A Blue View

Does 'Moochers Against Welfare' Explain It?

At the end of the  mind blowingly counterintuitive post The More Dependent on the Government You Are, the More You Want to Cut It! I asked,

Anyone have any ideas as to what could be going on?

Though I doubt Paul Krugman reads A Blue View, he did try to answer my question in his column today, Moochers Against Welfare

But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.

First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t.

Still, as Columbia University’s Andrew Gelman points out, the really striking red-blue voting divide is among the affluent: High-income residents of red states are overwhelmingly Republican; high-income residents of blue states only mildly more Republican than their poorer neighbors. Like Mr. Frank, Mr. Gelman invokes social issues, but in the opposite direction. Affluent voters in the Northeast tend to be social liberals who would benefit from tax cuts but are repelled by things like the G.O.P.’s war on contraception.

Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”

Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on. And this is a confusion politicians deliberately encourage. For example, when Mr. Romney responded to the new Obama budget, he condemned Mr. Obama for not taking on entitlement spending — and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.

What do you think?  Does he explain it? (And don't forget to check the comments on the original post.)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The More Dependent on the Government You Are, the More You Want to Cut It!

If you haven't read this excellent NY Times story, Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It, yet you should. One section of it, however, just blew me away:

One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending.

But Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.

Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.

This was so mind blowingly counterintuitive, I wrote to the reporter who provided the reference so I (and you) could delve deeper.

Anyone have any ideas as to what could be going on?

The IPAB Could Be "the most important" Cost Control Mechanism In Health Reform

And Obama insisted, over lobbyist & Congressional opposition, it be there. Wall St Journal:

Last year, Congress rejected a bill that would have required an up-or-down vote on recommendations to reduce the budget deficit from a commission composed primarily of members of Congress. This year, Congress acquiesced to President Barack Obama's insistence that it create a presidentially appointed Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to craft ways to slow Medicare spending that will take effect automatically unless Congress votes to reject them.

Did something big just happen that will nudge Washington toward fiscal sanity? Or is this a smoke screen, one that allows backers of the health bill to argue today that it was fully paid-for and gut the provision tomorrow?

We won't know for a decade. "We'll get earlier feedback on the Apple iPad's performance than the IPAB," quips Peter Orszag, the White House budget director.

There is a chance—a chance—this will grow into a mechanism that overcomes congressional inability to say "no" to Americans who collectively demand more in benefits than they're willing to pay in taxes. It is hardly democratic. It substitutes technocrats' judgment for decisions by elected representatives. But, as Maya McGuiness, head of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, puts it: "Outsourcing some of the harder policy decisions is the best chance we have."

The law instructs the 14-member board to devise money-saving changes to Medicare when per-capita spending is projected to climb faster than one percentage point above the overall economy's growth rate. Congress can block the changes, but that requires a majority vote or, if the president vetoes, two-thirds. There are lots of strings: The law says the board can't ration care, increase revenue or restrict eligibility for benefits (though it can change the amount and way Medicare pays for care.) Hospitals get a pass for the first several years.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the board will save around $15.5 billion over 10 years, on top other changes to Medicare specified in the law—more if run by the right people and if Congress lets it take the heat, less if run by the wrong people or if Congress resists.

But it is a big change: A Medicare panel Congress created in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act can only make suggestions; this one has more teeth. "If I had gone to the Aspen Institute or the Brookings [Institution] board, and said you're going to get an entitlement commission with authority to control health-care costs, they'd be breaking out the champagne and high-fiving themselves," says Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff. "That's what's been done at the president's insistence over the opposition of providers and defenders of congressional prerogatives."

When House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) told Mr. Obama that House Democrats were uneasy about surrendering their power over the purse, White House aides say the president responded: "There'll be no health bill if I don't have the ability to control costs."

Mr. Orszag injudiciously told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein that the provision represents "the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve." (Don't tell the Supreme Court.) If the board realizes its potential to push Medicare toward paying for better quality care, as opposed to paying for more care, "it could well turn out to be perhaps the most important component of the new legislation," he says. (Mr. Orszag sometimes sounds like a man growing weary of the high-pressure budget director's job who would love to chair the new board.)

Yelps from doctors and drug companies suggest the IPAB may bite.

Seeds Of Historic Victory Planted 11 Months Ago In Obscure Budget Rules

It's good to have a smart President & team that thinks ahead. NY Times:

Just a few months into his first term in 1993, President Bill Clinton went to Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the protector of Senate rules, to ask permission to use a fast-track budget process known as reconciliation to enact a bold health care overhaul.

The president did not get the senator’s consent, and he did not get a health care law, either.

Members of the Obama administration who were veterans of the Clinton health care collapse were not about to make that mistake twice.

“The No. 1 lesson from 1993,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff and a former Clinton aide, “was to make sure you could use reconciliation for health care and education.”

Last April, Mr. Emanuel and Peter R. Orszag, the administration’s budget guru, went to Capitol Hill to press Senate Democrats to make sure the budget then being written would provide the ability to approve a health care bill with the simple Senate majority that reconciliation requires.

Democrats, led by Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, were skeptical, uncertain that the budget reconciliation process could even be employed that way. Hoping the theory would never be tested, Democrats inserted the procedural fail-safe in the budget document, allowing special protection for legislation covering health and education as long as it cut the deficit.

After a series of wild political twists and turns, that procedural emergency exit turned out to be essential to enacting the health care legislation after all.

“It worked out,” a beaming Mr. Conrad said on Thursday, minutes after the Senate disposed of the budget reconciliation bill and concluded its acrimonious health care debate.

But it did not work out as anyone had foreseen.

Early in the game, Democrats were talking about using the budget process to move the entire health care overhaul only if they could not corral the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

It was mainly a last-ditch contingency, one fraught with political difficulties. The mere mention of reconciliation drew howls of protests from Republicans who, though they relied on it to advance tax cuts in the past, said Democrats were preparing to abuse the process.

The Senate fight was of little import to the House, where the power of the majority negated the need for such a procedural shortcut. “It’s really an issue more for the United States Senate,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at the time.

As they studied the emerging health policy, Mr. Conrad and others became increasingly dubious that such a complex change could be considered under the tight reconciliation rules.

Democrats never reached that point. With the arrival of Senator Al Franken from Minnesota in July, they attained 60 votes in the Senate. One month later, conservative opposition to health care changes raged at summer town-hall-style meetings. Democrats concluded that they were unlikely to win any Republican support for their preferred health care approach.

Over four messy months of deal-cutting and hand-holding, Senate Democrats pulled together their 60 votes and passed the legislation on Christmas Eve without resorting to reconciliation. It appeared the special authority would not be needed.

Then, before the House and Senate could work out differences in their individual health bills, the political ground shook: Scott Brown was elected the new Republican senator from Massachusetts, and Democrats lost their 60th vote. Now what?

"As passage of health reform nears, a historic chance to help fix Washington, too"

Steven Pearlstein:

It's shaping up to be a great weekend here in Washington.

I'm not just talking about the spectacular weather or another upset-filled NCAA basketball tournament. I'm talking about the prospect of a quasi-climactic vote in the House that would finally have the United States join the rest of the industrialized world in offering health insurance to all its citizens.

Sometimes, those of us who live here and participate in political life can get a bit cynical. We tend to focus on the process or the gamesmanship or the unsavory compromises. Which is why it is important at moments such as this to get your head out of the weeds, look at the Capitol dome in the distance and remember how lucky you are to have a front-row seat to one of the world's longest-running historical dramas.

What strikes me about the lead-up to this weekend's health-care vote in the House is how quiet things actually are.

