I like Ron Wyden, I respect Ron Wyden, but he needs to get his ass kicked for this...

But the President and Democrats should kick his ass for this. No Privatization of Medicare, ever.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who has been castigated by Democrats and hailed by Republicans for his plan to privatize Medicare, will on Thursday unveil a new approach that would preserve the 46-year-old federal health program.

Working with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the Wisconsin Republican is developing a framework that would keep government-run Medicare as an option for new retirees starting in 2022, along with a variety of private plans.

Seniors would still receive a set amount of money from the government to buy insurance, as they would under the Medicare proposal Ryan included in the budget blueprint that passed the House last year. But the new approach would let that subsidy, known as premium support, rise or fall along with the actual cost of the policies — creating more protection for seniors and saving potentially far less in the budget.

The unusual alliance between Ryan and Wyden could complicate election-year politics for both parties on an explosive issue. In recent days, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has embraced the Ryan privatization plan, and GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich has offered qualified support. Democrats, meanwhile, have been gearing up to challenge the GOP across the board on the issue, accusing Republicans of pushing to “end the Medicare guarantee.”

Ryan and Wyden said in an interview Tuesday that they joined forces in hopes of lifting the Medicare debate above the divisive political rhetoric and forging a genuine compromise that could save the program along with the government’s solvency.

"We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable" (VIDEO)

And yes, thre was a direct shot in the speech at Paul "Punching Bag" Ryan's voucher program.

A couple key graphs from the text of the speech:

You know, last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the economy. And to his credit, he made the point that we can’t afford the kind of politics that says it’s “my way or the highway.” I was encouraged by that. Here’s the problem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever. He said -- I'm quoting him -- there is “only one option.” And that option and only option relies entirely on cuts. That means slashing education, surrendering the research necessary to keep America’s technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and airports to get worse. It would cripple our competiveness and our ability to win the jobs of the future. And it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

So the Speaker says we can’t have it "my way or the highway," and then basically says, my way -- or the highway. That’s not smart. It’s not right. If we’re going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together.

And...

[A]ny reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.

It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it. And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution.

Now, we’re already hearing the usual defenders of these kinds of loopholes saying this is just “class warfare.” I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare. I think it’s just the right the thing to do. I believe the American middle class, who've been pressured relentlessly for decades, believe it’s time that they were fought for as hard as the lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires and big corporations.

Nobody wants to punish success in America. What’s great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try -– the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires. This is the land of opportunity. That’s great. All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families get. And I think most wealthy Americans would agree if they knew this would help us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future.

It comes down to this: We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount -- by $4 trillion. So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford to do both.

Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.

This is not class warfare. It’s math.  The money is going to have to come from someplace. And if we’re not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We’ve got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow. We’ve got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling.

That’s unacceptable to me. That’s unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch. I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.

"There will be no Social Security in the recommendations..."

Social Security and a raise in the Medicare age are off the table. Why? Because the GOP burned the President one too many times:

And even Huffington Post (the worthless Huffington Post, for pity's sake!) agrees:

Jilted by Republican leadership during the deficit-reduction talks that accompanied the debt ceiling debate, the Obama administration is now pulling back an offer to put Social Security reform on the negotiating table.

The president will not include changes to that program in the series of deficit reduction measures that he will offer to the congressional super committee next Monday, administration officials confirm.

This was all caught by Steve Benen first this morning, who follows up with:

And what about the possibility that the president might recommend raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67? Both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal report today that the White House doesn’t intend to recommend this, either. It’s more likely Obama’s plan will call for cuts to providers and/or higher premiums for wealthier recipients.

In other words, President Obama, burned by Republicans who rejected his outreach, apparently intends to keep up the fighting spirit we saw last week with the introduction of the American Jobs Act. If the reports today are accurate, the White House’s debt-reduction plan will be largely in line with what much of the left has wanted him to do all along.

Oddly enough, perhaps the most important progressive victory of the summer came when House Republicans turned Obama’s Grand Bargain offer down. Nevertheless, it appears the president learned a lesson from the ordeal, and isn’t inclined to make the mistake again.

I am not one of the Obama supporters who believes that the President is a Jedi, or a guy who's playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. No, the President is smart. He's the smartest guy in the room, but he's not Yoda (Obi Wan, maybe). He is super intelligent, and this intelligence gives him an ability to react better and more quickly to situations than most other people.

This is a long way of saying yes, he actually believed in a Grand Bargain. He was genuine in his offer. It was not a feint or a double-move, or thinking ten moves ahead. He wanted a deal, and when the GOP rejected that deal, he was able to quickly and smartly change tactics to deal with the situation.

