President Obama's Weekly Address - July 28, 2012

The House of Representatives Must Act on Middle Class Tax Cut Extension

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 14, 2012

It’s Time for Congress to Pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Extension

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 31, 2012

Passing the Buffett Rule So That Everyone Pays Their Fair Share

Politifact Can't Be Trusted

This is so disappointing. I was a regular reader of Politifact and linked to them on many occasions as a reference in previous posts. But no longer. Something happened between their inception and the present day that has caused them to skew their fact checking - you can call it opinion management - to avoid the dreaded "liberal bias" label.

Here is a fact, perfectly stated by President Obama in his State of the Union Address last night:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.

Those are the numbers. Plain and simple. But for some unfathomable reason, Politifact originally labeled this statement as "Half-True" then upgraded it to "Mostly-True." And for what reason? After all, it's a simple statement. It's either true or it's false. How can it possibly be half-true? I'll let Paul Krugman explain:

...Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage.

...fact-checking should be about checking facts — not about trying to impose some sort of Marquess of Queensbury rules on how you’re allowed to use facts. Aside from undermining the mission, this makes the whole thing subjective — notice that Politifact wasn’t even analyzing what Obama said, they were analyzing their impression about what he might have been trying to imply.

... in practice this turns into a partisan affair. The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan. If it just stuck to the facts, it could say look, we’re just reporting the facts. But having defined its role as something that goes beyond checking facts to saying whether the facts are being used in some “proper” way, it then finds itself under pressure to be “even-handed”, which ends up meaning making excuses for Republican falsehoods and finding ways to criticize Democratic true statements.

Combine this ridiculousness with their 2011 Lie of the Year, and Politifact is Politi-shit. They are supposed to be objective arbiters of statements and they are either true or false. But they've decided to be subjective and my only conclusion is because they're afraid of being labeled a left leaning organization because Republicans are less truthful.

Just in the latest debate Newt Gingrich was asked the following:

Moderator: You've talked about the millions of jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts. If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the Bush tax cuts work?

Here is the beginning of Newt's answer. Hold on to your seats:

Well, the Bush tax cuts, I think in a period of great difficulty, with the attack of 9/11, actually stopped us from going into a much deeper slump. I think we would have been in much, much worse shape, and I think most economists agree, that in 2002 and '03 and '04 we'd have been in much worse shape without the Bush tax cuts.

What. The. Fuck.

Newt Gingrich actually said the Bush tax cuts, that added a $1.8 trillion to our national debt, stopped us from going into a deeper slump?! I'd like to have a list of "most economists" to which Newt referred. What planet does this motherfucker live on? I'll tell you where - he lives on the planet where people get million dollar credit accounts from jewelry stores and make millions by being the consummate Washington insider.

And how did Politifact rate that whopper of a statement? It wasn't worth mentioning. But a completely truthful statement was rated at best "mostly true" for fear of appearing left leaning.

I rate Politifact's objectivity, Pants on Fire.

A story

POSTED BY JHW22

He was a happy guy. Not much bothered him, mostly because not much made sense to him. He didn't let details drag him down and he was more than happy to let others make decisions for him. His outlook on life boiled down to not sweating the little stuff, and by God, he was going to apply that to every aspect of his life.

In 2001, he started a new job. It was a pretty big job with a pretty big company. He enjoyed the job, worked with most of his friends and had all he could need. Life was grand. He enjoyed his job so much, that a handful of months after starting the job, he went to his boss and said, "Ya know, I really don't need one-thousand dollars a month for my salary. Why don't ya just pay me nine hundred a month. I have all I need and you could spend that better than I could." His boss was confused. No one had asked for a pay decrease. His boss encouraged him to re-think things, "You may not need this one hundred now, I know you have a good chunk in savings, but don't you have some repairs on your house or someone in your family who needs some help with medical bills or education?"