If, as Republicans would have us believe, Americans are so up in arms about the prospect of "Obamacare," why aren't there angry hordes marching on the Mall or jamming the halls of the Rayburn Building?

If the plan really represents a wholesale government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, why are so many associations representing private doctors, hospitals and drugmakers either supporting the legislation or staying relatively neutral?

And if this Democratic version of health reform is such a threat to economic prosperity, why are stocks, bonds and the dollar all rising this week as odds of passage increase?

One of the silliest Republican talking points is that Democrats are "ramming health-care reform down the throats of the American people." In fact, we've been talking about it, on and off, for decades, ultimately winding up with a solution that is not only remarkably centrist but also not all that different from the compromise nearly reached between Ted Kennedy and the Nixon White House in the early 1970s.

Indeed, although you'd never know it from the overheated rhetoric, the remarkable thing about the final proposal is how little it would change things, at least initially, for most Americans. That's no accident -- in fact, it's by political design. This plan is more like a time-release tablet meant to reform the system slowly from the inside out rather than surgically from the outside in.

The Hillary Barack Relationship Today

NY Times:

On a snowy Thursday shortly before her weekly meeting with President Obama last month, Hillary Rodham Clinton got a distressing phone call: her husband, Bill Clinton, was in a hospital with chest pains and needed an urgent heart procedure.

Mrs. Clinton kept her appointment with Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, taking her customary seat on the yellow sofa as the two talked about her coming trip to the Persian Gulf, where she planned to turn up the heat on Iran over its nuclear program.

“No one had any idea” that she might have had a personal worry, said a senior White House official who was present. Afterward, Mrs. Clinton raced for a shuttle flight to New York to see her husband.

But the fact that she first spent 45 minutes plotting Iran strategy with the man who beat her in a divisive primary campaign shows just how far Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have come since the bitter spring of 2008, when he sniped that her foreign-policy credentials consisted of sipping tea with world leaders, and she scoffed that his consisted of living in Indonesia when he was 10.

Sixteen months after Mr. Obama surprised nearly everyone by picking her as secretary of state, the two have again surprised nearly everyone by forging a credible partnership. Mrs. Clinton has proved to be an eager team player, a tireless defender of the administration, ever deferential to Mr. Obama and careful to ensure that her husband, the former president, does not upstage her boss.

Mr. Obama has been solicitous of Mrs. Clinton, yielding to her at times in internal debates, even showing signs of adopting some of her more hawkish world views.

They now joke about their “frenemies” status and have made gestures toward each other’s families. When Mr. Obama learned that Chelsea Clinton had become engaged, he turned to Mrs. Clinton and asked, “Does she want a White House wedding?” a senior official recalled. (Mrs. Clinton declined, saying the offer was “sweet” but would be “inappropriate.”) And when Mrs. Clinton traveled to Honolulu in January, she paid tribute to Mr. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in a speech she gave while looking over a garden dedicated to Ms. Dunham.

Still, there is none of the deep familiarity or the tight bonds — the round-the-clock, back-channel access — of their predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush, or going further back, James A. Baker and the first President Bush or Henry A. Kissinger and Richard M. Nixon.

“Hillary Clinton is the secretary of state,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written about the shaping of foreign policy. “The question now is whether she becomes a real adviser, and whether he trusts her.” <Continue reading.>

In Logical Extension Of Supreme's Big Wallet Decision, Md Corporation Runs For Congress

Wash Post:

Murray Hill might be the perfect candidate for this political moment: young, bold, media-savvy, a Washington outsider eager to reshape the way things are done in the nation's capital. And if these are cynical times, well, then, it's safe to say Murray Hill is by far the most cynical.

That's because this little upstart is, in fact, a start-up. Murray Hill is actually Murray Hill Inc., a small, five-year-old Silver Spring public relations company that is seeking office to prove a point (and perhaps get a little attention).

After the Supreme Court declared that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to funding political campaigns, the self-described progressive firm took what it considers the next logical step: declaring for office.

"Until now, corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington," the candidate, who was unavailable for an interview, said in a statement. "But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves."

William Klein, a "hired gun" who has been enlisted as Murray Hill's campaign manager, said the firm appears to be the first "corporate person" to run for office and is promising a spirited campaign that "puts people second, or even third."

The corporate candidate already has its own Web site, a Facebook page with 2,600 fans and an online ad on YouTube that has drawn more than 172,000 hits.

The ad makes a particularly passionate case for why it's necessary to have more direct corporate representation in Congress.

In a soothing voice, a narrator bemoans that "as much as corporate interests gave to politicians, we could never be absolutely sure they would do our bidding." The ad includes images of gleaming office towers and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and promises Murray Hill will bring "enlightened self-interest and corporate accounting" to Congress.

It concludes with a rousing call to action: "Vote for Murray Hill Incorporated for Congress -- for the best democracy money can buy."

The firm, whose clients include labor unions and environmentalists, is seeking to enter the Republican primary for the 8th District seat held by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D).

The firm "wanted to run as a Republican because we feel the Republican Party is more receptive to our basic message that corporations are people, too," Klein said, adding that his client has no particular beef with Van Hollen.

Van Hollen welcomes the competition. "The majority on the Court has made a mockery of our campaign finance laws, and Murray Hill is just mocking the mockers," said Doug Thornell, a senior adviser to Van Hollen ...

Murray Hill does face a couple of tiny problems in its effort to get elected to Congress.

A Parable For Our Times (cartoon)

 
 

Surprise! Conservatives Love Government, Too.

The Numerologist:

Conservatives agree that the government spends too much. But ask them what to cut ...

At last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called on the attendees to imitate the wife of Tiger Woods: "We should take a page out of her playbook and take a nine iron and smash the window out of big government in this country."

But there’s a problem for Pawlenty and the activists who cheered him: Rank-and-file conservatives actually like big government.

In 2008, the American National Election Study asked a national sample whether federal spending on 12 different programs should be increased, decreased or kept about the same.

As the graph above illustrates, the respondents who identified themselves as "conservative" or "extremely conservative" had little appetite for specific spending cuts.

Very few conservatives said they favored reducing (or cutting out altogether) spending on any program. The least popular program proved to be childcare -- with a grand total of 20 percent of conservatives saying they’d slash it. The most popular is highways; only 6 percent want to cut spending there. Even bugaboos like welfare and foreign aid fare well, attracting the ire of only 15 percent of conservatives. Amazingly, the survey found that, on average, 54 percent of them actually wanted to increase spending.

Political scientist James Stimson has suggested that a fifth of the country consists of what he calls "conflicted conservatives," those who might respond positively to a broad appeal like Pawlenty’s, but not once specific windows start getting smashed.

At CPAC, Glenn Beck turned to 12-step lingo: "Hello, my name is the Republican Party and I have a problem! I’m addicted to spending and big government." But why blame the GOP? After all, the party is being enabled by its own base.

Will Obama's Governing Style Work In Our Partisan, 24 Hour News Cycle Age?

Whether it ultimately works to get Congress to pass his agenda remains to be seen, but it certainly worked well during his 90 minute debate with House Republicans and should come off very well tomorrow. I guess that's one of the things the White House is counting on. From the NY Times:

Ever since his days as a young community organizer in Chicago, Mr. Obama has held fast to the belief that by listening carefully and appealing to reason he can bring people together to get results, an approach that in Washington has often come up short.

He is not showing any signs of changing his style. But he is facing perhaps the toughest test yet of his powers of persuasion: winning the votes he needs, in the face of unified Republican opposition and a deteriorating climate for Democrats, to push his health care measure through a skittish Congress.

