Rick "Man-dog sex" Santorum throws his hat(e) into the GOP presidential primary's frothy mix for 2012

Bachmann and now Santorum, throw in Palin too and it's going to be a fun primary. Read the rest of this post...

The Oregon legislature RickRolls itself

They basically got a group of Ds and Rs to insert bits and pieces of Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up" into their floor speeches, then someone whipped them up into the song. It needs some music behind it, auto-tune style, but it's still good.

Read the rest of this post...

"Robin Hood in reverse" and Run, Bernie, Run?

In yesterday's post about an effort to petition President Obama, warning him of the political consequences of proposing cuts to Medicare and Medicade benefits, I mentioned "Robin Hood in reverse." That mention was inspired by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who used the term in an interview Monday with Ed Shultz.

Here is a video of Sen. Sanders on the Senate floor April 12 using the term to discuss the budgets now under debate in DC. It's worth your time to watch.

And since the subject of challenging Pres. Obama from the left has been discussed here on AMERICAblog lately, here's a thought that came as I watched the Bernie clip: If anyone is going to challenge Pres. Obama in 2012, how about Bernie? Run, Bernie, Run? Really, I don't see that happening. But it's fun to imagine... Read the rest of this post...

Krugman on Obama plan: "Just say no."

Trying to make sense of President Obama's speech today on the federal budget? There's lots of digesting going on right now. Here's Paul Krugman:

So what we got today was much better than some of the hints and trial balloons; it’s a plan that we could live with. But it’s a center-right plan already; if it’s the starting point for negotiations that move the solution toward lower taxes for the rich and even harsher cuts for the poor, just say no.

Krugman bases his take on a statement from Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which Krugman calls, "the single best source for serious budget analysis."

And here's Greg Sargent:

We cannot know right now whether the steadfastness of Obama’s rhetoric in defending core liberal and Democratic ideals will be matched by equal resoluteness in practice when the battles heat up and the temptation to make deals and jettison core priorities intensifies. But Obama did tell us in clear and unequivocal moral terms what he thinks it means to be a Democrat, and those who have been waiting for him to do so should be quite satisfied by what they heard.

Did you catch the President's address?  What do you think? Read the rest of this post...

White House cool to re-opening public option debate, even though it is recommended in Simpson-Bowles deficit plan

I'm on a White House blogger conference call with a number of senior officials - Dan Pfeiffer, David Plouffe, and Brian Deese - and I got a chance to ask about the public option.  The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan recommended a "robust public option."  Basically, what Obama had said he was going to push for during the campaign. In view of the fact that a bipartisan report is now endorsing not just "Obamacare," but what health care reform was supposed to be, I asked the White House if they'd consider the public option being the table.

I got a longwinded answer from Brian Deese, who works at the National Economic Council and is special assistant to the President for economic policy, restating what the President had already proposed.
So I responded, yes you just reiterated what the President already proposed, but you didn't answer my question, would you consider the public option being on the table?

I was told that no one is going to set preconditions as to what others may offer in the negotiations, and that was it.  In other words, someone else was free to put it on the table during the talks.

It's pretty clear that the White House has no desire to get anywhere near the public option for a long time coming, which is sad considering Simpson-Bowles just gave them one heck of an entree.  How the President isn't saying "I told you so" when everyone is talking about cutting health care costs.  He ought to throw this in the face of every single person who uses the phrase "Obamacare," of every single Republican who complains about the deficit.

So if Speaker Boehner is interested in a public option, it just might come up in this debate.

Sigh. Read the rest of this post...

Mom drives car into river, apparently on purpose, drowns self and 3 of 4 kids

Wow.  I know this isn't politics, but Jesus.

A mother and her three children drowned after she drove their minivan into the Hudson River Tuesday night, but her 10-year-old son escaped and ran for help, Newburgh fire chief Michael Vattar says.

He says the boy was a passenger in the car when it went off a boat ramp and was "soaking wet" when he reached the nearby fire station looking for help. Vatter says he was accompanied by an unidentified woman who picked him up when he came out of the river.

Vatter says firefighters and search teams went immediately to the scene and eventually found the vehicle in 8 feet of murky water about 25 feet offshore. "It was not floating, it was under water," he said at a news conference this morning.

Divers found the unidentified woman, her two boys, ages 5 and 2, and an 11-month-old girl inside the vehicle in 10 feet of water about 25 feet from the shore.

Read the rest of this post...