But the man, in his typical easy-going self said, "Nope. It's all good. I don't need more than what it takes to get by day to day. Keep it. Enjoy it."

So instead of $1000 a month, the man made $900 a month. And he was happy. His boss was happy to have a little extra in his pocket, but still felt a tad uneasy.

Then, several months later, a horrible thing happened. Violence like he'd never seen took place within his life and it shook him to the core -- emotionally, structurally, financially. Not only did this event cost lives and physical losses, it created a financial burden on him.

He had new expenses associated with the tragedy. And for the first time, he wasn't happy. He was shocked and sad and ANGRY. He wanted revenge and decided to go after the people who perpetrated the violence. And that cost money. But because he was living month to month, after asking for a pay decrease, money was tight.

But he was still angry and not finding the perp so decided to take out his anger on another person. This other person was a real asshole, to be sure, but was an empty target of the man's rage. And acting on his rage cost the man even more. More that he didn't have, after asking for the pay decrease.

His boss went to him and begged him to take a pay increase, "You need this money to fight your battles. Take it, please. Your family needs to you have this money." But the man declined.

Then the man remembered his boss once asking if someone in his family needed help with health care. Yes, he did have a grandmother who was having a hard time paying for prescriptions, so he decided to start paying for her medicine, at full cost. Again, he didn't have the money for it. And again, his boss offered -- and was rebuffed -- a raise.

All of this added up and he had no choice to charge these expenses to his credit card. He was only able to make the minimum payments each month, so his interest was stacking and piling and mounting.

In the meantime, he sent out generous Christmas gifts to friends and family, trying to cover his financial stress with gifts.

And then his bank was robbed and all the money he had access to, and his bosses money, was stolen. It was going to take time to recoup the money, so for a short time, he wasn't going to get paid. This created a financial disaster he never saw coming. His mortgage was due and he couldn't pay it. His credit card bill was due and he couldn't pay it. His boss came to him and said, "Some of my wealthy investors have cash-on-hand and I could ask them to help fund a raise for you." Again, the man said no.

He was so upset. So frazzled and unsure of what to do. So he went for a long drive to clear his mind. He wasn't happy anymore, he was feeling so low that he just couldn't figure out how to resolve the situation. And his damn boss wouldn't stop bugging him about a raise. He started thinking about his boss and got so angry that his boss would dare question his finances and try to give him a hand-out. The rage grew and the next thing he knew, his uninsured car was wrapped around a tree. He felt severe pain in both legs and arms. They were all broken.

A passer-by found him and called 911. An ambulance came for him and took him to the nearest hospital.

Not only did he not have car insurance, he didn't have health insurance. The car repair and medical bills were going to hurt as much as the four broken limbs.

His injuries required immediate surgery and a wonderful doctor, a patient and wise man, operated quickly and with the best information he had at the time. It would take a few days to know if there were any unseen injuries and infections. But the doctor stayed by the man's side, watching closely, thinking about six months out, one year out, ten years out. He knew the injuries would take years to fully heal. There would be financial, emotional and physical burdens on the man. But, for the man to recover and get back to work, the doctor had to prescribe therapy and pain medication. And, possibly, more surgeries.

And all of that cost money.

When it came time to pay the bills, the man grew furious with the kind doctor. He refused to pay the bills and ranted and raved to his boss about the greedy doctor who wasted and spent on frivolous surgeries and therapies. The man didn't think it was HIS fault or responsibility that the doctor chose the procedures he chose. And now that doctor was wanting to recoup his payment.

The man's boss told the man, "But the doctor was saving you from yourself. Why can't you just accept a raise and take care of all that YOU chose to spend? Your choices led you here. Your choices have created interest on debts that were unnecessary debts. I offered you ways to fund all the things you wanted but you refused. And now you are angrier at the doctor than you are at yourself? This isn't right."

But the man refused to listen. He refused to accept personal responsibility. He refused to acknowledge that his choices, all along, led him to this place and only he could have made choices differently.

