NBC: "A deal has been struck to avoid a shutdown"

UPDATE @ 11:58 PM: Wash Post on deal:

Democrats had wanted to cut billions less. They assented to the larger figure, and in return Republicans dropped a demand to take federal funds from the group Planned Parenthood, according to aides in both parties.

However, Republicans did win the inclusion of a policy rider that forbids public money from going toward abortion procedures in the District of Columbia, a restriction that had previously been enacted when Republicans held power in federal Washington.

The cuts, if enacted, would add up to the largest budget reduction for federal agencies in U.S. history. Some conservative Republicans had pushed for much more, and grumbled about the compromise Friday.

But this was still a compromise made on their terms — and a sign of their power. Inside a few months, an ascendant Republican Party has managed to impose its small-government agenda in a town still largely controlled by Democrats.

Surprise surprise. They control one (House), we control two (Senate and presidency), and we act like they control all three.

UPDATE from JOHN @ 11:38PM: And Twitter reacts:

@ezraklein: The resolution includes rider prohibiting dc from using own $ to help women access abortions. So pp escaped, but dc didn't.

@chrislhayes: Wow. This is bizarro world. LET'S JUST KEEP CUTTING! LET'S CUT IT ALL! LET'S SEE WHAT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THINKS ABOUT IT!

@ezraklein: Shorter dems: these cuts we've been resisting and denouncing for months are historic and we're proud to be passing so many of them.

@ezraklein: Listening to this speech, you'd think Obama was the one arguing for larger cuts.

@ezraklein: Boehner's the political winner here. Managed his caucus. Got dems to agree to more than expected. Averted a shutdown. He was very effective.

@MSignorile: It all went exactly according to GOP plan: Demand super super extreme agenda, then settle for merely super extreme agenda.

@marcambinder: Boehner may have caved, but Obama and Reid are now celebrating a budget they roundly trashed months ago.

@mbrownerhamlin: RT @davecatanese: So did Obama just take credit for the "largest annual spending cut in our history"?

@brianbeutler: RT @speechboy71 Obama bragging about largest annual spending cut in history is maybe lowest moment of his presidency

@SamSeder: Millions of Americans asking how long after the start of austerity until the confidence fairies make them rich!

@DavidCornDC: If spending cuts are good/historic--per Obama & Reid tonight--why not have more? Can Ds escape this simplistic take-away? What's the pivot?

@fshakir: On senate floor, harry reid thanks u.s. chamber's tom donahue by name for making budget deal happen.

@ddayen: It'll be fun when job growth reverses over next few months, and GOP blame it on not cutting spending enough, and Dems go grumble grumble

@JC_Christian: rt @speechboy71 At a time of 9% unemployment both parties are working together not to create jobs but to reduce spending & cut econ growth

@GloriaFeldt: RT @blogdiva: the abused wife syndrome befits the Democrats

UPDATE @ 11:06 PM: Obama spoke from the Blue Room so he could have the Washington Monument as a backdrop -- because it's open tomorrow, after all. The President said the budget makes "the largest annual spending cut in our history." He seemed quite proud of that. And, he also said, "we protected the investments we need to win the future." This was a "debate about spending cuts." Exactly...Obama let the debate play out on the GOP's terms. He also mentioned how he "was able to sign a tax cut for American families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground." (I remember that differently. I remember Obama caving on the Bush tax cuts, which blew a much bigger hole in the deficit, which led to the need for these spending cuts...but, that's just my recollection.) Sounds like the GOPers got most of what they wanted -- again.
______________

UPDATE @ 10:58 PM: Yep, Boehner just spoke, briefly, to announce that there's a deal. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes reported the spending cuts total $39 billion with no rider on Planned Parenthood. The House will vote tonight on a short-term continuing resolution for several days, a "bridge" is what Boehner called it. That will keep the government functioning until the House and Senate vote on the final package will sometime next week.
______________

On MSNBC, Chris Hayes just reported that "A GOP source tells NBC News a deal has been struck to avoid a shutdown. Republicans reportedly have agreed to a five or six day stopgap spending measure."

