What happened with Standard and Poor's yesterday... (VIDEO)

Via Ezra:

Standard & Poor’s didn’t downgrade America’s AAA credit today. What they did is subtler: They attached a “negative outlook” to our AAA credit. That means they upgraded the chance of a future downgrade. So if you ask the S&P’s Magic 8 Ball whether America will be triple-A in five years and then give it a shake, it now says “don’t count on it” rather than “you can rely on it” (all answers taken from this list of actual Magic 8 Ball replies).

I’ve seen some observers react to the S&P’s decision by saying that the rating agency blew the subprime crisis and thus there’s no reason we need to listen to it now. But that seems shortsighted. S&P’s concerns are perfectly reasonable. The company believes “there is a material risk that U.S. policy makers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium-and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013. If you don’t agree with that, you’re not paying enough attention. At this point, the rating agency only puts the chances of a downgrade at one in three — which strikes me as, if anything, a little low.

Matt Yglesias, as Andrew pointed out first, yawns:

You should almost certainly ignore this: “Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service has lowered its long-term outlook for the United States’ sovereign debt to ‘Negative’ from ‘Stable’ due to risks from the country’s growing deficit.”

The thing about the United States of America is that we’re not an obscure country. Nor is our sovereign debt an obscure financial instrument. No major investor is going to be outsourcing his research on the desirability of American bonds to the S&P ratings service.

But fellow Lib, Kevin Drum sez:

I agree with [what Matt Ygelsias said] completely, and I've made a similar comment in the past. And yet.....

And yet, there's something to think about here. One of the reasons I take our medium and long-term deficit fairly seriously, even though current financial indicators suggest the market is unconcerned, is that financial indicators can turn around in a flash. There are limits to how far a big country like the United States can get from fundamentals, but we're still susceptible to the kinds of mob emotion that power both bubbles and bank runs. And the thing is, there's never any telling what might spark such a turnaround. One day everything is fine. Then Bill Gross announces that he's no longer thrilled about holding treasuries. The next day S&P makes some negative noises. A day after that the Chinese government cuts back on treasury purchases. Then an auction of 10-year bonds is slightly soft, and suddenly everyone panics.


This most likely won't happen. Certainly not anytime soon, given the underlying fundamentals of the American and global economies. Still, it could happen in the near future, and there's no telling what might set it off. So in that sense, this kind of announcement from S&P actually is meaningful. Maybe not today. But a similar announcement someday might be. It's true that major investors don't outsource their opinion on U.S. treasuries to S&aP, but even major investors can get nervous if enough people start telling them they're being idiots. Sometimes perceptions are as important as reality.

Krugman crushed the media:

I think the financial press is being even denser than usual on this one. If S&P warns that US bonds might not be safe, and the price of those bonds rises, you really have to wonder how anyone can write with a straight face that this warning caused other market movements. And it’s much worse to have this implausible theory reported as a settled fact.

Here's a little of what Ezra referred to as "short-sightedness" from Melissa Harris Perry:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dr. Harris-Perry is a PhD in Political Science from (grrrrr) Duke, so though she teaches African-American studies at Princeton, she can speak a little authoritatively on subjects like Political Strategy and Communication, and even the President's handling of the Budget. At the same time, I would have preferred an actual Economist on the panel talking about the S&P, and the closest thing we had last night on the The Last Word...was Lawrence himself.

"It's about to get h-h-hot in here..." (VIDEO)

I'm sure you've seen this ad already today, but it's too fun not to post:

Only a local Texas TV Reporter can make President Obama this mad... (VIDEO)

As an RTVF Major, I can tell the cheats and the dodges used in any piece of film. For example, if say...you were a douchebag interviewer from a local TV Station from Texas, who got a seven minute sit down with the President of the freakin' United States, and said reporter were to spend most of the interview paraphrasing what the President said...then you edited the hell out of the interview to a ridiculous degree.

Swear to god, there's more voice-over from the Reporter than back and forth with the Commander in Chief.

You can see it through the course of the interview, the President getting madder and madder. (He tell is that his smile fades away, and his answers get very short and clipped.)

Just watch, at the end there the President quietly asks that next time, he be allowed to finish his answers. And of course, the douchebag makes sure he leaves it in.



It's true the President ummms and aahhs a lot. That's because he doesn't like to speak without thinking through his answer first. Unfortunately, the President will eat up a lot of your allotted time doing that. So I'll admit some editing is necessary, but the degree to which this guy took the scissors to the tape bordered on unprofessional.

The Fireside Chat for April 16th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President discusses his plan for our fiscal future, a comprehensive and balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years.

No offense, Jon, but... (VIDEO)

This wasn't a bad segment...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Slashdance - Democratic Deficit Reduction Plan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

...but, just so you know, Jon:

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. We can’t afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.

I'm sorry, but this kinda sounds like he's raising taxes to me.

Randi Rhodes Interview with David Cay Johnston (VIDEO)

Because we talk Economics at this blog:

Please Keith Ellison! Don't Hurt 'em! (VIDEO)

And yes, that was an M.C. Hammer reference:

President Obama's Open Mic Moment (AUDIO)

I never know what's up with CBS Feeds. I apologize if it looks weird. However if you click on the far left (hee-hee!) of the image, about in the middle (where it says WS VIDEO) it still plays.



Somehow, I doubt this was as accidental as Huffington AOL is suggesting.

Oh...and Rick Ungar took a shot at the Professional Left, too...

In case you couldn't tell already, I loved this article by Rick Ungar.

Remember, this man not only writes for Forbes Magazine (not exactly a Liberal bastion), lives in SoCal (okay, that is a Liberal Bastion...outside of Orange County and parts of Northridge), but used to run Marvel Entertainment:

It is not the conservative attacks that concern me. I’m far more focused on the progressives who are already expressing their disappointment over Obama’s failure to re-introduce the public option as a way of cutting health care costs or believe the President was just too darn rational in his proposals – thus leaving what they believe to be too little negotiating room for the battles to come.

This from an article entitled “Obama’s Speech Another Meaningless Line In the Sand” by Justin Krebs, co-founder and director of Living Liberally, a progressive non-profit.

We liberals are finally learning what conservatives have said all along: Ignore the President’s pretty speeches and judge him by his actions.