Letting Bush tax cuts expire would solve 75% of deficit over next 5 years, 40% over 20 years

I'm not terribly thrilled about paying more taxes, especially when we know the Republicans will simply take the money and declare a few more wars. But, it is interesting to see how much money we'd save by simply rolling back the Bush tax cuts and returning taxes to where they were during the prosperous Clinton era. NYT:

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, he could simply refuse to sign any budget-busting tax cut for the rich — who, after all, have received much larger pretax raises than any other income group in recent years and have also had their tax rates fall more. Republicans, for their part, could again refuse to pass any partial extension.

And just like that, on Jan. 1, 2013, the Clinton-era tax rates would return.

This change, by itself, would solve about 75 percent of the deficit problem over the next five years. The rest could come from spending cuts, both for social programs and the military.

Over the longer term — 20 years — letting all of the Bush cuts lapse would close only about 40 percent of the budget gap. But 40 percent is a great start.

I had no idea the numbers were that large. Read the rest of this post...

President Obama's budget address, live blog

Joe and I will be hanging out in our chat room, below, during the President's budget speech, expected to start at 1:35PM Eastern.  Feel free to join in. We've published the text of the President's speech below the chat.



Here is the text of the address:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
The Country We Believe In
The George Washington University
Washington, DC
April 13, 2011

As Prepared for Delivery—

Good afternoon. It’s great to be back at GW. I want you to know that one of the reasons I kept the government open was so I could be here today with all of you. I wanted to make sure you had one more excuse to skip class. You’re welcome.

Of course, what we’ve been debating here in Washington for the last few weeks will affect your lives in ways that are potentially profound. This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments....

For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens. As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. Moreover, this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale, who continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Now, at certain times – particularly during periods of war or recession – our nation has had to borrow money to pay for some of our priorities. And as most families understand, a little credit card debt isn’t going to hurt if it’s temporary.

But as far back as the 1980s, America started amassing debt at more alarming levels, and our leaders began to realize that a larger challenge was on the horizon. They knew that eventually, the Baby Boom generation would retire, which meant a much bigger portion of our citizens would be relying on programs like Medicare, Social Security, and possibly Medicaid. Like parents with young children who know they have to start saving for the college years, America had to start borrowing less and saving more to prepare for the retirement of an entire generation.

To meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times during the 1990s to reduce our nation’s deficit. They forged historic agreements that required tough decisions made by the first President Bush and President Clinton; by Democratic Congresses and a Republican Congress. All three agreements asked for shared responsibility and shared sacrifice, but they largely protected the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and key investments in our future.

As a result of these bipartisan efforts, America’s finances were in great shape by the year 2000. We went from deficit to surplus. America was actually on track to becoming completely debt-free, and we were prepared for the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

Of course, that’s not what happened. And so, by the time I took office, we once again found ourselves deeply in debt and unprepared for a Baby Boom retirement that is now starting to take place. When I took office, our projected deficit was more than $1 trillion. On top of that, we faced a terrible financial crisis and a recession that, like most recessions, led us to temporarily borrow even more. In this case, we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing, and provided working families extra money in their pockets. It was the right thing to do, but these steps were expensive, and added to our deficits in the short term.

So that’s how our fiscal challenge was created. This is how we got here. And now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, Democrats and Republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility that served us so well in the 1990s. We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt. And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery, and protects the investments we need to grow, create jobs, and win the future.

Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, “Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?”

Here’s why. Even after our economy recovers, our government will still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. That means we’ll have to keep borrowing more from countries like China. And that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. By the end of this decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion. Just the interest payments.

Then, as the Baby Boomers start to retire and health care costs continue to rise, the situation will get even worse. By 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, Social Security, and the interest we owe on our debt. That’s it. Every other national priority – education, transportation, even national security – will have to be paid for with borrowed money.

Ultimately, all this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. It will prevent us from making the investments we need to win the future. We won’t be able to afford good schools, new research, or the repair of roads and bridges – all the things that will create new jobs and businesses here in America. Businesses will be less likely to invest and open up shop in a country that seems unwilling or unable to balance its books. And if our creditors start worrying that we may be unable to pay back our debts, it could drive up interest rates for everyone who borrows money – making it harder for businesses to expand and hire, or families to take out a mortgage.

The good news is, this doesn’t have to be our future. This doesn’t have to be the country we leave to our children. We can solve this problem. We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge before, and we can do it again.

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare. And without even looking at a poll, my finely honed political skills tell me that almost no one believes they should be paying higher taxes.

Because all this spending is popular with both Republicans and Democrats alike, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse –that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn’t require us to balance our budget overnight – in fact, economists think that with the economy just starting to grow again, we will need a phased-in approach – but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders in both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of the America we want to see five and ten and twenty years down the road.