And instead of taking the time to reflect and find ways to make amends, and still refusing to accept a salary increase, the man sat down in front of the T.V. and had a cup of tea.

And still he sits.

Bachmann's Birther Weasel Words

I suppose George Stephanopoulos is mad as hell and he's not gonna take it anymore when it comes to prominent Republicans and their birther bullshit. On Sunday, Stephanopoulos took on Hair Combover for Men President Donald Trump, and this morning his guest was Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann, who took time out of her schedule receiving "messages from the Mothership" to answer some questions. While she basically blames President Obama for the extension of the Bush tax cuts, conveniently forgetting that the GOP used unemployment insurance extensions and payroll tax cuts as hostages, she's also questioned about the never ending birther nonsense that they won't let go.



Yes, she's congenial in her answers but for me, it wasn't good enough. They can't step away from the "I'll take the president at his word" talking point which casts just enough doubt in the minds of conspiracy theorists. And while she agrees with Stephanopoulos that it's a dead issue and there are more important things to worry about, she struggles to hold on to it with her fingernails by suggesting Obama "introduce" his documents. "Introduce" as in "to make known for the first time." She says it twice.

MB: "... I have no problem giving my birth certificate, it wouldn't bother me at all. I've got one, its authenticated, take it." 

GS: "Well, but so does the president. According to the bill 'a candidate for president or vice president shall attach to and file with the affidavit a copy of the candidate's birth certificate certified by the appropriate official in the candidate's state of birth.'" 

MB: "That's right." 

GS: "Well I have the president's certificate right here. It's certified, it's got a certification number, it's got the registrar of the state, signed. It's got a seal on it. And it says: 'This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.'" 

MB: "Well, then that should settle it. That's what should settle it. I take the president at his word and I think -- again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn't, either. Introduce that, we're done. Move on, end of story." 

GS: "Well it has been introduced. So this case - this story's over." 

MB: "Well as long as someone introduces it, I guess it's over." 

GS: "It's right here." 

MB: "There ya go."

Clinging to the tiniest shred of doubt, still talking as if this hasn't been dealt with for the last three years, she still uses the present tense, "as long as someone introduces it..." So, sorry Michele Bachmann, no credit. Those are weasel words.

I used to think Michele Bachmann was just dumb. Now I think she's diabolically duplicitous. She'll say anything she needs to in front of whatever audience to gain acceptance. Don't be surprised if she casts doubt on what she just said today, and flip-flops tomorrow back at her Fox News home base.

Boehner: Listening To The American People?

All we heard from Speaker of the House-Elect Foster Brooks after the election was how they were going to "listen to the American people" and "do the people's work."

Well, listen up, Boehner:

According to a new CBS News poll... 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals... Another 14 percent of Americans say the cuts should expire for all Americans.

That's a total of 67% who'd rather have the tax cuts expire for the top 2% of income earners. What do you say, Boehner? How about you, Mitch "Mr. Limpet" McConnell? Are you going to listen to the American people as you've repeated ad nauseam and extend the Bush tax cuts only for those under the $250,000 threshold?

$250,000

POSTED BY JHW22

I heard someone, maybe Chris Hayes, ask someone, maybe Kent Conrad, something like "Why is $250,000 the limit on the Bush tax cut extensions?" Jeez, why haven't we asked that question before? Why have Democrats drawn the line in the sand (ugh, I hate when talking points seep into my writing but sometimes it's the best phrase) at $250,000?

Isn't the tax cut extension to those who make less than $250,000 going to add to the deficit? Yes.

Why is it OK to add to the deficit for those making less than $250,000? Because someone, somewhere decided that $250,000 tops the middle class. Why?

Let's look at this regionally:

Teachers in Texas make about $40,000. Teachers in New Jersey make about $60,000. Houses in Texas are about $200,000 yet houses in New Jersey are about $400,000. An income of $250,000 means something different in Texas than it means in New Jersey.