Of course, liberals and conservatives are judging from two very different directions. While criticism from the Right sees him as a socialist-leaning bleeding-heart, we on the Left wish he were what the Tea Party accuses him of. Instead, we see a President that continues to adopt conservative frames, extend Republican wars (and start one of his own), and buy into the advice of a coterie of Wall Street executives. The proud progressive we wanted to elect never put single-payer healthcare on the table, hasn’t fought for meaningful mortgage reform and didn’t draw a line in the sand when it came to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Well, he did draw a line in the sand… but seems to think of it as his starting line for compromise, which is how the Bush-era give-away to our wealthiest citizens continued while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

What progressives like Mr. Krebs consistently forget is that Obama has another virtue in addition to character – he knows how to add.

The President can manage to work out that, if he is to get anything done, he has to get a vote through the House of Representatives where the vote totals are stacked against him.

So, you ask, why didn’t he get his way when the Democrats controlled both houses in Congress?

Because the President can also add to 60- the number of votes he needs to accomplish anything in the Senate where the filibuster results in minority rule. All it takes is 41 ‘nays’ and the best-laid progressive plans go down the drain.

If you recall, there was a point in time when the President had 58 Democratic votes plus 2 independents in the Senate, giving him the appearance of being ‘filibuster-proof.”

However, he also had a few Blue Dog Democrats who knew that a vote with Obama was a nail in the coffin containing their own political futures. Which do you imagine was always destined to win out? Obama’s progressive plans or a Senator’s career?

The president has only one way to get something done– go directly to the people in the hope that they will have the good sense to support his rational approach and ask them to push their elected representatives to do the same. I think we can all agree that “rational” is not something the President can expect in Congress without outside pressure from the voters.

Yesterday, Barack Obama took his arguments directly to the people. Now, let’s see if the Congressional Republicans and progressives alike care to listen to the result.

By the way, Living Liberally...THANKS FOR SHOWING UP IN NOVEMBER, you really @#$^ing helped.

Not only did the President rip into Paul Ryan...he did it to his face...

From Rick Ungar:

What did it for me in Obama’s plan to get the nation’s finances in order was that the President took his stand against the GOP effort to take away the soul of this nation while staring directly into the eyes of Rep. Paul Ryan- the architect of the document that would remake this country in the mold of third world nations where there are rich people and poor people with nobody in the middle.

Unlike the taunts, personal insults and barbs that Ryan and his companions lob at the president on a daily basis from the safety of a television studio, Obama took the route that requires character.

He did it to Ryan’s face.

The President invited the Wisconsin congressman, and a few of his congressional confederates, to attend the speech, placed them right up front and proceeded to call these people out for the hegemony they would visit on millions of Americans to benefit their wealthy political patrons with a trillion more in tax cuts.

Character.

Randi Rhodes: The Paul Ryan Medicare Ad (AUDIO)

Thanks, Duffy! (He's the voice in the ad):

"The Country We Believe In..." (VIDEO)

The complete text can be found here.

Jonathan Cohn:

1. That was a clear, unambiguous, morally grounded defense of the welfare state--as strong and stirring as I've seen from this president.

2. Obama made the case for more revenue, which is the biggest political challenge Democrats face when they talk about deficit reduction. And he sounded more determined than before to block extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That's promising.

3. My two biggest misgivings are on policy: Obama called for more taxes on the wealthy, not the middle class, and wants an imbalanced approach that favors spending reductions over revenue increases. This was my fear about hewing to the guidelines set by the Bowles-Simpson Commission, particularly if this merely the opening bid of a negotiation.

4. The new health care reforms sound very good upon initial inspection--and, particularly when added to cost controls already in the Affordable Care Act, this is far more serious than what Paul Ryan and the Republicans have in mind. And if Obama is more serious about controlling health care costs, then he's more serious about reducing deficits overall.

5. Did I mention how much I liked the rhetoric? At the level of broad principle, this was the speech I wanted to hear.

Jonathan Chait:

In his budget speech today, Obama attempted to square the circle in two ways. First, he nodded at the Bowles-Simpson approach without endorsing it explicitly or in detail. This turns it into an approach whose basic contours he can ultimately support, but not a negotiating position. And second, he beat Ryan and the Republicans to a bloody pulp.

Greg Sargent:

For some time now, a bunch of us have been wondering when — or whether — Obama would step up and make a strong case for an expansive vision of Democratic governance. With Republicans iniatiating what may be the most consequential argument over the proper role of government in decades — a debate over the legacy of the great liberal achievements of the 20th Century — we’ve all been wondering whether Obama would respond with a level of ambition and seriousness of purpose that he’s shown when taking on other big arguments.

By this standard — in rhetorical terms — it’s fair to say Obama delivered. Sure, the speech had flaws, trafficking a bit in the usual positioning between two allegedly equivalent extremes. And speeches are the easy part: Obama’s words jarred against recent actions, and what Obama actually does in the months to come will be what either ratifies today’s promises or renders them meaningless. But Obama did offer perhaps the most ambitious defense he may have ever attempted of American liberalism and of what it means to be a Democrat.

Even Andrew Sullivan:

I'm not sure how major an impact this midday speech will have - simply because it will be highly limited in its audience. But it was classic Obama - a center left approach to a center-right conviction: that the debt is unsustainable; that we all have to make sacrifices; that defense-cutting, reducing the cost of healthcare; and tax reform are integral to this possibility.

And it looks as if he will indeed use the debt ceiling moment to push some version of this through. I didn't get the sense from this speech that he was only planning to do this in his second term. And surely, after the cold shock of the Ryan plan, his less draconian vision for the vulnerable will be popular in the middle. The least persuasive part of the GOP proposal is its refusal to ask anything from the top one percent in this crisis. Obama saw this, and went for it.

Steve Benen to Liberals. Chill the @#$% out until tomorrow...

Steve says it best:

To be sure, if Obama takes the stage tomorrow and embraces Simpson/Bowles as his own, I'll be severely unhappy. I wasn't a fan of the fiscal commission -- which, by the way, never had enough support to actually endorse the Simpson/Bowles plan -- and think this would be a horrible place for Democrats to start talks on long-term debt reduction.

But here's the thing: I rather doubt the Simpson/Bowles plan will be Obama's plan. It seems far more likely to me that the president will present a very different vision, and make it seem as if it's the Simpson/Bowles plan.