But the strategy remains the same: Get re-elected and leave the country in better shape than you found it.

Ezra Klein: The Supercommittee...built to deadlock.

So start looking at that trigger folks, because I'm betting that's where we're headed:

House Speaker John Boehner has chosen Reps. Dave Camp, Fred Upton and Jeb Hensarling, and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has chosen Sens. Rob Portman, Jon Kyl and Pat Toomey. Of the six, Portman has expressed the openness to the Senate Gang of Six’s deficit plan, as The Hill points out. In late July, at the height of the debt-ceiling negotiations, he called the group’s work “a step in the right direction.” 

But Portman never came out fully in support of the Gang of Six’s plan, and his commitment to the GOP hardline seems to have firmed up. Just yesterday, Portman told the Columbus Dispatch that any tax increases should be off the table. While he also affirmed his support for raising revenue through tax reform — eliminating loopholes and the like — Portman made it clear last month that he doesn’t think that tax reform should be part of a deficit deal. As his spokesman told ABC News last month, Portman “believes we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and that tax reform should be used not to increase revenue but to bring about a more efficient and competitive tax code by lowering rates while clearing out underbrush.” 

In other words, even the GOP’s most moderate supercommittee member has ruled out tax increases or tax reform as part of a grand bargain. And without any concessions on revenue from Republicans, there’s not much chance that they will sign on to a plan that will also be acceptable to Democrats. As Senate Majority Harry Reid’s picks confirm, Democrats will be advocating a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction that pairs spending cuts with new revenue. Sens. Max Baucus, John Kerry and Patty Murray may willing to consider entitlement reforms, to varying degrees. But it seems clear that they won’t sign on to a cuts-only package with only nominal revenue increases. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has yet to announce her choices for the committee, but they’re likely to tack further to the left than the Senate Dems and push back even harder against a deal without significant revenue increases. 

There was a lot of skepticism about the supercommittee to begin with. And the leadership’s announcements will just add to the chorus of cynics — and prompt Capitol Hill to look even more closely at what cuts will be triggered if the group fails to come to a deal.

"If"?  What "if", Ezra?

The main shock for me is that two people I assumed were going to be on this train wreck: Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, are nowhere to be see.

Still, what the hell do I know?  I'm a Screenwriter from Maryland.

Think Progress has the names of the Democratic Senators on the Supercommittee. Prepare to be pleasantly shocked!

Wow.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has reportedly tapped Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), John Kerry (D-MA), and Max Baucus (D-MT) to join the super committee created by the deal that raised the federal debt ceiling. The super committee is charged with crafting a deficit reduction package by Thanksgiving; seven of the twelve members have to approve the plan to send it to the full Congress.

I was resigned to Baucus (how can you not put on the Chair of the Senate Finance Commitee?), Kent Conrad and a token Liberal. But Murray and Kerry? I am actually pretty stoked.

Lawrence O'Donnell: “The most effective Democratic Presidential campaigner we have ever seen on television” (VIDEO)

Still, while I agree with the sentiment, I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton could make a pretty good argument on his behalf. Bubba was better at the "I feel your pain" and off-the-cuff empathy speeches. The Boss is better at slowly, painful, and coldly eviscerating his opposition. Bubba was better at heightening emotion. The Boss was better at beating down his opponents.

Simply put, Clinton is a slap on the back; Obama is that hard elbow you get driving the lane that the refs don't call.

So (cough-cough) you may have noticed that I've been relying on quite a bit of Lawrence to do my blog this week.  Then again, I've never seen my position on an issue, and my position on an issue so perfectly in alignment.

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

Strangely enough, I've never seen a intra-ideology dispute, like the one I've been having with dear ol' Dad this past week, so perfectly encapsulated in this discussion between Lawrence O'Donnell and Jonathan Alter (where I'm Lawrence and Dad is Jonathan Alter):

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

Lawrence O'Donnnell: "As the clock runs out, the President's hand only strengthens" (VIDEO)

Lawrence had a busy night, which is why I'm pretty much giving you the first half of last night's show. And he engages in one of my favorite sports, Professional Left Bashing.

You'll note the part of the first segment where he reminds America that one of the first things then-President Bill Clinton did was cut Medicare Spending, and not one Liberal howled. (I seem to remember some howling, but Lawrence is right, it was nowhere near the cacophony it is today for President Obama's head-fake.):

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

The Richard Wolffe segment:

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

Did you catch that part where Nancy Pelosi says that she too is in favor of the Four Trillion Package too? That should tell you right there, that the President's intentions on cutting Entitlements are a head-fake.