Everyone in the media is waiting for Boehner to appear at a news conference after meeting with his GOP caucus. Read the rest of this post...

Sasha vs. her first house fly (sadly, the fly won)

Watch to the end.

Read the rest of this post...

Outline of a budget deal emerges (maybe)

From National Journal:

Numerous GOP and Democratic sources on and off Capitol Hill tell National Journal that the outline of the deal is as follows: up to $39 billion in cuts from the 2010 budget, $514 billion in spending for the defense budget covering the remainder of this fiscal year, a GOP agreement to abandon controversial policy riders dealing with Planned Parenthood and the EPA, and an agreement to pass a “bridge” continuing resolution late Friday night to keep the government operating while the deal is written in bill form.

As many have already said, it totally depends what's being cut. Not to mention, we're still in a teetering economy. Why is the government cutting demand in this kind of economy? (Other than to hurt Obama's re-elect by ensuring the recovery stalls.) It's a tad crazy, if you ask any sane economist. As Ezra Klein just reminded us in a tweet:

Estimates of 2011 job losses from $60b in cuts ran from 200,000 to 700,000. $39b in cuts would mean about 120,000 to 450,000 jobs lost.

It will be interesting to see what we actually "won" in this negotiation. (It will also be interesting to see how many jobs CBO says the Democrats just agreed to kill in the interests of not having to explain to the American people that spending is actually good in a weak economy.) And getting them to give up bad things they were going to do is not winning. That's the old hostage-takers game we played in December - so long as they let go some of the hostages, we'll cave on their other demands.

More from National Journal:

Democrats appear to have accepted an increased level of cuts in exchange for the GOP dropping the rider.

Glad we didn't reward them for trying to hurt women.  Kind of like paying Bristol Palin $262,000 for getting pregnant out of wedlock. It's hardly a disincentive for next time. As Sam Stein just tweeted:

Who could possibly have predicted a deal where the dems concede cuts and the GOP concedes on riders. It's amazing they figured this out. 

 So in essence, The Rs asked for twice as much and got half of it.  What did we ask for?  What did we get?

Read the rest of this post...

Authorities release 911 tape of Pawlenty staffer breaking into Iowa family's home

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Drunk Tim Pawlenty for President staffer trying to break into your house to terrorize your teenage daughter.

And now it's all on tape. Read the rest of this post...

Bill Cosby on Donald Trump: "Only thing that's running is his mouth"

Bill Cosby's had it with Donald Trump and he let it be known on "Today" with Meredith Veira:

Cosby was on the show to discuss education, but his segment was following Vieira's interview with Trump about his presidential aspirations. Besides the buckets of controversy Trump has caused with his descent into birtherism, he has also been very cagey about his presidential aspirations. This clearly rankled Cosby, and when Vieira happened to mention Trump's name, he cut in.

Oh please with Donald Trump," he said. "Take him home with you."

"Now why do you say that?" Vieira said. "Because he's full of it," Cosby responded. There was at least a three-second silence--an eternity in television. Then, Vieira softly asked, "based on what?"

"Based on what I just heard," Cosby said, castigating Trump for not announcing his intentions. "You run, or shut up...but the only thing he's running is his mouth."

"Well, on that note, Bill Cosby..we'll see if he runs," Vieira said, somewhat awkwardly. "I don't care!" Cosby said.

Matt Ortega over at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right's Field has the video. Read the rest of this post...

Taibbi on the Paul Ryan budget: "Having balls is not the same as having courage"

Paul Krugman has been writing about the Paul Ryan deficit reduction "plan" — for example, here and here — but I like Matt Taibbi's take. The prose is full-Taibbi, as you'll see shortly; but the analysis is also dead on.