Indeed, just this morning, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who has solid progressive credentials, spoke at the Center for American Progress, and slammed Paul Ryan's House GOP plan. Van Hollen added, however, that Simpson/Bowles offers a "basic approach ... which is to look at both sides of the deficit equation, that is revenue and spending" that can serve as "an important starting point."

That intensified the freak-out -- Look! Van Hollen is endorsing Simpson/Bowles, too! -- but it shouldn't have. All the Maryland Democrat was talking about was the "basic approach" of Simpson/Bowles, because it included a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Van Hollen is endorsing looking at both sides of the ledger, which is the standard Democratic line.

Ezra added this afternoon that his White House sources are saying the president's won't "primarily be an endorsement of Simpson-Bowles," and "this will make more sense tomorrow."

To make a short story long, I'm suggesting we put the apoplexy on hold for 24 hours.

Donald Trump. Addicted to the most addictive substance in the known universe...

From the Murdoch Street Journal. Celebrate good times:

Donald Trump will “probably” run as an independent candidate for U.S. President in 2012 if he does not receive the Republican party’s nomination, he told the Wall Street Journal in a video interview on Monday.

“I hate what’s happening to the country,” said Mr. Trump, a real estate tycoon and host of the NBC show “Celebrity Apprentice.” He will not formally make a decision until June, however, when this season of his television show is over. “I can’t run during the airing of that show,” Mr. Trump said, “I’m not allowed to.” But he said he would make an announcement “by June” and his candidacy looks increasingly likely.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy would complicate matters for the GOP as it looks to front someone who can unite the fractious party and mount a serious challenge to President Obama’s reelection bid. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll recently found Mr. Trump tied for second place with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee among likely voters in a GOP primary. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who moved a step closer to formally declaring his own candidacy Monday, is still the frontrunner, though not by a wide margin.

“I think the Republicans are very concerned that I [may] run as an independent,” Mr. Trump said. His support is highest among the conservative wing of the party, not least because he is among the so-called “birthers” who doubt that President Obama in fact was born in the U.S. “It’s a very important issue,” Mr. Trump said of demanding that President Obama show his birth certificate, which has separately been reviewed by the media and deemed legitimate. “I’m not ashamed of having raised that issue.”

“I am very conservative,” said Mr. Trump. “The concern is if I don’t win [the GOP primary] will I run as an independent, and I think the answer is probably yes.” Mr. Trump said he thought he “could possibly win as an independent,” adding, “I’m not doing it for any other reason. I like winning.”

Lawrence has been saying for a while that Trump isn't running because all he wants to do is promote his TeeVee show. But, I have long believed that the single most addictive substance in the known Universe isn't Cocaine, it isn't Crack or Weed...it's Klieg Lights (these are the spotlights used in Film and TV Production), in other words its fame.

What if Lawrence is wrong?  What if Trump started off as a joke candidacy, a way to boost ratings for The Apprentice?  And all of the sudden, he looked at the polling showing him shooting up the ranks, and said to himself: "Wait, I think they [the Base of the GOP] want me to do this.  What if I can do it?"

Of course, do we need to mention the fact that Liberals won't be flocking to Mr. Trump's banner anytime soon.  And Mr. Trump is quite capable of putting on a show of excess and ridiculousness that would put Sarah Palin to shame.  If Romney is the nominee, and Trump runs as an indepenent...and you say complete and utter Electoral Blowout for the President?

The Cos' just about sums up my attitude on Donald Trump...and kicks the crap out of him in the process (VIDEO)

Trump's response (for what its worth) is as follows:

The other day on The Today Show, right after I was interviewed by Meredith Vieira, a terrific person and reporter, I happened to watch Bill Cosby who was on at the end of the show. While I have never been a fan of Cosby’s, I had always assumed he liked or respected me because every time I met him—the last time at the David Letterman show where I preceded him as a guest—he was always so nice, saying “let’s get together”—asking me out to dinner, and being polite to the point of offering to buy me a suit because he has a “great tailor.”

In any event, as I watched the show, the subject of Donald Trump came up. I was surprised to hear him blabber, somewhat incoherently “you run or shut up.” The hatred was pouring out of his eyes when he said this. As I am sure he must know I cannot run until this season of Celebrity Apprentice ends. I know that he has taken a lot of heat over the years in that he seems to be talking down to the people he’s talking to and purportedly trying to help. Actually, based on the way he acted, things are not looking too good for Cosby.

I wish he would be more honest, and if he doesn’t want me to run because he’s obviously an Obama fan, he should state the reasons and not come into my “green room” in front of numerous witnesses and treat me like his best friend, only to denigrate me when I’m not around.

Yeah, maybe the reason Cosby is ripping the @#$% out of you is you're using racism to promote your craptastic TeeVee show, and as a black man, he resents it.

Hell, as a black man, I resent it.  You're a race-baiter Trump.  Deal with it.

Also, I got to ask, why is it whenever Trump says or writes something, he complements the person in such a way as to suggest that the person's only value come from Trump's pronouncement of it?

How the President did the best he could with a bad hand...and how Congress are really like dogs.

At the end of the day, it was probably the best deal we could have come up with, given the circumstances. Liberal Bloggers castigating the deal: Jonathan Chait, Ezra, E.J. Dionne all think this was a shitty deal. They also conveniently leave out the fact that we didn’t show up in November, and thus it was an inevitability that the Conservatives were going to get some things they wanted.

At the end of the day, the poor women of D.C. got screwed. But the thing is, they’re always getting screwed. Once you've lived in the area, you know that's the case.  As long as D.C. Statehood isn’t on the table, some shitkicker from Kentucky is going to be able to do his will on the majority black, soon-to-be-majority Latino/Hispanic city of Washington.

Like with Libya, I want to hear what Liberal Bloggers wanted the President to do instead. Oh yes, I forgot, shutdown.

Granted, the Republicans would have taken the brunt of the blame, and that always gives me joy. Then again... I wasn’t that afraid of a shutdown, because I could afford to be.

I don’t know about you, but the only shutdown I’ve been through has been at a distance.  I’ve never had a job, been told not to report to that job, only to spend my hours and days wondering if I’m going to get back pay for the work I’m not doing.

At the same time, I would remind Liberal Bloggers hailing the deal, and the President as just the smartest guy ever in making such a “brilliant” deal, you are way overstating the case in the other direction. Budget cuts take Goverment Spending out of the Economy, just as we can least afford to have it happen.  Fingers crossed, we survive despite these cuts, never because of them.