Mr. Obama has not been the sort to bludgeon his party into following his lead or to intimidate reluctant legislators. And while he has often succeeded by relying on Democratic leaders in Congress to do his bidding — the House and Senate, after all, both passed versions of the health legislation last year — it is not clear whether his gentle, consensus-building style will be enough.

“I wouldn’t mind seeing a little more toughness here or there,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a New York Democrat, who contends that if Mr. Obama had pushed the Senate harder last year, the bill would have been law by now.

Like many Democrats in Congress, she praises Mr. Obama as intellectually gifted and a generous listener. But “if you are asking me if he dominates the room,” she said, “I would have to say no.”

White House officials strongly resist any suggestion that Mr. Obama is not tough enough, and they say the days are gone when a president can simply browbeat his own party into submission, especially on an issue as complex as health care.

“If the president weren’t tough, if the president weren’t committed, if the president didn’t believe that this was an imperative for the future of American families, businesses and the sustainability of our budget, this thing would have been dead six months ago,” David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, said in an interview. “I would love to live in a world where the president could snap his fingers or even twist arms and make change happen, but in this great democracy of ours, that’s not the way it is.”

One of the most persistent criticisms of Mr. Obama, especially on health care, is that he has given Congress too much latitude to engage in backroom deal-making and expedient trade-offs. His critics suggest that they want him to step forward more assertively to put his stamp on the process and the legislation.

But his defenders and some historians say that perhaps more than any modern president since Lyndon B. Johnson, Mr. Obama has been aggressive in trying to work his will with Congress. During his 13-month-old presidency, he has had countless one-on-one meetings with lawmakers — a technique that some scholars and strategists say evokes memories of Johnson, though their styles could hardly be more different.

Government Is Broken Cartoons

Analysis Of Obama's Approach: "Obama stays on offense with health-care proposal

Anne Kornblut and Michael Shear:

There had been rampant speculation that the White House would narrow its ambitions for health-care legislation after the loss of the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority last month. Instead, the president's proposal is striking for the extent to which it hews to the basic scale and framework of the bills on which Congress has toiled for months.

That decision -- to go big one last time, rather than small -- emerged quickly inside the White House after senior advisers to President Obama concluded privately that his goals for comprehensive changes to the health-care system could not be done piecemeal.

And after initially reeling from the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate in Massachusetts, Obama's chief political strategists came to believe that voters would punish Democrats more severely in this year's elections for failing to try, they said.

"This is a big, long-term threat to families, businesses and the solvency of the country," senior adviser David Axelrod said, describing the thinking inside the West Wing. "And we've come a long way. And this is an opportunity to try and complete it and deal with a problem that we know is only going to get worse."

Obama's top aides say they recognize the risk for the president if this latest effort fails, providing more ammunition to Republicans that the party in power cannot govern effectively. By once again embracing comprehensive reform, Obama could help the Republican narrative that he wants a government takeover of health care.

Reaction Monday was swift and blunt from GOP leaders, who had been making the case for weeks that the president should scrap the previous bills and start over. They said Obama's latest move represented more of the same problematic policies that Democrats in Congress had been pushing for months ...

But White House advisers said they concluded weeks ago that there was still a narrow path to legislative and political victory -- either by securing a modest amount of bipartisan support at a live, televised summit on Thursday or, more likely, by using parliamentary maneuvers to pass the legislation in the Senate without needing 60 votes.

On Capitol Hill, it took longer to come to accept that view, according to legislative and White House sources. Democratic members worried that they, too, might fall to the populist anger that swept Brown into office. And polling out of Massachusetts suggested that even voters who were wary of health-care changes wanted bipartisan cooperation -- and did not want Brown to be a roadblock.

"The White House position was not to push [legislators] -- let them come to it," said a senior Democratic strategist who has advised the president and his team on health-care strategy. "It was clearly one that members had to be given the space to come to this decision."

A senior Democratic Senate aide described this week's efforts as a welcome "attempt to try and change the story line" on health care, which he said had become mired in the legislative process. He said the president is trying to demonstrate that he is willing to go the "last mile" to get it done.

"Now that we've gotten a plan, we're going to need the active and ongoing engagement of the White House and the president," the aide said, reflecting a view among Democratic lawmakers that Obama has been slow to lead on the contentious issue. "They're not just going to be able to dump it on us." In the House, particularly, Democratic leaders are not assured of the votes they need for passage.

After hinting for weeks that he would pivot exclusively to jobs this year, Obama has also bet that success on health care will help repair some of the damage to his reputation from a bruising, year-long legislative battle that called into question his commitment to transparency, open debate and reform.

After Obama's question-and-answer session with House Republicans last month was met with a surprisingly favorable reaction, White House officials saw a potential opening for the president to step in and shape the debate. It fit a familiar pattern: Repeatedly, as a candidate and as president, Obama had delegated a difficult task to others and, after watching them falter, attempted a rescue himself, leaning heavily on his intellect and rhetorical skills.

Partisanship In Washington Blocks Solutions To Long Term, "Hard" Problems. Exhibit A: The Debt.

NY Times:

After decades of warnings that budgetary profligacy, escalating health care costs and an aging population would lead to a day of fiscal reckoning, economists and the nation’s foreign creditors say that moment is approaching faster than expected, hastened by a deep recession that cost trillions of dollars in lost tax revenues and higher spending for safety-net programs.

Yet rarely has the political system seemed more polarized and less able to solve big problems that involve trust, tough choices and little short-term gain. The main urgency for both parties seems to be about pinning blame on the other, before November’s elections, for deficits now averaging $1 trillion a year, the largest since World War II relative to the size of the economy ...

“I used to think it would take a global financial crisis to get both parties to the table, but we just had one,” said G. William Hoagland, who was a fiscal policy adviser to Senate Republican leaders and a witness to past bipartisan budget summits. “These days I wonder if this country is even governable.”

Sensing political advantage, Republicans are resisting President Obama’s call for a bipartisan commission to cut the debt, although recent studies have implicated the tax cuts and spending policies of the years after 2000 when they controlled Congress and the White House. Even seven Republican senators who had co-sponsored a bill to create a commission nonetheless voted against it recently.

The president is not giving up. On Thursday, administration officials say, he will sign an executive order establishing the 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. He also will name as co-chairmen Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican Senate leader from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, a moderate Democrat from North Carolina who, as President Bill Clinton’s White House chief of staff, brokered a 1997 balanced budget agreement with Congressional Republicans.

“There isn’t a single sitting member of Congress — not one — that doesn’t know exactly where we’re headed,” Mr. Simpson said in a telephone interview Tuesday just before word of his role got out. “And to use the politics of fear and division and hate on each other — we are at a point right now where it doesn’t make a damn whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican if you’ve forgotten you’re an American.”

While he criticized some liberal Democrats’ refusal to reduce entitlement benefits, Mr. Simpson also dismissed Republicans’ antitax arguments that deficits could be controlled with spending cuts alone. “But they don’t cut spending,” he said, referring to the years Republicans governed with President George W. Bush.

Elected Republicans, however, are under intense pressure from their party’s conservative base to oppose any tax increases — a line in the sand that dims any prospects for bipartisan cooperation. Yet economists, including veterans of past Republican administrations, are vocal in insisting that the debt problem is too great to be solved without increasing revenues somehow and perhaps moving to a new consumption tax system like Europe’s.

The same economists also say a significant deficit-reduction plan is not possible unless Mr. Obama breaks his campaign promise not to raise taxes for households making less than $250,000. Last week, Mr. Obama said he would not impose that condition or any other on a fiscal commission.