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.

This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms. We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.

Today, I’m proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It’s an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.

So this is our vision for America – a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach. Some will argue we shouldn’t even consider raising taxes, even if only on the wealthiest Americans. It’s just an article of faith for them. I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without. That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

Others will say that we shouldn’t even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. I’m sympathetic to this view, which is one of the reasons I supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in December. It’s also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit – so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. But doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. Our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don’t begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order.

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken; that the choices are just too hard; that the parties are just too far apart. And after a few years in this job, I certainly have some sympathy for this view.

But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security for future generations. The first President Bush and a Democratic Congress came together to reduce the deficit. President Clinton and a Republican Congress battled each other ferociously and still found a way to balance the budget. In the last few months, both parties have come together to pass historic tax relief and spending cuts. And I know there are Republicans and Democrats in Congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

I believe we can and must come together again. This morning, I met with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress to discuss the approach I laid out today. And in early May, the Vice President will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit by the end of June.

I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum. And though I’m sure the criticism of what I’ve said here today will be fierce in some quarters, and my critique of the House Republican approach has been strong, Americans deserve and will demand that we all bridge our differences, and find common ground.

This larger debate we’re having, about the size and role of government, has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have.

But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we’ve always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. And we have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.

This sense of responsibility – to each other and to our country – this isn’t a partisan feeling. It isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism.

The other day I received a letter from a man in Florida. He started off by telling me he didn’t vote for me and he hasn’t always agreed with me. But even though he’s worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he said,

“I still believe. I believe in that great country that my grandfather told me about. I believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the ‘American Dream’ is still alive…

We need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to create and maintain…We as a people must do this together, no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.”

I still believe as well. And I know that if we can come together, and uphold our responsibilities to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, we will keep the dream of our founding alive in our time, and pass on to our children the country we believe in. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Read the rest of this post...

Will Obama find his inner FDR today?

(Please join us for a live chat during the President's budget address today beginning at 1:15pm Eastern. The speech itself will start around 1:35pm, we're told.)

We're at a cross-roads, obviously, as a nation. Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts, on the deficit "showdown" last week, and now, according to the Washington Post, will make a major speech today at 1:35PM Eastern on the deficit and Paul Ryan's "joke of a plan" (per Paul Krugman) in the face of GOP threats not to raise the debt ceiling unless they get all of their way.

This is actually a huge opportunity, says Rachel Maddow in the clip below. What the Republicans want is hugely unpopular. What will Obama do?  Will he find his inner "winner" and shoot the easy layup? Or will he "kick his base in the teeth" one more time and fold one more time?

Rachel sets the scene:



The choices are pretty clear:

▪ Tax cuts for millionaires. The Paul Ryan plan reduces the top marginal tax rate to 25%, forcing $2.9 billion in spending cuts over 10 years to achieve "balance". ("From your pocket to mine, sucker.")

You'll note that this is almost identical to what the Obama "Deficit" Commission recommended. That Wash Post article linked above says we may see this recommendation forwarded by Obama himself on Wednesday.

For what it's worth, Obama's "Deficit" Commission also wants to lower the nominal corporate tax rate, from 35% to 26%. That, of course, would increase GE's tax refund considerably. Lucky them. If Obama chooses this option, let's see if that sweet proposal comes up on Wednesday as well.

▪ Tax hikes for millionaires. Unlike the tax breaks mentioned above, tax hikes on millionaires are immensely popular — 81% of actual Americans favor this method of closing the deficit gap (1:10 in the clip).

This is actually doable. As John pointed out in this great post, all Obama has to do regarding the debt ceiling is to hand the decision to the GOP House and say "It's on you."

One way to do that would be simply to say:

"Look, I hate deficits, just like you do. My proposal is to raise revenues. Your proposal is to cut spending. So I'll give you two choices — my proposal, or we meet halfway. Halfway means a clean bill that raises the debt limit while we discuss it further. Period. Your call."

Even I could play that hand and win.

▪ Those pesky cultural riders. They are all over the map — kill EPA, kill PBS, kill safe drinking water (what, you can't buy bottles?), kill winter heat for old people, even kill wolves from helicopters. A lot of killing in those riders (literally).

So, what will Barack Obama do? Will he find his inner FDR? Or confirm his title as Mr. Surrender You Can Count On? That title is at risk of becoming his brand, at this point.