Face it, we gave President a bad hand. He may have played the best he could, but it was still a shit sandwich, and he’s only taking a bite because too many of y’all (Democrats, Liberals, Progressives) didn’t show up in November.

The funny thing is these Republicans fervently believe (and here comes yet another in a long line of fallacies of Conservative thinking) that eliminating the funds for a program, eliminates the need for the program. “There, we’ve eliminated Federal funding for Abortions. No one will ever have an Abortion ever again. Problem solved.”

Yeah, it doesn’t quite work like that. What’s going to happen to the poor women of D.C. is that they’re going to cross the border into Maryland, and overstress that system and those State and Federal funds. But hey, Boehner gets to go back and tell his constituents he screwed (or in his mind, saved) poor black women in D.C.

The good news seems to be that Americans are happy with the deal, in that they are generally happy when Congress gets something (i.e., anything) done. They are generally disposed to approve when Congress does its job, not in a “Hooray, we love this deal” kind of a way, more of the way a Dog Owner approves of his pet doing his business in the yard instead of the house. “Nice, Congress. Gooood Congress…”

And we only have two more of these fights to go this year alone. Can’t wait.



Ehhhh, I'm not as enthusiastic as Mr. Scott is.

My personal hope is that the President goes the Rock Obama and basically dares the GOP to torpedo the Debt Ceiling Limit.



But the President may feel a personal responsibility to the Greater Economy to not let that happen. At the same time, the GOP, thinking only of their electoral prospects for 2012, may be anxious to risk a total Economic Collapse. After all, what do they care is the shit hits the fan while Obama’s in charge.

Right now, the next Liberal Freak out is going to be over the President’s Plan to control the deficit on Wednesday. Already I’m seeing folk pull their hair out over what he might say, and how its already wrong.

The best overall take came from Conservative Andrew Sullivan. (Since he’s responded favorably to Paul Ryan’s plan, I can no longer take him seriously…thus I will be emphasizing his essential conservatism at every possible chance):

So Obama starts off this critical part of his first term by appearing to be above the fray and yet committed to compromise. Via Biden, he calls the GOP's bluff, draws a line in spending cuts for 2011, and exposes the draconian spending reductions that the GOP's no tax increase pledge requires. He comes back with a bid to tax millionaires, offers spending cuts that would be far more sophisticated and targeted away from investment than the GOP, and pledges to put his own proposals forward as early as this week.

Of course, for a blogger like me, you face a choice. Simply trust the guy and spin for him, or voice skepticism, outrage and disappointment and get played along with the GOP. But, of course, I don't mind getting played. Because I want this president to succeed - and such success requires root-and-branch spending and tax reform.

He seems to be getting there - in that highly unsatisfying but politically shrewd way of his. So now we will have the Ryan plan and the Obama plan. Guess which one independent voters will like more?

Surprise Surprise (VIDEO)

The Fireside Chat for April 9th, 2011 (VIDEO)

The President discusses the importance of the bipartisan budget agreement that represents both a significant investment in the United States' future - and the largest annual spending cut in our history.

President Obama's Statement on the Budget Agreement (VIDEO)

President Obama addresses the bipartisan agreement on the national budget from the Blue Room of the White House.

Rachel Maddow sez "People who take Paul Ryan seriously, shouldn't be taken seriously..." (VIDEO)

Seriously, stop with the Smoochy-Smoochy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yeah, sure. She blew it on the GITMO story, but she's right here.

From our "That Was Fast" Department...George Allen strikes again...

Via Think Progress. Ugh.

Former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), who is running again for Senate in 2012, was called out in Twitter on Tuesday night for repeatedly questioning NBC4 anchor-reporter Craig Melvin about his nonexistent sports career. The Washington Post’s Tom Jackman reported on Allen’s apparent stereotyping of Melvin:

NBC 4’s reporter-anchor Craig Melvin is a tall African-American. Which apparently led to this exchange with former Sen. George Allen, according to Melvin’s Twitter account Tuesday night: “For the 2nd time in 5 months, fmr. gov. and sen candidate George Allen asks me,”what position did you play?” I did not a play a sport.”

The President's Town Hall Meeting on Energy and the possible Shutdown from Fairless Hills, PA (VIDEO)

Haven't gotten one of these in a while...

Randi Rhodes' Interview with Rick Ungar of Forbes Magazine... (AUDIO)

Rapidly becoming one of my favorite writers:



To see some of Rick's material, click here.

I can't take Andrew Sullivan (@dailydish) seriously anymore...on the deficit or anything else.

It's like I said before. Andrew Sullivan can never be trusted on the debt.  In this matter, he is an intellectual fraud.  He will only tolerate one opinion (his own), and no others.  So in this matter I have no use for him.

But because the toxin of that idea is spreading to the rest of his ideas, I'm starting to question if he's someone worth reading at all.

After reading how Democrats were already ripping into Ryan's Budget Plan, Andrew wrote this:

We have a serious and flawed plan to get the debt under control - and the Democrats' immediate response is to go into total opposition. The president has been more muted in his response. But the onus is on him now to provide a plan that matches the impact on the budget that Ryans' does, with different emphases.

So where is that plan? Or does the president have none?

I'm sorry, but Ryan's plan projects 2.8% Unemployement in 2021. If you take a Budget Plan with a figure like that seriously, I'm sorry, but you can't be taken seriously.

Then again, if Andrew had spent a little more time looking on the Internets, he would have found where the President's plan was...with Kent Conrad, you know...the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the place where most likely, any long term, deficit reducing Budget Deal would originate:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad is holding back the Senate Democrats’ budget plan to give a bipartisan group of senators more time to strike a deal on a long-term deficit-reduction proposal.

Conrad (D-N.D.) is one of the “Gang of Six” negotiators working on a budget deal based on the recommendations of President Obama’s debt commission. The group hopes to put the debt commission’s proposals into legislation that could win a vote from Congress.

If the group fails to reach a deal, Conrad said he might include portions of its work in his budget proposal.

“I’ve prepared several different budget resolutions,” Conrad said. “I’m trying to give the Group of Six effort every chance.”

Conrad said he has not made a final decision on whether to use the Senate Democratic budget proposal to advance the recommendations of the fiscal commission.