So why $250,000?

The median family income in 2007 was $50,000. So why don't we say middle class stops at $100,000?

The question is, why are so many saying Obama is caving when they don't even know why he's supposed to be committed to a magic dollar amount? If someone can show me why that number is the magic number and show me why I should commit my heart and soul to fighting for that number, then I will. But if I am just supposed to stomp my foot because someone told me that number is worship-worthy, then fuck that shit.

Answer to an excellent question

POSTED BY JHW22

In the comments of the previous post, one of our loyal readers, Vic, asked a question of Broadway Carl and me. How do we feel about the federal pay freeze? Rather than answering in a comment, I figured I'd make it a post. I'm feeling rather long-winded today and it's a point that deserves more discussion than I could provide in a comment. And I am over-due for a post anyway.

I am very supportive of Pres O, but I admit that there are moments when the doubting arguments start to make a dent - like today. What do you and Jennifer make of his salary freeze announcement? The perception that he always caves before he needs to is starting to get to me.

Vic used a key word, "perception". It is exactly THAT -- a perception. One of my consistent beefs is with the distortion of, selection of and analysis of the administration by our media. THEY decide what we know. THEY decide what details we receive. THEY decide what tone to set. THEY decide OUR moods. But honestly, none of us know how Obama got to the salary freeze decision. Because it was a surprise to us does not mean that it wasn't without a fight.

I understand the frustration people feel but I disagree with the premise that he caves before he tries. We have no clue what or with whom or for how long or how he discusses any issue. Just as he says he needs to get out of the fishbowl that is Washington, we need to realize that we are not looking into a fish bowl and seeing all there is to see. However, we are told to believe he just jumps without thinking or fighting. Why? Why do we continually go where we are led by the very people we criticize repeatedly for being, as Palin correctly states, "lame"? What about Obama in his speeches, in his politicking, suggests that the perception is the reality? Why don't WE do a better job demanding that the two match? Instead we allow the perception to become the accepted stance and then we fight against it. In many ways, we create our own enemies out of thin air. We waste energy and resources punching shadows instead of stopping and thinking and trying to grasp why decisions are made.

We aren't in the room, on the phone or at the other end of the Presidential Blackberry. WE don't know when he goes to the wall or when he realizes that flexibility is key to progress.

Secondly, Obama wasn't really a fighter in the campaign. I don't know how many times Dems would say, "I wish he'd....". We've done it to him since day one. Often I hear "We want the campaigner" back as if that Obama were a different person. He hasn't changed. His job has changed. I've always said that a campaign is a wedding but being President is the marriage. Weddings are about the drama and excitement, the memories and good vibes. But everyone who is married, or in a long-term relationship, hell, even a friendship, knows that the wedding ends when the bride and groom drive off with cans strung to their bumper.

When my husband and I were first married, we fought all the time and the fights may have appeared to be about stupid things but they were always about one thing at the root of it all: communication. And it's with persistence and bending and listening and changing that a marriage progresses into a relationship that makes both people feel involved and active and stable.

The problem is that we can't communicate with Obama in any direct way. A speech is one-sided. A press conference doesn't necessarily address our specific questions. We can't get in deep to understand and share with the very person we want to hold accountable for every decision made. It's truly not fair. We demand so much of a President but have no way of communicating with him. Instead, we rely on the media to do it for us and we get frustrated at him when the messenger tells us to.

Now the Republicans are threatening to block all legislation unless the Democrats add to the deficit by extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. It's hypocrisy in so many damn ways. We all know that. But what is the best way of dealing with them? Is being equally stubborn the answer?

The Democrats didn't care about the deficit much more than being able to call hypocrisy on the Republicans before. We don't care if we add to it if it creates stimulus. But by goddess we won't add to it if it benefits the wealthy!