The Ezra Klein segment:

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

Now, apparently, the President said something in today's Press Conference that suggests that a Clean Bill is his least favorite option:

"The fall back position, the third option, and what I consider the least attractive option, is one in which we raise the debt ceiling without making any significant progress on reducing the deficit."

I can't wait to see what Lawrence has to say about that one, but my bet is, it continues to corner the Republicans. After bailing on the President's Four Trillion dollar plan to preserve tax cuts for the rich, their one major play remains, pass a clean Debt Ceiling Bill and blame the President for it.

It seems to me, at least following my logic, that the President is saying: "Hey, I don't want to do that either. I'm all for spending cuts. But, if this is all we can agree to, I guess we have to do it.  Heavy sigh."

Even though, as Lawrence says, it was his original position at the start of this debate.

"[By Sunday], the parties will at least know where each other’s bottom lines are..." (VIDEO)

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

From the prepared remarks:

Hello, everybody. I’m going to make a very brief statement.

I just completed a meeting with all the congressional leaders from both chambers, from both parties, and I have to say that I thought it was a very constructive meeting. People were frank. We discussed the various options available to us. Everybody reconfirmed the importance of completing our work and raising the debt limit ceiling so that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is not impaired.

What we decided was that staffs, as well as leadership, will be working during the weekend, and that I will reconvene congressional leaders here on Sunday with the expectation that, at that point, the parties will at least know where each other’s bottom lines are and will hopefully be in a position to then start engaging in the hard bargaining that’s necessary to get a deal done.

I want to emphasize that nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. And the parties are still far apart on a wide range of issues. But, again, I thought that all the leaders here came in a spirit of compromise, in a spirit of wanting to solve problems on behalf of the American people. Everybody acknowledged that the issue of our debt and our deficit is something that needs to be tackled now. Everybody acknowledged that in order to do that, Democrats and Republicans are going to be required in each chamber. Everybody acknowledged that we have to get this done before the hard deadline of August 2nd to make sure that America does not default for the first time on its obligations. And everybody acknowledged that there’s going to be pain involved politically on all sides, but our biggest obligation is to make sure that we’re doing the right thing by the American people, creating an environment in which we can grow the economy and make sure that more and more people are being put back to work.

So I want to thank all the leaders. I thought it was a very constructive meeting. And I will be seeing them back here on Sunday. A lot of work will be done between now and then.

A quick summary of this morning's "Grand Bargain" news...

Okay, so it rolls down like this.

Last night and this morning, various papers, including the Washington Post, and New York Times, all went to press saying that the President is going to propose some kind of Grand Bargain on the Deficit to get the Debt Ceiling raised. Said deal would include four trillion (not two trillion) in cuts combined with one trillion in new revenues. Part of the cuts on the table would be entitlement spending from Social Security and Medicare, including the possibility of means teasting.

Again, all speculation and rumor. Actual details as to exactly what those cuts and revenues are are...frankly...sketchy.

St. John of Orange follows by saying "Yeah, we'll do the revenues, but only if we lower ALL tax rates." Which is something the President wanted to do anyway, given what he said at the State of the Union.

The White House quickly pushed back on the various stories, even though (I'm assuming) that they leaked them in the first place. (Trial balloon anyone?)

While AARP and some uber-Liberal groups are howling, you'll notice that so far...Congressional Democrats aren't (yet, at least not really). Which leads to the next theory, that this is really a stunt on the part of Democrats to appear reasonable to the public because everyone knows the GOP has shifted so far into looneyville that no deal on the deficit is possible.

And on top of everything else, the GOP is starting to sweat a little at the prospect of the President using the Constitution to ignore the Debt Ceiling Limit, because when asked in his Twitter Town Hall yesterday, the President didn't exactly rule it out.

Think Progress: Herman Cain thinks he's helping!

Probably the first (and last) time on this blog, but thank you Herman Cain!:

On the heels of last night’s Senate defeat of the Republicans’ Medicare-ending budget, presidential contender Herman Cain went on Fox News to defend the plan. Cain has recently pulled ahead of former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) in the polls, and used his new credibility to admonish the rest of the GOP field for backing away from the plan authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

As national backlash to Ryan’s Medicare privatization plan has grown, Republicans have become increasingly divided about how to sell something so deeply unpopular. Many, including Ryan himself, have cynically tried to deny that it’s a voucher scheme at all, but rather the much more appealingly-named “premium support” plan. Speaking with Fox and Friends host Gretchen Carlson, Cain crtiticized this hedging and urged his fellow candidates to call the Ryan plan what it is — a voucher system.