Conrad made clear on Tuesday, however, that he would not advance Medicare overhaul such as that proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) or former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Alice Rivlin, a former Democratic White House budget director.

I'm really getting tired of Sullivan's bullshit deficit scolding.  I'm also tired of his tendency to leap before he's looked.  (Betcha wish you had this one back...or maybe you don't).

On Deficits, he doesn't get to tell me what level of pain is acceptable. He hasn't been in this country long enough to wag his finger about deficits at any citizen.  More to the point, the people he's supported in the past are the ones who spent us into this position.

For him to get high and mighty on the spending is as vile, and as typical and anything any other Republican has coughed up the last ten years.

Of course, it's more important to me that Goolsebee is a Mac User...

Let's not play games. This Tax Cut Calculator is an important thing to learn about, but seeing that 15-inch MacBook Pro is somehow reassuring.

If you don't mention Congress in your pushback of the President, @Maddow, then you are lying to us

Per yesterday:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you have piece about Obama's retreat on GITMO, you are of course free to blast the President.  That is your right.

However, if you don't mention Congress's responsibility in this, you are lying to us, and wasting our time.

Anybody who slams the President over GITMO, and leaves out Congress, isn't worth your time. That includes you, Keith

It's a pity, because Keith did make an attempt at fairness by slamming New York, but he forgot to mention Congress's complicity in this decision, and that's a big deal.



It's not like Keith is under a Network's time constraints. He could have put it in there. It's not like he had a Producer saying "Hey, we have to trim five seconds off Worst Persons". So, the only excuses for Keith were that either he didn't want it in there, or he forgot.

Either way, bad call.

A sentence you're going to LOVE reading if you support Unions...

You know there's a Judicial Election in Wisconsin for the State Supreme Court, right?

You know that one of Scott Walker's buddies has been running (and has been in biiig trouble recently for some comments he made).

So what sentence would you like to read if you're hoping for Walker to get his @#$ kicked today?

Howzabout?:

"We're expecting the equivalent of a regular presidential election," Horvath said in regards to the Madison polling place. "Seventy-five to eighty percent is what we are guessing."

(Political) Eaaaaaarrrrrrthhquake.

The President's surprise appearance at today's WH Press Briefing (VIDEO)

From Talking Points Memo:

President Obama strongly scolded congressional Republicans on their failure so far to reach a budget compromise that would avert a government shutdown by the end of the week, instructing them to start acting like "grown-ups" and to stop playing political games.

"We don't have time for games," he told reporters during a rare appearance in the White House briefing room. "We don't have time to score political points."

Obama, who met with Republican and Democratic leaders at the White House Tuesday, said he would make himself available to meet again Wednesday and Thursday if lawmakers cannot come to some consensus today. He also criticized Republicans for saying they don't agree to the $33 billion in cuts that Democrats have agreed to and for including extraneous politically motivated policy riders.

"What we can't do is have a my way or the highway approach to this problem," he said. "If we start applying that approach, that we can't get 110 percent of everything we want, than we're not going to get anything done this year."

"And I said, No..." (VIDEO)

The basic play is the Republicans and Democrats have hashed out a figure of around $33 Billion in cuts. It would be the largest single cut of the Federal Budget in U.S. History, even if we're talking 1-4% of the total budget.

The problem isn't the figure. The problem is three-fold.

One, the Democrats want that number to be at least somewhat temporary, i.e. when they win Congress next time, they don't want to have to pas another law in order to get those cuts restored. Boehner is saying no.

Two, I'm pretty sure Boehner is okay with the $33 Billion number, but his caucus isn't...particularly the incoming Tea-Party Freshmen. They're demanding all of their cuts from H.R. 1, things that the Senate is never going to pass.

Three, Boehner is demanding all his noxious, toxic riders, like the NPR and Planned Parenthood defunding. Democrats are balking at that.

In the end, there is no resolution in sight to any of these problems. The House seems fixed on its solutions, seeming to forget that identical bills must pass the GOP-led House and the Democratic-led Senate. A compromise MUST be in the offing for anything to pass. (That means, we're not going to get everything we want either, fellow Libruls.) But the House GOP is in no mood to compromise, and may actually want a Shutdown. Boehner is cornered. He knows what damage a shutdown will do to both parties (but his in particular). Still, if he doesn't go to balls-to-the-wall to show he fought the White House every step of the way, he'll be ousted as Speaker...and Lord knows, his being Speaker is the most important thing right now, isn't it?

So the GOP's solution? Pass another Continuing Resolution, with 12 Billion in cuts (half a trillion annualized).

Actually, it's not a solution, its a way for the GOP to say "look, we didn't shut down the Government". It's a similiar trick to the one they pulled in 1995.

Apparently, what happened in this video is happened this morning, with Barack Obama playing the role of Jed Bartlett.

He said, no.



Remember, that episode aired about eight years ago.

A little perspective on GITMO always helps...as Democrats allow us to cower in fear in the face of Terrorism

Well, we got the announcement that shocked absolutely no one:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four co-defendants accused of planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will be prosecuted in a military commission, a decision that reverses the Obama administration’s long-held goal of bringing the men to trial in federal court as part of its overall strategy of closing the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced the decision during an afternoon news conference. He blamed barriers thrown up by Congress for the administration’s abandonment of one of its signature goals.

Holder called Congress’s intervention “unwise and unwarranted” and said he continues to believe that the case could have been tried in federal court in Manhattan or, as an alternative he proposed, in upstate New York. He said the Obama administration would continue to work for repeal of the restrictions Congress imposed and would prosecute other terrorism cases in federal courts.

But he said he decided that prosecution should go ahead in a military tribunal because the restrictions were unlikely to be repealed any time soon and because the families of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks have already waited too long for justice, which he said is “long overdue.”

You thought I was talking something else, weren't you?

Reverses. Really?

The Post makes it sound like the Administration up and changed its mind. Steve Benen speaks about what really happened:

The Attorney General "changed his mind" after Congress "imposed a series of restrictions"? That's a bit like saying I changed my mind about getting up after I was tied to my chair.

Holder told reporters this afternoon that his original decision was still the right one, but blamed Congress for "tying our hands."