The situation is complicated by a debate over how quickly Washington should act even if it could. The Obama administration, Congressional Democratic leaders and many economists are pushing for additional government stimulus measures while the private sector remains weak. But anger about big deficits has stoked the populism roiling politics, and Republicans as well as some conservative Democrats want to cut spending right now as a way of addressing perceptions among voters that government has gotten too big, too intrusive and too profligate. Mr. Obama himself proposed a budget that would freeze spending on some categories of domestic spending for three years.

Many analysts say the president and Congress could send a strong signal to global markets by agreeing this year to a package of both long-term tax increases and spending reductions, especially in the popular entitlement programs, that would not take effect until 2012. That is the recommendation of two new studies, one from a diverse group sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and a separate joint project of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

As debt rises, so do interest costs; by 2014, at a projected $516 billion, they will exceed the budget for annual appropriations for domestic programs. The government will be competing with the private sector for credit, forcing interest rates higher and imperiling future prosperity.

Foreign investors now own more than half of the publicly held debt, and officials for the largest creditor, China, have fretted publicly about the fiscal course of the United States. While few expect foreigners to dump their assets, since the resulting plunge in values would hurt them as well as everyone else, the fear is that investors will demand higher interest payments and reduce or stop future debt purchases, threatening the government’s ability to finance its borrowing.

Lesser financial and fiscal crises have brought the two parties together to compromise on tough choices about taxes and spending.

Poll: 80% Of Americans Oppose The Supreme's Big Wallet Decision

Wash Post:

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are in the midst of crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision. Likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by government contractors, bank bailout recipients or companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and other Republican lawmakers have praised the ruling as a victory for free speech and have signaled their intent to oppose any legislation intended to blunt the impact of the court's decision ...

Democrats have seized on the ruling as an example of judicial overreach and vowed to enact new limits on political spending by corporations, which have traditionally favored Republicans in their contribution patterns. Obama said in his State of the Union address that the ruling will "open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."

Republicans and business groups have rallied around the ruling, arguing that the decision merely levels the playing field with free-spending unions and other liberal interest groups. The new poll, however, suggests there may be political risks for the GOP in opposing limits that appear to be favored by the party's base.

Nearly three-quarters of self-identified conservative Republicans say they oppose the Supreme Court ruling, with most of them strongly opposed. Some two-thirds of conservative Republicans favor congressional efforts to limit corporate and union spending, though with less enthusiasm than liberal Democrats.

Indeed, the poll shows remarkably strong agreement about the ruling across all demographic groups, and big majorities of those with household incomes above and below $50,000 alike oppose the decision. Age, race and education levels also appeared to have little relative bearing on the answers.

Obama Shifting To Other Levers Of Power To Push Agenda

NY Times:

With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.

Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.

“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama’s success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.

Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.

In an effort to demonstrate forward momentum, the White House is also drawing more attention to the sorts of actions taken regularly by cabinet departments without much fanfare. The White House heavily promoted an export initiative announced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week and nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants announced on Friday by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, and Hilda L. Solis, the labor secretary.

White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency.

“The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”

The use of executive authority during times of legislative inertia is hardly new; former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush turned to such powers at various moments in their presidencies, and Mr. Emanuel was in the thick of carrying out the strategy during his days as a top official in the Clinton White House.

But Mr. Obama has to be careful how he proceeds because he has been critical of both Mr. Clinton’s penchant for expending presidential capital on small-bore initiatives, like school uniforms, and Mr. Bush’s expansive assertions of executive authority, like the secret program of wiretapping without warrants ...

Another drawback of the executive power strategy is that actions taken unilaterally by the executive branch may not be as enduring as decisions made through acts of Congress signed into law by a president. For instance, while the E.P.A. has been determined to have the authority to regulate carbon emissions, the administration would rather have a market-based system of pollution permits, called cap and trade, that requires legislation ...

The use of executive power came to a head this week when Mr. Obama confronted Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, about nominations held up in the Senate. In a meeting with Congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama turned to Mr. McConnell and vowed to use his power to appoint officials during Senate recesses if his nominations were not cleared.

By Thursday, the Senate had voted to confirm 27 of 63 nominations that had been held up, and the White House declared victory.

Federal Lobbyists Spent Record $3.47 Billion In 2009; $544 Million On Health Care

Katharine Seelye:

final figures on lobbying in 2009 are in. Federal lobbyists spent a total of $3.47 billion lobbying Congress last year — $544 million of which was spent by the health care industry.

The figures have been tallied by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money in campaigns and elections.

The total amount spent on lobbying in 2009 represented an increase of more than 5 percent from 2008. It is more money than lobbyists have ever spent before in trying to influence legislation. (Recession? What recession?)

The health care industry itself reached a new high, spending 12 percent more in lobbying last year than in 2008. The pharmaceutical industry topped out at $266.8 million, a record high for lobbying efforts by a single industry for a single year.

At the moment, the Democratic efforts to overhaul the health care system have stalled, but the White House is holding a summit on Feb. 25 in an effort to bring the various sides together. The lobbyists still have their work cut out for them.

Poll: The American Public Is NOT Falling For The GOP's Spin; Both Parties Will Have Trouble In Nov

Highlights from the NY Times /CBS News poll:

• 31% think the Bush admin is responsible for the current state of the economy, 23% think Wall St, 13% think Congress and only 7% think the Obama admin is responsible
• 41% blame the Bush admin for the deficit; 24% blame Congress; only 7% blame the Obama admin
• 56 percent of respondents think that Mr. Obama does not have a plan to create jobs
• "By a two-to-one ratio, Americans support an end to tax cuts for the wealthy"
• Americans favor allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military but the way the question is worded has a BIG impact. Also see:Poll: 75% Support Gays Openly Serving In Military; 66% Think It's Discrimination To Not Allow It
• 56% want smaller government; 59% thought it was doing too much
• Only 18 % are supporters of the Tea Party movement 
• 78% say gov't is run by a few big special interests
• < 10% say members of Congress deserve re-election
• 80% thought Congress was more interested in serving special interests than voters.
• "half of respondents said the Senate should change the filibuster rules that Republicans have used to block Mr. Obama’s agenda"
• "62 percent said Mr. Obama was trying to work with Congressional Republicans, while the same percentage said that Republicans were not trying to work with Mr. Obama"
• 74% thought the Republicans should compromise more
• 60% said the president understood their problems, 42% thought that about Congressional Democrats and 35% for Congressional Republicans. 

The NY Times article about the poll:

At a time of deepening political disaffection and intensified distress about the economy, President Obama enjoys an edge over Republicans in the battle for public support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

While the president is showing signs of vulnerability on his handling of the economy — a majority of respondents say he has yet to offer a clear plan for creating jobs — Americans blame former President George W. Bush, Wall Street and Congress much more than they do Mr. Obama for the nation’s economic problems and the budget deficit, the poll found.

They credit Mr. Obama more than Republicans with making an effort at bipartisanship, and they back the White House’s policies on a variety of disputed issues, including allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

The poll suggests that both parties face a toxic environment as they prepare for the elections in November. Public disapproval of Congress is at a historic high, and huge numbers of Americans think Congress is beholden to special interests. Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans say members of Congress deserve re-election.

As the party in power, Democrats face a particular risk from any wave of voter discontent; unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing. The percentage of Americans who approve of Mr. Obama’s job performance, 46 percent, is as low as it has been since he took office.