Here's his open (my emphasis):

Paul Ryan, the Republican Party’s latest entrant in the seemingly endless series of young, prickish, over-coiffed, anal-retentive deficit Robespierres they’ve sent to the political center stage in the last decade or so, has come out with his new budget plan. All of these smug little jerks look alike to me – from Ralph Reed to Eric Cantor to Jeb Hensarling to Rand Paul and now to Ryan, they all look like overgrown kids who got nipple-twisted in the halls in high school, worked as Applebee’s shift managers in college, and are now taking revenge on the world as grownups by defunding hospice care and student loans and Sesame Street. They all look like they sleep with their ties on, and keep their feet in dress socks when doing their bi-monthly duty with their wives.

Every few years or so, the Republicans trot out one of these little whippersnappers, who offer proposals to hack away at the federal budget. Each successive whippersnapper inevitably tries, rhetorically, to out-mean the previous one, and their proposals are inevitably couched as the boldest and most ambitious deficit-reduction plans ever seen. Each time, we are told that these plans mark the end of the budgetary reign of terror long ago imposed by the entitlement system begun by FDR and furthered by LBJ.

Never mind that each time the Republicans actually come into power, federal deficit spending explodes and these whippersnappers somehow never get around to touching Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. ... The reason for this is always the same: the Republicans, quite smartly, recognize that there is great political hay to be made in the appearance of deficit reduction, and that white middle class voters will respond with overwhelming enthusiasm to any call for reductions in the “welfare state,” a term which said voters will instantly associate with black welfare moms and Mexicans sneaking over the border to visit American emergency rooms.

As Taibbi points out, the problem is that once you start hacking at the remains of the welfare state, you start hacking at white people, especially older Republican white people. Which is why Medicare destruction is never going to happen. This is just pre-election tough talk for the cameras — and explains why they always choose telegenic "pod jobs" like Ryan (Taibbi from another context) to smear the goo. That anal-retentive Republican peas-in-a-pod look is no accident — it's the point.

Paul Ryan, like all the telegenic clones before him, is a salesman and no more, a front-runner for the eventual nominee. He's John the Baptist in a suit. Punishing Browns is the product he's hawking, the drug he's pushing. His looks and the orchestrated media praise around him are all part of an well-scripted ad campaign, and I'd bet money that millions were spent on it. I'd almost bet there was a casting call.

Rachel Maddow has been saying for a while, "It's not about the budget." How do you know? Taibbi again:

Ryan’s proposal also includes dropping the top tax rate for rich people from 35 percent to 25 percent. All by itself, that one change means that the government would be collecting over $4 trillion less over the next ten years.

Recognize that number, 25%? That's just slightly higher than the top tax rate suggested by Obama's Deficit Commission. They wanted 23%. See? Ryan looks almost generous by comparison. Taibbi's conclusion, his last two paragraphs, make an excellent bottom line. I'll tease you with just a part:

Ryan’s gambit, ultimately, is all about trying to get middle-class voters to swallow paying for tax cuts for rich people. It takes chutzpah to try such a thing, but having a lot of balls is not the same as having courage.

Looking at politics as a series of ad campaigns — cynical, scripted, coordinated, professional, and expensive — allows you to see below the skin of the world and into its inner workings. The ad campaign is not a metaphor; it's a description.

GP Read the rest of this post...

"Could shutdown fight persuade Obama and Dems to be more confrontational?" Uh, no.

I gave up on the old dogs learning new tricks shortly after the health care reform fiasco in which "victory" was defined as getting 1/10th of what we could have gotten had the President and Dems in Congress actually fought for what they claimed they believed in.

From Greg Sargent:

It has been pointed out a million times that when the government shut down in 1995, Clinton emerged the winner, while Newt and the GOP took a shellacking. But what isn’t discussed at all is why the shutdown was a winner for Dems and a loser for Republicans — and the history has a real bearing on today’s debate.