He happens to be right. Even today, Holder wants to do the right thing, and so does President Obama. And yet, Gitmo is open today, and KSM will be subjected to a military commission in the near future, not because of an administration that backed down in the face of far-right whining, but because congressional Republicans orchestrated a massive, choreographed freak-out, and scared the bejesus out of congressional Democrats. Together, they limited the White House's options to, in effect, not having any choice at all.

There's plenty of room for criticism of the administration, but those slamming Obama for "breaking his word" on this are blaming the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

And Andrew Sullivan (gasp!):

The decision to try KSM in a military tribunal is as sad as keeping Gitmo open. He has, of course, been hemmed in by an irrational, panicked Congress. Maybe a civil trial would be impossible because of the torture inflicted on KSM by the last administration.

Of course, Chuck Schumer disappointed the hell out of me:

Chuck Schumer, New York’s senior Democratic senator, expressed relief that the trial would not take place in his home state. He said the move to put the 9/11 plotter through a military commission at Guantanamo Bay will allow him to get the “ultimate penalty,” and he said the decision is the “final nail in the coffin” of the “wrong-headed idea” to try Mohammed in New York.

“I have always said that the perpetrators of this horrible crime should get the ultimate penalty, and I believe this proposal by the administration can make that happen,” Schumer said in a statement.

Granted, Chuck is just out there representing his State, but I'll never call him a statesman. He's pandering to the baseless fears of New Yorkers. We have prosecuted Terrorists in this country, and jailed them int his country. 9/11 is no different.

Let me say that again: 9/11 is no different.

We could handle it then, we can handle it now.

Instead of standing up to Terrorism, like we imagine we do, we've caved to it, and a lot of Senators (like Charles Schumer) have enabled that cave.

The Fireside Chat for April 2nd, 2011 (VIDEO)

Live from Landover, Maryland. And I think I know about where this place is...

Juan Cole explains how things are going better than you think in Libya...

..and that a political solution may be coming...from inside Libya:

...the significance of [Libyan Foreign Minister] Kussa’s defection lies in its being a sign of the winds shifting against Qaddafi with his inner circle, which will affect the loyalty of his outer circle of tribal leaders. Many key members of the powerful Warfalla and Megarha tribes have already declared against Qaddafi, and Firjan and others are wavering. Tribes as loose systems of kinship politics, are volatile and fluid, and their allegiances can change rapidly. (Americans might remember that many members of the Dulaim tribe in Iraq fought tooth and nail against US troops in 2004-2005 but by 2006-2007 many were joining pro-American militias, the ‘Sons of Iraq.’) The tribes could turn on Qaddafi in a second, aside from his own and a few loyalists.

In announcing the end of US bombing raids in Libya, Gates “noted that the air attacks are a central feature of the overall military strategy; over time they could degrade Gadhafi’s firepower to a point that he would be unable to put down a renewed uprising by opposition forces…”

That is, Gates hopes that over time, Col. Muammar Qaddafi will simply have fewer and fewer tanks, artillery pieces, and armored vehicles. He has already lost the ability to bomb Benghazi and other cities from the air.

Gates’s premise seems to be that most Libyans don’t want to be under Qaddafi’s rule, and that the only way he subdued Zuara, Zawiya, Tajoura, Ra’s Lanuf, and other cities that had thrown him off was by main force. When his main force is subjected to sufficient attrition, his advantage will suddenly disappear and the opposition to him of the liberation movement will suddenly cascade. I don’t personally think that this cascade requires military means. It happened once largely peacefully, as in Egypt in Tunisia, and can happen again if Qaddafi’s heavy weapons can be neutralized.

People who want the attrition of Qaddafi’s forces to be visited in only a week or two are just being unrealistic. It would happen over weeks and maybe months.

In the meantime, the UN allies (NATO and the Arab League) have as their most urgent mission the protection of Benghazi from any major attack, which can be done aerially.

What bad thing would happen if NATO and the Arab League just proceed deliberately and with patience?

Impatience makes for bad policy. Those who urge Western military troops the ground are making a huge error– that development would never be acceptable to most of the Libyan people nor to the Arab League, nor to the majority on the UN Security Council.

Others of the tribe of the impatient want to put sophisticated weapons in rebel hands. Those who think the US or NATO should arm the rebels, however, are simply paving the way for a civil war and for a long-term cycle of violence. Having a rebel army conquer reluctant cities like Sirt, which still support Qaddafi in the main, is undesirable. Let pro-Qaddafi cities alone. The main task should be to protect the anti-Qaddafi populace from his attacks.

NATO agrees. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday that his organization differs with those who have suggested that UNSC Resolution 1973 allows the arming of the rebels.

Like with Tunisia, Egypt and Iran (eventually), the lack of hands-on American involvement is actually a good thing. Give the Rebels a fighting chance to do it themselves. Don't arm the rebels...why? Because once you hand one of your allies a gun, that gun don't magically disappear when the mission is over. Guns don't melt into the sand by force of will. Guns, history has shown, tend to stick around. Anyone can pick up that thing, and possibly use it against you (see: Bin-Laden, Usama).

Keep Qaddafi weak. Give the Rebels their chance. Let the tribes finish him off. It won't happen overnight oh ye of convenient short-term memory loss, but it will happen.

UPDATE: 11:10am Pacific: Thomas Ricks has a quick column on why the U.S. arming the rebels is a bad idea, and I'd like to post a reminder that the Administration hasn't made up its mind yet, and it's pretty unlikely to do so as of this morning.

This is making the rounds. Video of the President talking iPads and Computers...

Pretty funny moment.

The President's Speech on Energy at Georgetown University (VIDEO)

Gov. Jerry Brown...the Anti-Scott Walker (VIDEO)

I don't want to play like this is good news or anything, but I don't see where Jerry had much of a choice. The simple fact is that you can't bargain with someone who keeps moving the goalposts, and at some point you have to say: Then shut it down.



Jerry just said: then shut it down.

Now, the reason I call Jerry the anti-Scott Walker is simple.  Jerry did at least try to reach out.  He lists Business Leaders, Labor, Farmers, Educators, etc., as being onboard with his budget plan.  He tries to spread the pain out to everybody, and is willing to let the voters decide on the tax increases.

The next time Scott Walker reaches out to anybody but the Koch Brothers will be the first.