Well, here's the deal. We need to be grown-ups. Do I want us to add to the deficit? NO. I have been one of the Democrats who wants to pay it down so we can free ourselves from debt to places like, oh, China. But do I think there is no solution other than black and white? No. I am realistic. There are options. We are as bad as the Republicans when we say "we won't compromise". Hell, that's what the Republicans said in their letter. We know that Murkowski said she would vote to repeal DADT because it's the right thing to do. But now she'd block it because she wants to play a game of extortion?

Do I like extortion? No. That's why I also don't like blanket statements like "Tell Obama not to compromise" especially when followed by some vague threat of primarying him with someone "more liberal".

WE MUST COMPROMISE. But compromise is a bad word these days. So from now on I'll just call it what it is: being a grown up. Progress is working toward a goal. It isn't being a stubborn ass (pun intended) refusing to climb a mountain. Progress is being the bigger person and seeing that giving an inch gains a mile. Who gives a fuck about the inch when we have a mile?!

Priorities and perspective. We need them. We also need to step back from our knee-jerk emotional responses and see that big picture our President is always seeing and trying to show us. It's on us to stop demanding specifics and start thinking about what is more important: the result or how we get it. I want results and we are getting them from President Obama. How we get them is water under the bridge.

Back to the initial point about the salary freezes, the best I can articulate it is this: we have been creating private sector jobs. We have been losing public sector jobs. I would rather we freeze salaries than lay people off. And yes, some workers will be frozen at a pay that is too low already. But that is better than being without a job or having to get a similar paying job with zero health benefits.

I am constantly remind myself of four things:

1) Am I being a hypocrite? If so, reconcile it with integrity and honesty.

2) Do I believe the source or the spin? If not, decide what I think.

3) Read, watch or learn two positive things for every negative thing I read.

4) Obama IS the person I voted for. He IS doing the exact job I expected him to do. The frustrations are valid but irrelevant to the bigger picture of a nation consisting of opposing views and opinions and interpretations of fact. Follow Obama's lead on this because he's a grown up and I need to try to act like a grown up myself.

Oh, and I should probably add that we all define "fighting" differently. My idea of the President fighting may not be his idea or your idea or a Republican's idea. People need to stop clinging to semantics on this issue.

Quote of the Day

"Dear Mr. President, 

For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled. We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more."

~Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 6, 2010

Priorities on Taxes

Does Anyone Know How to Write, “God Bless You” in Chinese?

A friend of mine wrote a letter to the editor of New Mexico's Carlsbad Current-Argus about the hijacking of the Republican Party by the extreme right and asked if I would include it on the blog. I don't know if or when it may be published, so here it is.

Does Anyone Know How to Write, “God Bless You” in Chinese?

The President of the US Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, recently extolled the virtues of outsourcing American jobs, while accepting donations from foreign corporations, including ones from state controlled companies in Russia, India, and Abu Dhabi. The Chamber blames Democrats for job loss while promoting outsourcing those same jobs. It should be clear that these foreign corporations donate to the Chamber because they want more American jobs. The US Chamber of Commerce recently pledged $75 million to attack Democratic candidates across the country.

Alas, the Republican Party is no longer the GOP. Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley must be rolling over in their graves. The party has been hijacked by their ignorant conservative wing and moderate Republicans have been largely silent. Even the Arizona Maverick seems to now be one of them. The Tea Baggers seem to be calling the shots. This wing constantly carries on a smear campaign against the Democrats in general and the President in particular that is ill mannered, full of lies and downright unpatriotic. This wing slanders our elected President, promotes armed rebellion and invents nonissues to energize their base. It is now so crazy in the Republican Party that Karl Rove, a frequent Republican spokesperson on FOX News and often called “Bush’s Brain,” has endorsed a candidate that believes scientists have developed human brains in mice.