I do believe this is his absolute last chance with anything resembling his base (as opposed to his own paid retainers). A surrender here would guarantee his legacy as the "Democrat who killed the New Deal." His picture would go up in the Reagan Library.

I also think an Obama surrender here would tear the party apart (good news? who knows?). And it just might make our newest addition to the blog, Tom Wellington, the prescient Democrat who first publicly predicted Obama's defeat in 2012.

There's a lot riding on the debt limit deal, and the clock is ticking. Is Obama really Mr. Surrender You Can Count On? If so, the next two years will be a train wreck. Here's hoping for better.

GP

(By the way, if you'd like to read more about that 17% number, the percentage people opposed to tax hikes on millionaires, click the "Read More" link below.)

About that 17%, the people who oppose tax hikes on the rich. That looks like a good proxy for the ruling classes plus the retainer class — the professionals, the lawyers, the doctors, the yuppies, the corporate middle-men, the software engineers, the marketing managers — everyone who actually benefits from "trickle down". These are the people who make the system actually work, by doing the actual creating and administering.

That's also roughly the percentage of beneficiaries in a classic top-down agrarian economy, ancient Rome for example. Five main layers: (1) the ruler and his family; (2) the senators, knights and priests (barons and the like); (3) the retainers (administrators, bureaucrats, merchants, soldiers, who got land after their service, etc.); (4) the productive masses — the peasants, artisans, and slaves — who actually created the wealth; (5) the destitute.

Of these groups, the first three constitute about 15% of the population, and (with the exception of merchants) live off the wealth created by group four, the peasants, artisans and slaves (about 80% of everyone). The destitute (bottom 5%) are those rotting in the streets.

The goal of the system is to take as much as possible of the peasants' created wealth (via, yes, taxes) without rendering them unproductive and send it upward. (There's a great discussion of this in John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus, if you're interested. He has more groups, but the result is the same, as are the ratios.)

Anyway, that 17% is roughly your modern barons-plus-retainers class. Of course they don't want their taxes raised; or rather, most of them don't. Successful journalists are in that retainer group, by the way — Krugman, Taibbi, Ezra Klein, David Gregory, and so on. So is the guy who works 60-hour weeks traveling to China for Apple, making sure the wafer fabs are delivering quality chips. It's not all glory, what the retainers do, but it is well paid.

I don't use the phrase "retainer class" lightly. Without retainers, rulers are powerless. Saying "make it so" does nothing until Data pushes buttons on the console. Read the rest of this post...

If GOP blocks debt limit increase, another severe recession is the "best case scenario" per Nate Silver. Disaster for Ds and Rs.

In a post two days ago, Nate Silver did an excellent job laying out the consequences of not increasing the debt ceiling, but also explaining why the Republicans are bluffing when they say they won't vote to raise the debt limit. Interestingly, Nate says that McConnell in the Senate would like nothing better than to have the debt limit increase pass, but to have Dems be the only ones voting for it, that way the GOP can use it as an election issue (so they're not bluffing about voting against it, just bluffing about letting the debt ceiling increase fail).

Mr. McConnell is discouraging his colleagues from filibustering a vote to increase the federal debt limit because he knows that, if push came to shove, some of his colleagues would almost certainly have to vote yea. He’d rather it pass in a 51-vote environment, where all of the votes could come from Democrats, than in a 60-vote environment, where at least seven Republicans would have to agree to a cloture motion.

Although Mr. McConnell’s remarks were made privately, other prominent Republicans have said as much publicly (including Mr. Boehner, who has said that a failure to raise the debt limit would create a “financial disaster,” and the G.O.P.’s designated budget hawk, Paul Ryan, who has remarked that the debt ceiling must be raised and will be raised.)

That doesn’t sound like much of a negotiating position. How to reconcile it against comments from other Republicans, such as Eric Cantor, that the debt ceiling vote will provide Republicans with “leverage” to extract additional policy compromises from President Obama and the Democrats. The obvious answer is that Republicans are running a bluff.

If the Congress does not vote to increase the debt ceiling — a statutory provision that governs how many of its debts the Treasury is allowed to pay back (but not how many obligations the United States is allowed to incur in the first place) — then the Treasury will first undertake a series of what it terms “extraordinary actions” to buy time. The “extraordinary actions” are not actually all that extraordinary — at least some of them were undertaken prior to six of the seven debt ceiling votes between 1996 and 2007.

But once the Treasury exhausts this authority, the United States would default on its debt for the first time in its history, which could have consequences like the ones that Mr. Boehner has imagined: a severe global financial crisis (possibly larger in magnitude than the one the world began experiencing in 2007 and 2008), and a significant long-term increase in the United States’ borrowing costs, which could cost it its leadership position in the global economy. Another severe recession would probably be about the best-case scenario if that were to occur.