Still, the poll suggests that Mr. Obama and his party have an opportunity to deflect the anger and anxiety if they can frame the election not as a referendum on the president and his party, but as a choice between them and a Republican approach that yielded results under Mr. Bush that much of the nation still blames for the country’s woes. That is what the White House has been trying to do since the beginning of the year.

For all the erosion in support for Mr. Obama, Americans say he better understands their needs and problems and has made more of an effort to be bipartisan than Congressional Republicans, the poll found.

“It feels like an attempt to sabotage the majority and to regain control of power rather than working on a compromise,” John Smith, a Republican from Greenville, S.C., said of his party after participating in the poll.

Americans say that Mr. Obama is far less likely to favor special interests over the American people than Congress. Mr. Obama and his party continue to have an edge over Republicans on which party would do better in dealing with health care and job creation. But Republicans have gained an edge on handling of the economy.

The public has lost much of its enthusiasm for a health care overhaul, and how Mr. Obama has managed it. He gets low marks for his handling of the deficit and the economy. And the fact that 56 percent of respondents think that Mr. Obama does not have a plan to create jobs is a distressing bit of news for a White House that in recent weeks had made an intensive effort to present Mr. Obama as concerned with the economy.

But the public backs other elements of Mr. Obama’s agenda. By a two-to-one ratio, Americans support an end to tax cuts for the wealthy, and Americans favor allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

The Tea Party movement, which has grown out of the strain of discontent, so far commands relatively little public support; 18 percent of respondents said they considered themselves supporters of the movement, while 55 percent said they had heard little or nothing about it.

The Paradox Of American Financial Exceptionalism

NY Times:

The Debtor the World Still Bets On

For decades — through political upheaval and wars and wild bouts of deficits or inflation — the debt of the United States has always been rated AAA, the gold standard of creditworthiness by which all nations are compared.

That was true before President Obama published his budget on Monday, with its projections of huge American deficits over the next decade and beyond. Astoundingly or not, it was as true after those estimates were published. Of course, had it been the United States Widget Company projecting red ink as far as the eye could see, no one would lend it a dime.

The closest thing Washington got to a brush-back pitch was a warning from Moody’s, an investor service that rates the sovereign debt of nations: Without action to cut the deficit or a faster-than-expected recovery, the projections for the decade “will at some point put pressure on the triple-A government bond rating.” Nobody blinked — not Congress, not the White House, not the investors around the world who keep buying Treasury bonds to finance this year’s $1.6 trillion shortfall, at low interest rates.

What explains this oddity? Why is the world betting that the United States will overcome its political deadlock and solve its problems — believing, it seems, in the truth of Churchill’s biting quip that America will always do the right thing, after exhausting every other alternative? And how long can this aura of invincibility last?

Maybe a long, long time. One of the many things that makes the United States different is that it prints the world’s most important currency and can always print more — one reason investors in government debt remain confident they will be repaid, even if in dollars devalued by inflation or by changing exchange rates.

There is also value in being the one nation on which the world still depends for security. That helps explain why foreign investors, including China, can denounce American politicians, Wall Street bankers and sleepwalking regulators for creating the current mess — and still buy at the next Treasury auction.

This paradox of American financial exceptionalism was unusually clear last week. When the stock market shuddered on Thursday because of worries about national defaults, it wasn’t Washington’s mountain of debt that got everyone rattled. It was the plight of a handful of profligate spenders in Europe — notably Greece, Spain and Portugal — whose comparative foothills of debt suddenly made them dubious credit risks.

Each of those countries knows the meaning of “imperial overstretch.” But it’s been a few centuries since Madrid and Lisbon were centers of vast empires, and a lot longer for the Greeks. What brought them down this time was not global ambition but local gridlock, in which politicians could not, or would not, cut spending at a time of high unemployment and social need. Making things worse, they now are on the euro — meaning they can no longer print their own way out of the problem, either. And it is unclear whether their partners in the euro bloc can afford either to bail them out or to let them default.

“They have no easy option,” said Prof. Simon Johnson of M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management. “They can cut spending or raise taxes.”

Their problems may be minor compared to those of Japan, a battered economic superpower that prints its own currency and whose newspapers, two decades ago, regularly published charts projecting when Japan might overtake America as the world’s biggest economy. The papers still run such charts, but now the question is when China will overtake Japan for the No. 2 spot (likely later this year).

Today, like Toyota, Japan’s government is having a braking problem — it can’t figure out how to slow spending on a rapidly aging population, and like everyone else has reacted to recession by hitting the spending accelerator.

But unlike America, Japan is no longer considered so indispensible.

Senator Shelby Gives Obama & The Dems A Gift: Will They Use It Wisely?

Wash Post:

The Obama administration received a rare political gift Friday that brought together a pair of issues the president is promising this election year to do something about -- pork and partisanship.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) announced that he would block administration nominees from Senate votes in an attempt to secure funding for two defense-related projects for his state. The use of the holding tool is often wielded anonymously. But Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) complained publicly about Shelby's effort to win tens of millions of dollars in federal money by delaying dozens of nominees from taking up government positions, including some in national security agencies.

In his State of the Union address, Obama identified Washington's partisan dysfunction as a key concern of economically distressed voters, and he has raised the issue at nearly every turn in recent days ...

Senior administration officials spared little time in pointing to Shelby's move as a sign of GOP intransigence, and the Democratic National Committee released a Web video Friday [above] suggesting that the Alabama senator's "blanket hold" is a threat to national security.

In a meeting with reporters, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "If that's not the poster child for how this town needs to change the way it works, I fear there won't be a greater example of silliness throughout the entire year of 2010."

"It boggles the mind to hold up qualified nominees for positions that are needed to perform functions in a government because you didn't get two earmarks," Gibbs said ...

Shelby is seeking funds for the KC-135 Air Force tanker fleet, a project that could generate thousands of jobs in Alabama. He is also demanding that the administration restore funding cut from the budget for the FBI's Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, a facility to test defenses against the improvised bombs used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Shelby placed the hold because of "unaddressed national security concerns," according to a statement released by his office. He "has made the administration aware of these concerns and is willing to discuss them at any time." The statement said Shelby was holding up "several" nominees, but the White House and Reid's office placed the number at more than 70.

Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid, said "regardless of his concern, Shelby shouldn't have a hold on 70-plus nominees because of a parochial issue."

A Peek Behind The Curtain At How Washington Really Works

Though the Wash Post thinks the big news in this Propublica report is the suggestion that GE lied to investors about the condition of its short term debt, I found the most interesting thing to be how freely and how often Immault, GE's CEO, picked up the phone and spoke directly to Paulson, Bush's Sec of the Treasury. It is this unfair access (how many businesses do you know that have a direct line to the Treasury?), and the resultant ability to influence decisions as this story implies, that is the root of corporate & special interest control of our government.

As the financial crisis worsened toward the end of 2008, chief executive Jeffrey Immelt and other leaders at General Electric repeatedly assured the public there was no need to worry about the company's ability to access credit markets and refinance its massive debts as they came due.

But in private conversations that alarmed then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., Immelt laid out a different picture of GE's credit situation, according to Paulson's new book about the crisis.

Instead, Paulson writes, Immelt on at least four occasions expressed worries about GE's short-term debt, known as commercial paper, and eventually lobbied for access to special government guarantees for such debt.

To take one example: On Sept. 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, Paulson says he was "startled" when Immelt came to his office and told him GE was finding it "very difficult" to sell short-term debt "for any term longer than overnight." A day earlier, GE sent investors a letter saying its ability to sell commercial paper was "robust."...