Diane Sawyer's Interview with President Obama - March 29, 2011 (VIDEO)

The Mighty Eagle saves the day once again... (VIDEO)

I'm afraid you're going to have to be into Angry Birds to get all the references to this, but its still pretty funny. Even though the ending suggested by the piece is stlll TBD



I myself have yet to purchase the Mighty Eagle, but looking at this, maybe its worth the extra 99 cents.

"Then Shut It Down..." (VIDEO)

This from Brian Beutler:

Just two weeks ago, after he watched 54 of his own members defect from an emergency spending bill to keep the government from shutting down, House Speaker John Boehner realized he was in a fix. The numbers told an important story -- that to keep the federal lights on, Boehner would need help from Democrats just to pass legislation through the House. And that would mean cutting a deal, and enraging his conservative rank and file.

At a jobs forum in the auditorium of the Capitol Visitors Center, he softened his rhetoric and acknowledged his weakened hand.

"It's never been lost on me that because we only control the House there are a lot of other players that we need to work with in order to come to any agreement to keep the government open," Boehner said. "But I'm confident that we'll be able to find a way to cut spending -- which we believe will lead to a better environment for business to hire people in America -- and keep the government open."

Something changed between then and now. This week, Boehner and House Republicans are drawing thick lines in the sand in budget negotiations with Democrats, and the threat of a shutdown -- something Boehner has insisted he wants to avoid -- has spiked. On Tuesday, principals on both sides spoke as if a shutdown wasn't just inevitable, but imminent. Cue finger-pointing.

Does that sound familiar? Well, that's because you have seen it all before, not just a decade ago between Newt and Bubba, but on your TeeVee:



The only difference is I think Harry Reid is going to be the one to say "Shut it down" instead of the President.  Not as sexy for Prime-Time TV, but direct all the same.

Continuing:

So much of this has played out behind closed doors that it's hard to suss out exactly who's right. But we know that Republican rhetoric has stiffened, and that, after weeks of keeping their heads down, Democrats began leaking detailed accounts of the failed negotiations early this week. Republicans dispute these accounts, and say nothing has changed -- but something clearly has. And Republicans don't have a compelling explanation for it.

But the facts are complicated and weedy. So each party's spin machines are gearing up to convince the public that the other party's at fault. Those lines of argumentation are now clear. It's unclear who'll win that spin battle -- but it's worth pointing out that the White House has been prepared for this outcome for a long time.

All I can say is, never bet against the President when he has time to prepare for something. Personally, I knew the Libyan Speech was going to come off well. Why? He had 48 hours to prepare.

And this, he's been preparing for since November.

Busy Night Last Night (Part 5: Just an excuse for a quick Canada joke) (VIDEO)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Chaos in Chaonada
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Busy Night Last Night (Part 4: Lawrence and Rachel hash it out) (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Busy Night Last Night (Part 3: Anthony Weiner calls bull@#$% on Dennis Kucinich) (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For the record, I too, have called bull@#$% on Dennis Kucinich before.

Busy Night Last Night (Part 2: Maddow discovers President being consistent) (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Busy Night Last Night (Part 1: Jon Stewart's Interview with Mansour O. El-Kikhia) (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mansour O. El-Kikhia
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Roll The Union On! (VIDEO)

The President's Speech on Libya at the National Defense University of March 28, 2011 (VIDEO)

Thomas Ricks (from Obama on Libya: Watch out, Saudi Arabia):

That's what I thought as I watched President Obama's speech on Libya. It reminded me that about three years ago, when I read a transcript of an interview Fareed Zakaria did about foreign affairs with Barack Obama, then running for the Democratic presidential nomination. The message I took away from that exchange was that if this guy is elected, he will have little time for dictators, despots and the like.

What we saw in the NDU speech was a logical defense of what the president has ordered the military to do and an exposition of what the limits of the action will be. The cost of inaction threatened to be greater than the cost of action, but now we have done our part. Next role for the U.S. military is best supporting actor, providing electronic jammers, combat search and rescue, logistics and intelligence. That was all necessary, and pretty much as expected.

But I was most struck by the last few minutes of the speech, when Obama sought to put the Libyan intervention in the context of the regional Arab uprising. He firmly embraced the forces of change, saying that history is on their side, not on the side of the oppressors.

Andrew Sullivan (from "America Is Different"):

That, it seems to me, was the core message of the president's speech on Libya. America is simply incapable of watching a slaughter take place - anywhere in the world - and not move to do what we can to prevent it. It is against our nature to let evil triumph in such a fashion. The Libyan example was particularly vital because a rare constellation of forces came together to make turning away even harder: European and Arab support for preventing mass murder; UN permission; America's "unique" capabilities; and an imminent massacre in Benghazi.

Obama the Niebuhrian put the moral in realism. Yes, we could not do this everywhere all the time; but we could do this when we did; and that was good enough. There was some sleight of hand here. Citing the UN Resolution as an external reason for war - when the US lobbied hard for it - was a touch too neat. But essentially Obama was challenging those of us who opposed this decision to ask ourselves: well, what would you do? If the US had insisted on looking away, America would have seemed morally callous, even compared with the French. The mass graves of Benghazi would take their place alongside the horrors of Srebrenica. And the impact on Arab opinion, especially on the younger generation that is so key to the future, would be fatal to America's long term interests.

I do not know whether the last is actually the case, or whether most young Arabs are understandably focused on the regimes they labor under rather than the murderous nutter in the North African desert. But secretary of state Clinton was in the region at the time and believed otherwise. And, yes, one appreciates that doing nothing represented a choice as well as doing something. And it too would have had unknowable consequences.

Was I persuaded? Not completely. The major objection - what happens now? - was not answered affirmatively by the president. It was answered negatively: there would be no military effort at regime change, as in Iraq; NATO, not the US, would soon be leading the mission; and, er, it may last a while. It is way too soon to celebrate a new model of international cooperation; but it seems striking to me that the rationale Obama invoked was very much GHW Bush in Kuwait rather than GW Bush in Iraq. That left Saddam in power for more than a decade. And yet Obama spoke as if Qaddafi's days were obviously numbered. I sure hope they are.

And yet (this from Greg Sargent):

For the past two years, the right has alleged that President Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism, which holds that America plays a unique role in the world, defined by National Review’s Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru as an “exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.”

After Obama’s speech last night justifying the intervention in Libya, anyone who alleges the president doesn’t believe this deserves to be laughed out of town.