Read the rest of this post...

A drinking game for the Obama Grand Bargain speech

So our president, Barack Obama, is scheduled to deliver a major speech this afternoon. The Washington Post has a (sanctioned) preview:

Obama turns to his bipartisan deficit commission’s blueprint for reducing debt ... according to people briefed by the White House.

This is the Grand Bargain we've been hearing about. Obama's Deficit Commission never released an official report, so its chairmen, Erskine Bowles and Alan "310 Million Tits" Simpson, released a kind of "chairmen's draft" that serves the same function — put Obama's Grand Bargain on the table.

That report has three legs: (1) Spending cuts, including defense, Medicare and Social Security; (2) Tax increases, such as closing loopholes and ending popular exemptions; and (3) Tax breaks, big ones, for the very rich and for corporations.

But I'll bet my first-born that Obama will only mention the first two legs — spending cuts and tax increases. And that's the "Grand Bargain," spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. Here's how The Hill puts it:

Obama will talk about the need to keep domestic spending low, cut defense spending, reform Medicare and Medicaid and reform the tax code, according to a White House official.

So here's the drinking game. Every time Obama says:

Reform entitlements
Strengthen Social Security
Reform Medicare
Reform Medicaid

Nod wisely to show you're a Very Serious Person. Every time Obama says:

Raise revenues
Reform the tax code
Close loopholes
Reduce defense spending

Raise a glass of your beverage, down it, and say "Never gonna happen!"

And that's the Grand Bargain. You may need a pitcher; it could be a long two years.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Does Obama want "growing rebellion" from left to prove he really is a moderate?

First, we all know that the President is giving his major address on the debt and deficit today. The speech is scheduled for 1:35 PM ET and will be delivered from George Washington University, here in DC.

But, the political crew must be especially happy with the Washington Post today.

First, the above-the-fold headline in today's paper reads, "Obama risks losing liberals." This article lays bare a lot of the frustration from key progressive groups:

President Obama faces a growing rebellion on the left as he courts independent voters and Republicans with his vision for reducing the nation’s debt by cutting government spending and restraining the costs of federal health insurance programs.

Key liberal groups, which helped elect Obama in 2008, are raising concerns that he has given up political ground to Republicans, allowing the message of reducing government to trump that of creating jobs and lowering the unemployment rate.

This article isn't prominently featured on the Washington Post's often inpenetrable website. But, it's the headline that will be seen around DC today. (Yes, people in DC still have the Post delivered.)

Now, most of us view that as a bad sign. The base is very unhappy. But, I suspect there are many on Team Obama who welcome that message. The White House wants the Villagers (a.k.a. the Very Smart People) to think Obama has distanced himself from the dirty hippies on the left.

So, Dana Milbank's column was an extra bonus. The big revelation from one of the ultimate DC insiders:

Obama was born a moderate.

Out in Chicago, Jim Messina and David Axelrod are probably high-fiving.

Just wondering how all of this will translate into building enthusiasm in the Democratic base -- the people who are supposed to do the grunt work and donate the money to Obama's campaign. When they're done patting themselves on the back for redefining Obama as an anti-liberal moderate, Messina and Axelrod should read this article in today's Post, too:

Adam Barr was a die-hard Barack Obama supporter.

He leapt aboard the campaign in 2007, founding the group D.C. for Obama, which says it carpooled thousands of volunteers into Virginia for the crucial final stretch of the general election. He even worked briefly on Obama’s staff as a campaign field organizer.

D.C. for Obama had just scheduled its first meeting for later this month to kick off its 2012 reelection plans. But then came last week’s budget deal, with Obama negotiating away the District’s right to use its own money to fund abortions for poor women.

Now, Barr, 29, has put the meeting on hold. And D.C. for Obama has turned its attention to a new and rather awkward cause: criticizing Obama.

Last week, Obama announced his reelection campaign. Today's speech at GW is basically his first major address of the 2012 campaign. We'll get a very clear sense of what direction Obama take for the next nineteen months -- and a clearer sense of what he stands for. A lot of people who should be on Obama's side are worried. Read the rest of this post...

Video of an entire plane trip from SF to Paris, condensed into 2 minutes

Chris is out this week wheeling and dealing with Old Europe, so here's a cool video that has nothing to do with politics.


SF to Paris in Two Minutes from Beep Show on Vimeo. Read the rest of this post...