The New American "cult of selfishness ... the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country"

Gail Collins nails it. A must read column:

Last November, the Justice Department announced that the terror trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be held in Manhattan. Almost everyone in New York rallied around. This was seen as standing up to terrorism.

“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center, where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Now everything’s flipped. The politicians are running for the hills, and the issue has been repackaged as standing up to traffic jams.

“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive,” said Bloomberg.

And the Justice Department is backing down. The trial will happen somewhere else. [see KSM Trial: If Not Manhattan, Where?] People in Lower Manhattan will breathe a sigh of relief.

But this feels very wrong.

The Bloomberg rebellion fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country. It’s part of the same impulse that caused Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska to decree that a historic overhaul of the country’s messed-up health care system was not going to happen unless his home state got a special exemption from sharing the costs.

Or the Not-in-My-Backyard uprising that followed President Obama’s attempt to move the Guantánamo prisoners into American maximum-security lockups. No matter how remote the prison, local politicians said that the danger was too great to bear. Both of Montana’s Democratic senators immediately decreed that their entire state was a no-go zone.

Or the Republican race to the other side of the room any time the Obama administration proposes anything. Rudy Giuliani, who watched “in awe of our system” when terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted in a civilian court in Virginia, instantly attacked the plans for the Manhattan trial. Giuliani kept finding everything Obama did worse and worse until he finally flipped completely over the edge and claimed that there had been no terrorist attacks in the United States during the Bush administration.

It’s all part of a cult of selfishness that decrees it’s fine to throw your body in front of any initiative, no matter how important, if resistance looks more profitable.

The economy has a lot to do with this. So does Washington’s increasing confidence that Barack Obama can be rolled. We’re currently stuck in a place where people no longer feel as though they need to be part of the solution.

An Amazing Week In Post-Partisan America

Wednesday:

Friday:

Can We Have More Debates? "The next test for Obama and congressional leaders in both parties"

EJ Dione:

Ultimately, the event may have been most beneficial for Obama, who badly needs a boost. He has emerged as the most polarizing first-year president in history. In that year, unemployment hit 10 percent, his health-care initiative failed to pass the Congress, his poll numbers eroded, independents deserted the Democrats in major statewide elections and some members of his party hit the panic button after Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts.

On Friday, however, Obama reminded his opponents of the singular power of the presidency, delivering a performance that easily eclipsed his State of the Union address. He was knowledgeable about GOP counterproposals. He was robust in his rebuttals without being peevish. He may not have won over his conservative critics, who snickered when he said he was not an ideologue, but he was able, repeatedly, to sound the call for bipartisanship and to challenge the opposition to help lower temperatures.

Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University, said the message Obama delivered in Baltimore was consistent with one of the broad themes of his presidential campaign and therefore likely to enhance his standing with the public. "If the polls are correct -- and they are certainly consistent -- that Americans want a cease-fire if not a full-fledged truce, the event boosted his stock as a peacemaker," he said.

Obama's appearance before the House Republican policy retreat was part of a White House strategy that began with the State of the Union, designed to reconnect him with voters who have grown skeptical of his agenda and to identify himself with the anger that many Americans are expressing toward the way Washington is working.

The best indication that Republicans realized Obama had helped himself came late Friday. Initial reactions to the president by GOP House leaders had been generally civil. Then in the early evening, Boehner's office issued a release with the headline: "Rhetoric versus reality: President Obama repeats discredited talking points during dialogue with House GOP" ...

"Obama Budget Freezes Much Domestic Spending"

NY Times:

President Obama will send a $3.8 trillion budget to Congress on Monday for the coming fiscal year that would increase financing for education and for civilian research programs by more than 6 percent and provide $25 billion for cash-starved states, even as he seeks to freeze much domestic spending for the rest of his term.

The budget for the 2011 fiscal year, which begins in October, will identify the winners and losers behind Mr. Obama’s proposal for a three-year freeze of a portion of the budget. Many programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Energy Department are in line for increases, along with the Census Bureau.

Among the losers would be some public works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, two historic preservation programs and NASA’s mission to return to the Moon, which would be ended as the administration seeks to reorient the space program to use private companies for launchings. Mr. Obama is recycling some proposals from last year, including one to end redundant payments for land restoration at abandoned coal mines; Western lawmakers blocked it in 2009. Mr. Obama will propose a total of $20 billion in such savings for the coming fiscal year.

Exempted from the cuts, however, are national security, veterans programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — the most expensive and fastest-growing areas of the budget.

By filling in the details behind the freeze, the administration hopes to show critics that it used a scalpel rather than an ax to keep spending for the targeted domestic agencies to $447 billion through 2013.

The three-year freeze would save $250 billion over the coming decade, assuming the overall spending on the domestic programs is permitted to rise no more than the inflation rate for the remainder of the decade — an austerity that neither party has ever achieved in Washington. Even so, the $250 billion in savings would be less than 3 percent of the total deficits projected through 2020.

Criticism of the spending plan has ranged from arguments among liberals in Mr. Obama’s party and some economists that he should not be cutting spending when the economy needs hundreds of billions of dollars more in stimulus money, to complaints from Republicans that the savings are too paltry when annual trillion-dollar deficits are the largest since World War II.

The debate reflects the conflicting imperatives underlying the administration’s fiscal policies — between the demands to help a struggling economy create jobs and the need for long-term efforts to address the huge buildup of debt that threatens the nation’s future prosperity.

“There is a huge tension” between the goals, said Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Pundit Reaction to #Questiontime

Kate Pickert:

It was amazing television - watchable, interesting, feisty and even a little dramatic. I was reminded of the campaign when, in a single speech in Philadelphia, Obama neutralized the Jeremiah Wright issue that could have sunk his candidacy. The environment and subject matter are obviously completely different now, but Obama proved again that he performs best when he's up against the wall. Today, at the caucus meeting, he went right after Republicans on their turf and, in my opinion, owned them.

Obama looked so compelling answering Republican questions and accusations that, as the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder quipped on Twitter, "How effective is this for POTUS: Fox News Channel just cut away from it."

David Brody of CBN:

The New Star of Must See TV: President Obama

Forget Jerry Seinfeld. Forget Friends. The new star of Must See TV night is President Obama. Call it whatever you want. Whether it was smart, dumb, a gamble, political calculating or all of the above, when President Obama appeared in front of hundreds of chomping at the bit Republicans with the cameras rolling on live TV he not only made for Must See TV, he also provided the much needed transparency jolt that voters want to see. The President passed the test with flying colors ...

First of all, he now has the ultimate trump card in transparency. To be able to field questions from the enemy on live TV takes guts. Talk about transparent. This is as naked politically as you can get. This could have been a colossal failure. The White House clearly wanted cameras in there for political reasons but don’t think for a second that this couldn’t have horribly backfired. Who’s to say that President Obama wouldn’t have been confronted with some sort of nasty, embarrassing, in your face question? Sort of like a “Joe Wilson on Steroids moment?” You think that wouldn’t have made the “Youtube” rounds and sent Robert Gibbs into defensive daily briefing mode? It’s a chance the President didn’t have to take but he did.

Secondly, to sit there and listen to a talking points question for three minutes and keep your composure showed President Obama at his level headed best. He looked grown up and mature. He gave as good as he received without this developing into a political food fight that only John Belushi could love. In short, he looked presidential.

Finally, this move by The White House to allow cameras in for the event played right into one of the President’s main strengths. In case you haven’t noticed, the guy is smart. Every time a Republican had a fact, the President had one to match.  While you may not agree with the President’s argument, he was able to argue his point but not come across as argumentative. That’s not easy. With all due respect to the President’s ability to give a good speech, he’s actually better without the teleprompter. It makes him less robotic and instead more real. Lofty rhetoric sounds nice but talking regular makes for more believability.