Specifically, Clinton emerged the winner in that fight over time, because it persuaded him to move away from a strategy of triangulation, and towards confrontation — and it was only after this shift that the public began seeing Clinton as a strong leader. Notably, in another fascinating parallel to the current moment, Clinton’s public esteem grew because he also became more confrontational over Medicare.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton. For whatever reason, Obama abhors a fight. It's something in his character. I'd consider it a flaw. But it's there. He doesn't like fighting, doesn't believe in fighting. He's a political pacifist, hoping that flashing his opponents a daisy and a peace sign will ultimately win the day.

Our less charitable readers think it's something far worse - that Obama actually agrees with the Republicans. I don't think so. I'm not entirely sure what the President believes in, if anything. I suspect he has opinions. It's difficult for someone intelligent and educated not to at least have an opinion. But the issue is how wedded he is to what he believes (not very, I suspect), and what he thinks is the best way to proceed when he has a disagreement (as in a negotiation) with someone.

If you aren't really wedded to your views, and don't really believe in the merits of fighting (and even perhaps find the entire notion of fighting "dirty" and beneath you), then you're going to lose a lot of fights.

Of course the beauty of Obama's approach is that he may be such a political peacenik that any battle he can avoid, regardless of the cost, is to him a victory. The goal of the fight, I fear, is to avoid a fight at all costs. So if he does, he's won. Read the rest of this post...

Feisty Dem women Senators fight back against GOP on budget showdown

Read the rest of this post...

What Planned Parenthood actually does

Hint: Not that many abortions.

Now let's look at what the Republicans are really targeting in their effort to shut down the federal government unless we let them "defund Planned Parenthood." Here is what Planned Parenthood does with the Title X money the Republicans want to cut.

Title X funds services essential for the health of women and their families.

The Title X program provides comprehensive family planning services that include a broad range of contraceptive methods and related counseling. The official program guidelines also require health care providers that receive this funding to offer a wide range of other preventive health care services that are critical to their clients’ sexual and reproductive health (Gold, 2001). These include:

• pelvic exams and pap tests (early warning about cervical cancer)
• breast exams and instruction on breast self-examinations
• testing for high blood pressure, anemia, and diabetes
• screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections
• safer-sex counseling
• basic infertility screening
• referrals to specialized health care (Gold, 2001).

By law, no Title X funds have ever been spent on abortion (Sollom et al., 1996). The family planning regulations require that women who face unintended pregnancies be given nondirective counseling on all of their legal and medical options (Federal Register, 2000).

Title X Recipients

Title X serves more than four million people a yearwho might otherwise be unable to afford family planning.

This is what the Republicans are having a heart attack over. This is what the Republicans find so obscene. Pap smears. Pelvic exams. Breast exams. And remember, this isn't just ome blithe effort to reduce the deficit. The Republicans are, and have been, on a jihad for years to kill this money. And they're pretending it's all about abortion, when not a dime of it is about abortion.

What's particularly sick is that, yet again, we're seeing a case of the Republicans lying about the facts in order to further a large far-right agenda.  In this case, defunding Planned Parenthood because the religious right doesn't like PPFA.  To hell with the women Planned Parenthood helps around the country (and around the world).

Yet, oddly, our government is still funding religious right extremist groups with federal money, through the office of Faith Based Initiatives, no less.  Why is that still happening, why is abstinence only education still being funded, when the GOP is going nuts over Planned Parenthood? Read the rest of this post...

Your Democratic Party in action: The Republicans "won't take YES for an answer" so we offer them even more

While it's nice to see Congressional Democrats united and on-message these days, sadly, it's the wrong message. Twice in the first 15 minutes of a recent Lawrence O'Donnell program, one or another of the spokes-Dems said this: "The Republicans won't take Yes for an answer."

There are rude ways to say what that means, but I won't spell it out for you. Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

Here's Claire McCaskill — our Blue-dog friend — bragging to O'Donnell about her surrender, and then whining that going too far still wasn't far enough.



McCaskill: "I've been somebody who's pushed my caucus for more cuts ... As it turns out, they won't take Yes for an answer." Harry Reid was using just those words as well.

Dems, is that really the PR consultant-scripted, focus-group tested, White House-approved message that you want to be sending? That you're so pathetically weak, the other side won't even accept your complete surrender? Are you sure about that?