It is amazing that anyone would trust this hijacked party with resolving this recession. Republicans/Tea Baggers don’t know anymore about the economy than they do about manners or patriotism. Republicans tell us that we must eliminate the deficit. They then tell us that we must pass all of the Bush Tax Cuts, which they know and admit, would add trillions to the deficit. Republicans tell us that regulations are killing recovery when lack of regulation and oversight caused this recession. They rail against stimulus spending then beg for that money to be spent in their district. I am reminded of a Will Rogers quote:” If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”

So Americans, continue to buy those Toyotas and vote Republican and all of our jobs will soon be gone. We can all stand on the corner and beg. Does anyone know how to write, “God Bless You” in Chinese?

Forrest in NM

Tax Cut Punt?

Posted by JHW22

So the recent thing "to die" is the whole Bush tax cut thingy. Have I mentioned I hate the hyperbole of "it's dead"? I mean, how many times did the public option die? And it's not even fully dead, only partially dead, because there is a revival bill. But I digress... Democrats are mad at Pelosi and Reid for punting the Bush tax cut extension for the middle class/extermination for the really, really rich people until after the election when the fear is we won't have as many seats as we do now (as if having the number of seats we have now is a good thing). Everyone is all wee-wee'd up (and I SWEAR to you Obama used that expression before Palin did so I am keeping it in my repertoire) over the tax cut punt (I must add that trying to say that out loud and even type it is hard -- some word other than cut seems to want to come out). But I always say, "there's a reason".

And there is. Well, there are many. But for this post I want to raise just one. Obama's 2011 Budget. Unless my Googling is getting stale, I am pretty sure Congress hasn't approved Obama's budget via their resolution process for next year. If it has been approved, great, but I can't find where it has been given the okay.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason Congress isn't rushing into a cock fight (yes, I said cock) is because if they could just get that danged budget passed, many of the beloved tax cuts would become permanent and become Obama's and this Congress'. Perhaps, just perhaps, the idea is to get that damn thing passed and then say "Ha! We don't need no stinkin' Bush. We have our own tax cuts and they are better!" (Yes, I said Bush). If Health Care Reform is called Obamacare in the pejorative, why would we want to continue to call tax cuts Bush's? And in the same vein, we should call the tax "increase" the Bush Tax Increase since they were designed to increase by the Bush era players. (I pointed that out to someone today and was accused of "blaming". I pointed out that stating fact is informing, not blaming.)

My intertubes are hurting from trying to confirm if the budget passed or not. So if you have the answer, I'd really sleep better tonight. Now, if they haven't approved it yet, does anyone think it's either really tricky of the Dems to wait until the last minute? OR does anyone else wonder why the F^%$ his budget was presented in February and is STILL not approved?!

I should probably add that even though I was only going to pose one possibility, I have to say that a few of those things Republicans have wanted by way of the Bush cuts WERE signed into law today via the Small Business Jobs Act of 2011. Oh but watch the spin on the right over that one.

TV Producer to Ben Stein: STFU

Television producer Linda McGibney had something to say regarding Ben Stein's opinion piece last week on CBS Sunday Morning. Basically, suck it up, rich man. You've prospered mightily under the Bush tax cuts and the house of cards that was the housing bubble. Letting the tax cuts expire is not "punishment," you whiny, little prick.

We Knew This Already...

...but just to reiterate what the White House and the Congressional Budget Office has been saying for the last two years...

Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

President Obama wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 and let them expire (as they were meant to do) for the top 2% of earners.

I'd like to start seeing a little pushback on the Republicans and Blue Dog/Fiscal Conservative Dems on increasing the deficit by $70 billion per year if tax cuts for the rich are extended or made permanent. The job creation meme is bullshit as we all know, otherwise, please show me the jobs they've created these last 10 years.

Am I Going Nuts?

I've just watched three news stories in a row on MSNBC about how our taxes would go up if President Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire. Have I gone absolutely insane, or has the President not said that he would let the Bush tax cuts sunset on the top 2% of earners and extend them for everyone making $250,000 or less?