Peter Beinart:

Obama’s is a different version of American exceptionalism. For men like Bolton, American virtue is a given. American presidents should never apologize because America never has anything to apologize for. Our mistakes are never crimes, and if others don’t see our moral greatness that just proves their moral cynicism.

Obama, by contrast, because he can see America through post-colonial eyes, knows this is a fable. He knows that in many places on earth, America has abetted dictatorship and corruption and slaughter. In some cases he has apologized, which has led men like Bolton to claim that he sees America as no different from any other great power.

But they don’t get it. For Obama, American exceptionalism is not a fact; it is a struggle. Bolton and company like to invoke World War II and the Cold War because in those conflicts we fought the evil that lay out there. Obama, by contrast, often invokes the civil-rights movement: a struggle against the evil within. That’s what makes his Libya decision powerful. He knows that there are good reasons for Middle Easterners to fear when they see American planes overhead. And yet he is acting to show that it does not have to be that way.

The complete text of the speech can be found here:

Described this as one of the more frightening bits of video from the Tsunami, and you know what? That's right. It is. (VIDEO)

Got this from Jalopnik, one of the many, many Gawker Media sites (I actually have no idea what Jalopnik specializes in).

Anyway, they described this as one of the more frightening bits of video from the Tsunami, and you know what? They're right.



I get the feeling the Cameraman went to the top of that building because he (or she) was advised this was a solid safe spot to avoid the water.

But about three minutes in, despite being surrounded by concrete, brick and sturdy foundation, tell me...do you feel safe?

Only in America, will we reward someone for slitting our own throats. Only in America are people rewarded for destroying us. (VIDEO)

One of the things that's been on my mind is the fact that the average American doesn't understand that much about Economics.

They think they do, but demonstrate time and time again that really don't.

How else do you get Americans actively lobbying on behalf of corporations, or telling the Government to keep their hands off Medicare, or demanding they they go after Unions on behalf of the Corporate master, or fight for Budget talks in which no talk of raising taxes is to be allowed, or demanding cuts to Social Security...right up until the point the axe is about to fall.

And then there's this:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's amazing to me that we live in a country where this is acceptable.

Not only is G.E. being allowed to pay $0 in Federal Income Taxes, American Voters are working very hard to make sure that politicians (in both parties mind you) are rewarded for making sure this happens. Only in America, will we reward someone for slitting our own throats. Only in America are people rewarded for destroying us.

Which brings me to Ray Buursma, writing for the Holland Sentinel. You probably haven't heard of the Holland Sentinel (I hadn't either) or of Holland, Michigan in particular, but Mr. Buursma said some things that really hit home for me. It's nothing that hasn't been said in this space (that we are to blame for our Economic woes), but it's always nice to hear someone else say it as well.

I'm never sure what to do with pieces like these. As a blogger, you look for a place to start and end to give you a taste of what the writer has intended, but sometimes when you come right down to it, there's no place to cut, and the piece has to present itself on its own terms.

Thus, it is with extreme pleasure, I present Ray Buursma column for the Holland Sentinel, American workers got what they deserved:

Are you an American employee? If so, today’s column will likely offend you. If you’d rather not be offended, read no further. If you continue and then complain, I’m sorry, but that simply proves you’re, well, stupid. But then again, stupidity plays a large role in today’s topic.

Still reading? OK. You’ve had fair warning.

So you’re an American employee. Maybe you make car parts. Maybe you’re an engineer or designer. Maybe you’re an accountant, store clerk or tradesman. Whatever you do, you’re probably stupid or lazy. Yes, I wrote it, and I mean it. You are either stupid or lazy. Maybe both.

Now, I’m not referring to your work ethic or job performance. No, most of you are competent and devoted to your profession or vocation. I’m addressing the way you view economics and employment. I’m challenging your gumption to advocate for yourself and your fellow Americans. Here’s what I mean.

Remember the Reagan standard? Are you better off today than you were a decade ago? Two decades? Three? Unless you make more than $380,000 a year, the answer is no. In fact, your standard of living over the last quarter century has actually decreased while millionaires have added 30 percent to their net wealth. Why? Two reasons.

First, hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs went overseas while the politicians you elected did nothing to stop them. Yet you continue to elect leaders who offer nothing but tax cuts, as if that would stem the flow of disappearing jobs.

Did you demand your leaders address America’s trade imbalance or continuous outsourcing of jobs? Did you demand your leaders require foreign countries to buy a dollar’s worth of American goods for every dollar of goods they sell here?

No and no. You didn’t bother. You simply crossed your fingers and prayed, “I hope my job’s not next.” You made concessions to your employer and hoped that would stem the exodus of jobs, or at least yours. How’d that work for you?

Second, you bought into the myth that unions are the cause of America’s demise. You didn’t bother to learn America became a world power when union membership was at its peak. You didn’t bother to learn America became the envy of the world while 1 of every 3 Americans was a union member.

So, how are things going for you? How do your benefits compare to a quarter century ago? Are you paying a higher or lower percentage of your income for health insurance? Does your company offer a pension plan, or do you now fund your own 401(k)?

Maybe you’re thinking, “I’m not a union worker, so this doesn’t affect me.”

Stop being stupid. Union benefits provide a standard other companies have to match, or at least come close to. When those benefits are cut, yours are, too. Or do you think you operate in your own little employment vacuum?

To make matters worse, you’re again being played for a chump. The same puppets who did nothing while your standard of living decreased are now using the oldest gimmick in the book — jealousy — to continue their assault on American workers. Rather than protect Americans’ jobs, they deflect your attention through jealousy.

“Cut the pay of government workers,” they cry. “Increase their health premiums. Decrease their pensions. Break their unions. After all, you’ve suffered so they should suffer too.” And in your misery, you buy their argument while more jobs head oversees. Pretty stupid, eh?

If their antics weren’t so pathetic, if the consequences weren’t so dire, if they didn’t prey on your stupidity, and if you didn’t buy into their convoluted reasoning, this whole situation would be laughable. But of course it’s not.

I warned you I’d likely offend you, and I suspect I did. But once you overcome your anger, consider my analysis. Then, either wise up and do something about it, or resign yourself to a lower standard of living for the next decade.

I've made two discoveries in the last few weeks. Rick Ungar of Forbes Magazine (yeah, I know Forbes...but he's on our side) and now Mr. Burrsma. They're both pro-worker and always worth your time.