"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:

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.

The Affordable Care Act represents the last time Liberals will compromise on Health Care Reform

Conservatives...be damn careful what you wish for.  Because this ruling, also makes unconstitutional one of your preferred fantasies.

Ummm, what other thing would you like the Government to make us all go out and buy?

Would it be Stocks and Bonds...with your Social Security money, a scheme known as Privatization?

If you can't stomach the idea of being made to buy Health Insurance, how can you then justify making us all go out and buy stocks and bocks with our Social Security Insurance?

And you do realize that the Affordable Care Act represents something else, don't you?

It's the last compromise.

Yeah, because if you trash this, if you make this law invalid, we Democrats will be left with only one choice when it comes to reforming Health Care...that'd would be something we love, and you hate called: Medicare for all.

Yeah, Single...payer.

Not the Public Option.  Not Medicare at 55, Medicare...for...all.

Game on, fellas.

A rebuke to both to the left and the right when it comes to our preconceived notions...

Great catch from Andrew Sullivan reading from a guy named P.M. Carpenter:

Just as the modern right requires frequent reminders that prior to Europe's liberalism and America's New Dealism life was for many a living hell utterly without safety nets, the modern left needs reminding that not all national security measures are a "military-industrial" scam.

Bondad on why you can expect no problems to get solved on the Deficit and Taxes in the foreseeable future

Back from Turkey Day, and it's back to business:

From the Bondad:

The Republicans on the panel are generally opposed to raising taxes and the Democrats to big changes in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The above emboldened words illustrate the stupidity of Washington. Simply put there is no way to balance the budget without two things happening: taxes going up and some kind of compromise on health care spending. There is just no way for meaningful change to happen without both parties compromising on their key issues. So, expect the problem to continue.

How Rick Perry is going to let party and ideology screw up an honest-to-God sweetheart deal for Texas...

...as only Rick Perry can.

First off, blogging from Houston, Texas, site of the Family's Thanksgiving celebration. It's hot and its humid, but at least I was patted down by a TSA Agent. (Travel Tip #235: Sweatshirts aren't that good an idea for Air Travel anymore).

Anyway, I get to Houston (euuuhhh), and suddenly Rick Perry, the newly re-elected God-Emperor of Texas, is talking about opting out of Medicaid.

Ezra Klein explains why that's a monumentally stoopid idea:

Consider the case of Texas, which with 25 percent uninsured, leads the nation in not providing for its residents. If the state pulls out of Medicaid, as Gov. Rick Perry (R) is suggesting, that would put it at 40 percent uninsured, as Medicaid covers 15 percent of the state. Texas might try some other form of coverage, but it will have lost hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding. You can occasionally do less with more, but when you have a lot less, you generally just do less. Whatever the state tried next would cover fewer people with less-comprehensive insurance, and it's a safe bet that the rate of uninsured would ultimately settle above 30 percent. Some legacy.

Conversely, if Perry does nothing, the federal government is going to come in and pick up most of the cost of a massive coverage expansion. Texas, in fact, will be one of the biggest winners from health-care reform, as its huge pool of uninsured residents means the state will get an uncommonly large amount of subsidies to bring that down to manageable levels. Texas "can expect to see Medicaid enrollment rise by 46 percent while state spending on Medicaid rises by about 3 percent.” Pretty good deal.

But remember a little thing about today's Republican Party, this from Andrew Sullivan (but originally caught by Greg Sargent):

We have in the current GOP a truly disturbing and cynical view of politics: there is nothing but party and ideology and the former is a vehicle solely for power to enact the other. The zero GOP votes for a stimulus package in the middle of the fastest downturn since the 1930s that was one-third tax cuts tells you all you need to know. And the Republican adoption of utopian, John Birch fantasies about rolling back the legacy of Woodrow Wilson makes any sane engagement with this party impossible. It is no longer run by anyone in Congress, but directed by talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin's Twitter account and Manichean ranters like radio host Mike Levin. If any government action is regarded as tyranny, then there is never any way to compromise. The fundamental problem lies with a deranged, ideological and dangerous opposition in a system designed to forge pragmatic compromise.

Knowing that, what do you think Rick Perry is going to do?