Your Democratic Party in action, ladies and gentlemen. Here till you can't take it any more.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Study: Liberal brains bigger in areas dealing with complexity, conservative brains bigger in area of fear

Want to know what's driving the budget debate?

Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear, said the study on Thursday in Current Biology.

People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.

Liberals are linked to larger anterior cingulate cortexes, a region that "monitor(s) uncertainty and conflicts," it said.

"Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views."

And you'd think a fear-based brain would be less evolutionarily advanced, since when we lived like animals fear probably would be the most important life-preserving mechanism. Not so helpful in modern society. Read the rest of this post...

15 hours to go til shutdown, still no deal.

Still no deal. They're still talking. There's another White House meeting this morningBut, with 15 hours to go, the government is heading to a shutdown.

The latest update came from Steny Hoyer, who appeared on the TODAY Show earlier this morning. From The Hill:

No agreement on a spending deal that would avert a federal shutdown has been reached, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Friday.

"There's no deal yet," the House’s No. 2 Democrat told NBC's "Today" show.

Negotiators for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) worked into the early morning hours Friday to reach a deal on a plan that would keep the federal government running past midnight, when its spending authority expires.

But those talks have failed to yield a deal, meaning Boehner and Reid are likely headed back to the White House on Friday for another negotiating session with President Obama.

The other key meeting takes place at noon. That's when Speaker Boehner will get his marching orders from the teabgaggers in the GOP Caucus. They are Boehner's puppetmasters. From the Washington Post:

In what could be a critical meeting, House Republicans will gather in a room in the Capitol basement room at noon - precisely 12 hours before the shutdown deadline. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) and other GOP leaders are expected to brief reporters after that session.

It's amazing how much havoc they're willing to create for this country. Stunning, actually. Read the rest of this post...

The anti-regulation JPMorgan CEO pocketed $23 million last year

Wall Street received their annual bonus money in the first quarter, so the numbers are fresh in their minds. Maybe that's why he's been complaining so much about regulation, even going as far as to say that it would "damage America." The only "damage" will be to his take home pay and 51% pay increase. Take a guess why Jamie Dimon hates regulation?

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) gave Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon a 51 percent raise in 2010 as the bank resumed paying cash bonuses following two years of pressure from regulators and lawmakers to curb compensation.

Dimon’s $23 million compensation package makes him the highest-paid chief executive among the top six U.S. banks since 2007, according to the banks’ proxy statements. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) CEO Lloyd Blankfein, 56, received the next-highest payout for 2010 at $19 million, followed by Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) head John Stumpf, 57, at $17.5 million.

Read the rest of this post...

Gates says US will stay in Iraq longer

The never-ending war machine. If Congress is going to cut the budget for everyone at home, why can we find the budget to continue this? Gates has to like the budget war at home, so Iraq mostly stays out of the press and out of mind for most Americans. BBC News:

US troops could if required by Iraq stay in the country beyond the agreed withdrawal date of 31 December, 2011, the US defence secretary has said.

Robert Gates, who is visiting Iraq, says an extended military presence is an option.

"If folks here are going to want us to have a presence, we're going to need to get on with it pretty quickly in terms of our planning," he said.

A large number of the 50,000 US troops in Iraq are due to leave in the summer.

Read the rest of this post...

Jobs lagging in UK following austerity

There's a problem that will continue for a while. If the GOP gets their way, we're going to see the same problem in the US as well. The Independent:

Hays, the recruitment giant, yesterday unveiled booming job activity in all its markets around the world, except Britain and Ireland.

The employment consultant enjoyed strong growth in Continental Europe, South America and Asia in the first three months of 2010 as recruitment rebounded after the global recession. Hays hired more consultants in those markets to cope with demand.

Net fees rose by more than 20 per cent in 21 countries and markets such as Spain, Austria, the Netherlands and Poland boosted fees by at least 40 per cent.

Read the rest of this post...