They even used a clip of Obama saying, (paraphrasing) "If we extend the tax cuts to Warren Buffet, he's not going to change his spending habits. If we extend them to a family making $40,000 a year, that could mean a new computer for their kid, or making their mortgage payment."

It seems they completely ignored that quote and all the stories were based on the assumption that the tax cuts would expire for everyone, which as I understand it, has never been on the table. MSNBC is really in the tank for Obama, huh?

Playing Hardball

This is good news:

President Obama on Wednesday will make clear that he opposes any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year...

Mr. Obama’s opposition to allowing the high-end tax cuts to remain in place for even another year or two would be the signal many Congressional Democrats have been awaiting as they prepare for a showdown with Republicans on the issue and ends speculation that the White House might be open to an extension. Democrats say only the president can rally wavering lawmakers who, amid the party’s weakened poll numbers, feel increasingly vulnerable to Republican attacks if they let the top rates lapse at the end of this year as scheduled.

Of course, we now have to wait and see if Congressional Democrats will find their spine.

Ultimately, this will get spun against Obama as a tax increase if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the top 2% of income earners, or if it doesn't come to pass and the cowards actually do extend them, by 2012 everyone will have forgotten and the GOP will call it the Obama tax cuts further adding to the deficit.

But it's nice to see the President playing hardball and calling out the GOP for what it is the last couple of days.

Quote of the Day

...we only have to fix Social Security once.

The size of that fix is significant, but not astonishing. Over the next 75 years, the shortfall will be equal to about 0.7 percent of gross domestic product. How much is 0.7 percent of GDP? To put that in perspective, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that it's about as much as George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich will cost over the same period. Saying we can afford those cuts -- which is the consensus Republican position -- but not Social Security's outlay is nonsensical. Coming up with 0.7 percent of GDP isn't a crisis. It's a question of priorities.

~Ezra Klein

Washington Examiner Needs Editors' Heads Examined

Today's Washington Examiner's editorial, "Time to admit Obamanomics has failed" is a doozy. Whipping their readers up in a frenzy, they claim that President Obama is going to "raise everybody's taxes by allowing the Bush [tax] cuts ... to expire" and that the stimulus bill "has failed to create jobs." It also criticizes the Wall Street reform bill because of its regulation. Really? We all know that deregulating the markets is what got us into this mess in the first place.  The whole piece reads like a nutball teabagger screed.

I'm reposting my response here, as I doubt it'll get past the moderators at their site.

Do the editors of the Washington Examiner bother to fact check what they write or are they purposely misleading their readers?

President Obama's FY 2011 budget calls for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts only for those making UNDER $250,000. Not "raising everybody's taxes" as the editors claim. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add $3.1 TRILLION to the deficit. So much for fiscal conservative hawks.

And claiming that the stimulus has not created jobs is laughable on its face. The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."

Even the conservative Wall Street Journal has reported that 70% of economists surveyed said the stimulus helped.

If I can look this stuff up in ten minutes, I would hope that your readers could as well, instead of blindly taking these "editors'" words as fact.

Ben Nelson Hides Behind Constituents On Kagan Vote

What a cowardly, little simp.

Ben Nelson (DINO-NE): “As a member of the bipartisan ‘Gang of 14,’ I will follow our agreement that judicial nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances. If a cloture vote is held on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am prepared to vote for cloture and oppose a filibuster because, in my view, this nominee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate.

“However, I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded. Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan’s nomination.”

Did Ben Nelson consult his constituents (especially the ones out of work) when he voted against extending unemployment benefits? Or does he not care about them because Nebraska is well below the national average? Did Nelson consult his constituents when he voted for permanently extending the Bush tax cuts that would effectively add over $3 TRILLION to the debt?

Ben, don't expect us to believe you listen to your fellow Nebraskans when it comes to your votes. You're transparently in the pocket of big business and couldn't give a shit about your constituents. Just switch parties and get it over with already.

(H/T Bob Cesca)