The Deficit Commission Non-Report: Reactions from the left, and the right

This was a pre-leak, a way to control media reactions to the Deficit Commission (of which there have been many) that are not in line with the reactions the Deficit Commission wants us to have, but remember:

It is not the commission's report. And here is the second most important fact to remember: The commission itself does not have any actual power. So what we're looking at is a discussion draft of a proposal to balance the budget authored by two people who don't have a vote in either the House or the Senate.

That was Ezra Klein.

This is also Ezra Klein:

It's worth taking a moment to consider how we got here: The fiscal commission we have is not the fiscal commission we were supposed to have. The fiscal commission we were supposed to have was the brainchild of Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, the two senior members of the Senate Budget Committee. "The inability of the regular legislative process to meaningfully act on [the deficit] couldn't be clearer," they wrote. Their proposal would have set up a commission dominated by members of Congress and able to fast-track its consensus recommendations through the congressional process -- no delays, no amendments. But that proposal was filibustered in the Senate, mainly by Republicans who worried it would end in tax increases.

I want to highlight this bit (also from Ezra):

Perhaps the oddest feature of the report from the co-chairs of the deficit commission is its cap on the amount of revenues the federal government can raise. It would've been one thing to propose a tax plan bringing revenues up to 21 percent of GDP -- we were at 18.5 percent in 2007 -- but instead, the co-chairs say that revenues shouldn't be allowed to go above 21 percent of GDP.

This actually angers me because this is how California completely screwed itself over the last two years. In our obsession to keep taxes from going up, we hit a genuine crisis we've voted away half the weapons from our arsenal to deal with it.

California called it Prop. 13.

Then there's Andrew Sullivan:

I've quickly scanned the Simpson-Bowles draft proposal and find it extremely encouraging. It really does hit what the Dish regards as key themes for a new fiscal order: 1986-style tax reform (largely removing deductions and lowering rates); serious defense retrenchment; focusing social security on the truly needy and raising the retirement age; hard cost-controls in Medicare; a real populist attack on government waste.

It reads like the manifesto the Tea Party never published. Every detail needs thinking through and debate. Much of it is way over my head in terms of the specifics of government programs and the ability to cut them. But the core proposal is honest, real, and vital. I recommend you download and read both documents.

If I were the president, I would embrace this and urge passage of these proposals as the key domestic objective of his next two years in office. If I were the GOP, intent not on politics but on restraining spending and the debt, I would make this a joint endeavor. If I were the Tea Party, I would leap at this as a way past the old two parties toward fiscal sanity.

What did I just say about Pundits being obsessed with the perfection of their own ideas??

I'm sorry, but Andrew's obsession with cutting our social safety net is one of the areas where I think he's got his head up his ass. He's still in love with Thatcher's England for pity's sake.

I respect Andrew on many issues, but he can really kiss my ass with his idea that this could be Obama's core legacy.

Yeah, its your core issue and have zero chance of being affected by the massive cuts you want.

I'm continually amazed by American's capacity to endure the suffering of someone else.

And finally, Paul Krugman:

OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.

I'm not sure what I think yet, but I can go along with this (back to Ezra again):

Some of it I like, some of it I don't like, and some of it I need to think more about.

In the end, isn't that the reaction a Commission on anything is supposed to enact?

Keith Olbermann's complete in-studio Interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (VIDEO)

One-stop shopping for all your Pelosi interview needs.

Part 1:




Part 2:

Rand Paul doubles down on trying to lose the Kentucky Senate Election

I'm not fooled, I know that Jack Conway may be a Ben Nelson in Democratic Clothing as well, but so far, he hasn't gone completely bat@#$% crazy like Joe Manchin, and he is a hundred times saner than his mega-Libertarian opponent Rand Paul.

Recently, he's been getting his a$$ kicked for suggesting there should be a $2000 dollar deductible on Medicare (i.e., Joe and Jane Taxpayer should be responsible for the first two grand of Medical expenses before the Medicare you paid for kicks in).

Today, Rand Paul doubled-down on that idea:

Obfuscation being the nature of things in political ads, you might expect that when given a chance to talk about the $2,000 deductible scheme, Paul would rattle off the ways Conway took his words out of context or practiced 'gotcha' selective editing in the clip.

You'd be wrong.

On Neil Cavuto's Fox News show today, Paul not only stood by the position Conway said he took on a $2,000 deductible for Medicare, he actually threw gasoline on the fire by suggesting that the deductible should apply to all future beneficiaries 55 years old or younger.

He did wiggle out of it a little bit by suggesting voters like my Dad not have to pay this deductible, while voters like me (and virtually anyone else who has heard of blogging) will get hit with it.