want it around and agree with their tactics.

It's more people saying lets throw more on the credit card and let our kids figure out how to pay this off.

Jobs are what should be the focal point right now, not these little tax cuts.

Yeah, the payroll tax cut is a joke. In the long run, it's just starving Social Security all so everyone can have an election year bribe.

SI

Here's a couple of quotes from Boehner yesterday:

"You know, sometimes, it’s hard to do the right thing. And sometimes it’s politically difficult to do the right thing."

"If you can get this fixed, why not uh, why not do the right thing for the American people - even though it’s not exactly what we want?"

I like the payroll tax cut because it is targeted at people under the $100,000 level and a large majority of that money is more likely to go back into the economy than with something like the Bush tax cuts. I think taking that 2% of purchasing power out of the economy just as it is starting to recover would be a horrible and devastating mistake.

I actually agree but this is just another example of how both parties deflect real problems in exchange for the focus to be on this little problem.

Lets not talk about corporate welfare, entitlement reform, or tax cuts for the rich...lets talk about payroll taxes so we can play this game instead of the game that would have real substance and require tangible output.

Actually the CBO disagrees with you. The money is more likely to be saved than be put back into the economy.

I thought that was true if the tax cut came as a rebate, but not true if the cut gets spread out over the year in small amounts.

Obama on the rebound. I think we all knew it would tighten up some.

Haven't thought much about it but my first impression is this will be a good combination assuming Biden steps away gracefully.

ROBERT REICH: Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket

Might be better to switch the order of the two.

The CBO historically would call a payroll tax cut to boost consumer spending... also the definition of 'save' is a bit complex, it more often means paying down debt than stuffing pennies in the piggy bank. Debt reduction, while maybe not preferred by our finance overlords, will lead to increased consumer spending in the future as dollars spent on interest are instead available for goods and confidence to perform that spending increases as debt burden is perceived smaller.

I wouldn't put it past the CBO to tweak their current song and dance in order to push a limited tax cut pie to some other pet projects over payroll tax cuts, such as employer payroll subsidies of various forms, or other arguments that rich people need those cuts so much more than everyone else. Compare CBO circa 2000 to now (or even earlier, although the explosion of internet archives makes document mining so much easier over the last decade) and you can see how their opinions show a bias to the mood of the times.

Statistically the payroll tax cut is better than most other tax cuts on the table for boosting consumer spending and the average American's pocket book. Considering the amount of capital sitting around and low interest rates the many other giveaways... er tax cuts that target the rich would have little stimulus effects. If low rates, relatively low taxes, and abundant capital are not enough to stimulate investment... even more tax freebies will not do much more.

Given the current economic situation, anything that boosts consumer confidence is good for rich people's stock portfolios, so if they gave up the class warfare and trying to maximize their cut of the pie... maybe the pie they are eating will be a bit larger and sweeter rather than a glorified shit sandwich a second recession would bring us. Let the poor shlubs have an extra 500-2000 this year, they will spend it on iPads and my Apple stock will continue to be highly priced. Win win for all of us.

Interesting the only 2012 must do is extending the payroll tax cut and not including finding the budget cuts before the automatic across the board sequester to trim the $1T+ over 10 years.

There's going to be so much partisan "messaging" in 2012.

Obama’s 2012 political strategy: Keep attacking unpopular Congress - The Washington Post

Sample partisan messaging but I do think Obama needs to run/explain his track record.

GOP’s battle plan against Obama: Use his own words against him - The Washington Post

That's always going to be one of the most effective strategies against an incumbent who has had issues producing what he promised. Don't say what he didn't do, let him say it for you.

All I know is if SOPA gets passed to go along with the defense bill Obama signed into law on New Years Eve, I'll do anything I can to get the fuck out of America. This shit is getting downright scary.

Of course, it's also a little strange to criticize a guy who's acting more in line with your ideals than anyone thought he would.

I can see both sides of the argument. I didn't see the $ savings or the specific details on programs. Not sure what to think but I do trust Panetta.

Obama unveils plans for pared-down military - CNN.com