In a day and age where voters are angry and skeptical of politicians, a transparent and open dialogue between the President and his critics is needed in the worst way.  We can only hope that there are more of these to come. The American people want to see it. We deserve to have a front row seat. After all, we’re paying top dollar for it right?

While there was a political motive behind this ... that doesn’t change one simple fact: The President of the United States took a gamble. He showed up. He took the GOP’s best shot and while he probably didn’t leave the room with fewer critics, he left with something far more important: more credibility with the American people who want to see politicians stand up, start solving problems and act like grown ups rather than little children.

David Corn:

Obama campaigned to bring change to Washington. Regular public encounters between the president and the opposition party would be real change. (It might even have an impact on what sort of politician could consider becoming president.) NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd tweeted that Obama "will win tons of pundit plaudits but will policy come out of it?" Yet good debate can shape good policy. Here was an unfiltered exchange between the opposing camps of Washington. Citizens could watch and decide.

Mike Madden:

"What were the old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas (who Obama kept calling "Jim," for some reason). "You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?"

The president laughed. "Jim, with all due respect, I've just got to take this last question as an example of how it's very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we're going to do, because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign," he said. "When we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got ... a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true."

The whole thing basically went like that: Republican asks obnoxious question rooted in Glenn Beck-ian talking points; Obama swats it away, makes the questioner look silly, and then smiles at the end. It got so bad, in fact, that Fox News cut away from the event before it was over. Democratic operatives around Washington watching it had pretty much the same reaction: "Where the hell has this guy been?" One source said GOP aides probably wished they'd spoken to John McCain "about what happened to him in the presidential debates" before they broadcast the event. "It's quite a show," a White House official said, apparently going for the same deadpan tone the president was.

Yglesias:

Barack Obama is a lot smarter and better-informed than his antagonists. A lot. He very calmly and coolly dismantled them. To me, personally, it’s not a surprise. I debated policy with Mike Pence once and the guy is a stone-cold idiot. That was a years ago and I’ve been surprised since then to learn that conservatives consider him an unusually sharp policy mind and I take leading rightwingers at their word about that. But it’s the kind of thing that I think most Americans aren’t aware of. Obama knows what he’s talking about. A lot of the members of Congress you see on TV all the time talking smack don’t. That’s not always clear to people since the TV anchors interviewing them usually also don’t know what they’re talking about.

Ezra Klein:

Remember the old joke, "I was at a fight and a hockey game broke out?" Well, earlier this afternoon, I was at a photo opportunity and a policy debate broke out.

Obama's Q&A session with the House Republicans was transfixing. What should have been a banal exchange of talking points was actually a riveting reminder of how rarely you hear actual debate -- which is separate from disagreement -- between political players.

This was a surprise. The session was clearly proposed so that Obama could appear to be taking real steps to reach out to Republicans. That implied warm feelings and a studied unwillingness to cause offense. But that was not the event we just saw. Instead, Obama stood at a podium for an hour and hammered his assailants. That makes it sound partisan and disrespectful. But it wasn't. It was partisan, but respectful.

There's a value in proving that you understand the other side's ideas deeply enough to disagree with them. And that was the message of Obama's session. Not that the Republicans were right. But that he'd looked hard enough at their ideas to realize they were wrong. I'm willing to work on tort reform, Obama said, but it's not a credible way to rein in health-care spending. The GOP budget might save a lot of money in theory, he admitted, but it does that by voucher-izing Medicare and holding its spending constant even as health cost increase -- which means seniors will go without a lot of necessary care. And it's hard to take that proposal seriously coming from the party that spent the past few months saying slight decreases in Medicare Advantage reimbursement represented an unforgivable threat to seniors.

Yesterday, I interviewed David Axelrod and was struck by his inability to explain how the White House would highlight the the difference between disagreement and obstruction. Today's session, if it becomes a regular event rather than a one-off, provided part of the answer. He'll debate them directly. But that may be tough to do. Republicans are already spreading the word that they made a mistake allowing cameras into the event. Apparently, transparency sounds better in press releases than it does in practice.

Weekly Radio Address: "Reining in Budget Deficits"

WhiteHouse.gov:

The President pledges to rein the deficit, citing three specific steps to this end. He praises the Senate for restoring the pay-as-you-go law, discusses his proposal for a freeze in discretionary spending, and calls for a bipartisan Fiscal Commission to hammer out further concrete deficit reduction proposals.

President Obama's State Of The Union (full speech)

Transcript. Photo Gallery.

Obama: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president"

 

Best Obama quote on Washington & the Media's ways:

When your poll numbers drop, you are an idiot. When your poll numbers are high, you are a genius. If my poll numbers are low, then I am cool and cerebral, and cool and detached. If my poll numbers are high, boy, he’s calm and reasoned all right.

More Obama's First Year Cartoons

Obama's First Year Cartoons

"The fading dream of realignment"

To whet your appetite, here's an excerpt from an excellent Matt Bai piece on the fading of political (and brand) loyalty in America:

... The realigning swing of the pendulum is almost certainly a relic of another age, never to be replicated, or at least not in our lifetimes. One reason is that politics in the television (and now Internet) age are less transactional and more ideological than they were in the long period between the Civil War and civil rights ...

Even more consequential, though, is the fast-growing swath of voters who can summon no affinity for either party ... The most prevalent ideology of the era seems to be not liberalism nor conservatism so much as anti-incumbency, a reflexive distrust of whoever has power and a constant rallying cry for systemic reform.

And so the fundamental mistake that Republican and Democratic strategists each made after their respective takeovers was to believe that their victories represented an ideological shift among independent voters, the kind of sweeping philosophical reassessment — Hey, you know what? We really do need a big centralized government! — that would empower a party for generations to come. In fact, far from swinging wildly between conservatism and liberalism, a critical mass of dissatisfied Americans cast the exact same vote in 2006 as they did in 1994 — a vote against entrenched power in the Capitol. The only real difference between those two elections lay in which party happened to be holding the gavel at the moment of revolt.

On a deeper level, the fading dream of realignment also reflects our attitudes about permanence in a society that judges its digital TVs by their “refresh rates” — that is, the number of times per second that the pixels on the screen rearrange themselves to create a more eye-popping picture than the one that just existed. In an accelerated culture, our loyalties toward just about everything — laundry detergents, celebrities, even churches and spouses — transfer more readily than our grandparents could have imagined. Now we dispose of phone carriers and cash-back credit cards from one month to the next, forever in search of some better deal. Forget the staying power of an institution like Johnny Carson; when Jay Leno starts to feels a little stale, he is shifted to prime time, then shifted back to late night. It was probably never very realistic for modern political thinkers of either party to dream of a 50-year reign. This century’s tectonic realignment is more likely to last 50 months or maybe 50 weeks, depending on how long it takes voters to seek out the latest offer or the newest best deal.

It isn’t only majority parties that will have to recalibrate their ideas of longevity in this new environment. It’s the individual politicians, too. <Continue reading.>

Obama Centralizes Campaign Control As He Assesses How To Move Forward

An interesting NY Times article about Obama's taking over the Democratic campaign system and how the White House is thinking about moving forward strategically. And by reading between the lines, you can also learn one of the reasons they think Martha Coakley lost: her campaign's polling was too optimistic, causing them to realize her troubles too late to turn the tide:

President Obama is reconstituting the team that helped him win the White House to counter Republican challenges in the midterm elections and recalibrate after political setbacks that have narrowed his legislative ambitions.

Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.

In addition to Mr. Plouffe, who will primarily work from the Democratic National Committee in consultation with the White House, several top operatives from the Obama campaign will be dispatched across the country to advise major races as part of the president’s attempt to take greater control over the midterm elections, aides said.

“We are turning the corner to a much more political season,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser, who confirmed Mr. Plouffe’s role. “We are going to evaluate what we need to do to get timely intelligence and early warnings so we don’t face situations like we did in Massachusetts.”

As Mr. Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union address on Wednesday and lay out his initiatives for the second year of his presidency, his decision to take greater control of the party’s politics signals a new approach. The White House is searching for ways to respond to panic among Democrats over the possible demise of his health care bill and a political landscape being reshaped by a wave of populism.

Improving tactical operations addresses only part of his challenge. A more complicated discussion under way, advisers said, is how to sharpen the president’s message and leadership style.

The reinforcement of the White House’s political operation has been undertaken with a sense of urgency since Tuesday, when a Republican, Scott Brown ... The White House was caught off guard when it became clear that Democrats were in danger of losing it, and by the time alarm bells sounded from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, it was too late.

The president summoned Mr. Plouffe to the Oval Office hours before the polls closed and asked him to assume the new role because of the implications the midterm elections hold. Mr. Plouffe built a reputation in 2008 as a master of the nuts and bolts of campaigns, and will assemble a team to provide unfiltered information that serves as an early-warning system so the White House and party officials know if a candidate is falling behind ...

The party is trying to become less reliant on polls conducted by candidates, which can often paint a too-rosy picture of the political outlook. The president’s leading pollster, Joel Benenson, will be among those conducting research for Mr. Plouffe, aides said, along with others who will divide the country by regions ...

“Our own political operation will be more rigorously in communication with the other elements, so we can compare notes,” Mr. Axelrod said. “What we learned from Massachusetts is that we need to be more assiduous about getting our own data and our own information so we have a better sense of where things stand.”

The White House intends to send Mr. Obama out into the country considerably more in 2010 than during his first year in office, advisers said, to try to rekindle the relationship he developed with voters during his presidential campaign.

His first big chance will come when he delivers his State of the Union address. Rather than unveil a laundry list of new initiatives, advisers said, Mr. Obama will try to reframe his agenda and how he connects it with public concerns. In particular, he will focus on how his ideas for health care, energy and financial regulation all fit into the broader economic mission of creating what he calls a “new foundation” for the country, the key words being “rescue, restore and rebuild.”

While presidents typically experience rough patches, this one is particularly challenging for Mr. Obama. Liberals have grown disenchanted with what they see as his unwillingness to fight harder for their causes; independents have been turned off by his failure, in their view, to change the way Washington works; and Republicans have become implacably hostile.

The long and messy legislative fight over health care is a leading example of how Mr. Obama has failed to connect with voters, advisers say, because he appeared to do whatever it would take to get a bill rather than explain how people could benefit.

“The process often overwhelmed the substance,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “We need to find ways to try to rise above the maneuvering.”

The discussion inside the White House includes at least two distinct debates: Should Mr. Obama assume a more populist or centrist theme in his message? And should the White House do what it takes to pass compromise legislation or should it force votes, which even if unsuccessful can be used to carry an argument against Republicans in the fall?

Activist Judges Reversing Of Decades Old Precedent On Campaign Finance Laws "leaves Democrats with few options"

The activist judges on John-I'm-just-an-umpire-Robert's court have reversed 83 years worth of precedent and impacted equally long standing laws in 24 different states yet it's not clear what Congress can do about it. From the  Wash Post:

Frustrated Democrats began laying plans Friday to chip away at a landmark Supreme Court decision unleashing corporate expenditures in political campaigns, but the ruling's broad sweep will make it difficult to stem a tidal wave of new spending in this year's pivotal midterm elections.

Major corporations and advocacy groups immediately began devising ways to take advantage of the 5 to 4 decision, which concluded that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and, therefore, can spend as much company money as they wish to oppose or support individual political candidates.

The ruling, announced Thursday, opens a significant new channel of funding for major corporations and their lobbyists in political campaigns. It is seen as particularly helpful for Republicans because of their party's traditional bonds with industry groups and its strong opposition to financial regulations proposed by the Obama administration. Labor unions, which strongly support Democrats, are also likely to take advantage of the ruling.

The decision further weakens the power of the major political parties, which must adhere to campaign restrictions enforced by the Federal Election Commission. Trade organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, by contrast, are now free to use money from their members to pay for ads explicitly targeting lawmakers who vote for legislation the groups do not like.

Rob Jordan, vice president for federal and state campaigns at the conservative FreedomWorks, said his Washington-based group could reap particular benefits from a portion of the ruling that threw out restrictions on running political ads in the weeks leading up to an election.

"We expect to have upside potential in the multimillions, and we expect to be major players," Jordan said of his group's plans for the midterms. "This will probably put ads on our radar screen more than they would have been."

Democrats hurried Friday to lay out possible legislative responses to the ruling, even while acknowledging that only a constitutional amendment -- which is exceedingly unlikely -- could strike at the heart of the decision. Most campaign finance experts agreed.

"There is not much that Congress can do," said Robert K. Kelner, a Republican lawyer at Covington & Burling. "It's hard for me to see any obvious route for campaign finance reformers to take aside from tinkering around the edges."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, are working with the White House to craft a new campaign finance bill. They are almost certain to call for strengthened disclosure requirements for companies that directly sponsor ad campaigns, and they may push for requiring shareholders to approve political expenditures by publicly traded companies. They are also studying ways to prohibit campaign spending by corporations such as American International Group or General Motors that received federal bailout money, as well as companies that have federal contracts or registered lobbyists.

Democrats are also eyeing restrictions on U.S. companies that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations; they believe the public will be outraged by the possibility of foreign influence in U.S. election campaigns. The high court's majority opinion avoided addressing possible implications for foreign-owned firms, which are barred from direct participation in U.S. elections but can use their American subsidiaries to form political action committees.

The subsidiaries now appear free to spend as much as they wish on ads targeting specific U.S. election candidates, and critics said the opinion could be applied even more broadly ...

Opposing the ruling fits neatly into the Democrats' recent embrace of populist themes, including efforts to crack down on corporate excesses. "The voices of average Americans could be drowned out by Wall Street banks, big oil, health insurance companies and other special interests," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement this week.

Rep. Dan Lungren (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House committee that oversees federal elections, said his party has little to fear from such a message. "Republicans are on the side of the First Amendment," he said ...

Executives could expose themselves to shareholder lawsuits if they spend money in ways unrelated to their core business. "I think corporations are going to be very careful in using this," said Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge and regulator who now advises corporations.

Schumer and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) eventually hope to persuade Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a past sponsor of campaign finance reform with Feingold, to join the Democrats' effort. McCain issued a statement Thursday saying he was "disappointed" by the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, but his office declined to comment Friday on whether he would seek legislative redress.

Opponents of the decision hope that a bipartisan consensus will materialize.

"It may just be that this decision is so outrageous that it will be the catalyst to get the kinds of reforms we needed," said Mark McKinnon, a former campaign adviser to President George W. Bush who supports new restrictions.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John B. Larson (Conn.) also has introduced a bill -- the Fair Elections Now Act -- that would set up a voluntary system in which congressional candidates would abide by certain restrictions in exchange for public financing of a portion of their campaigns. The measure has 126 House co-sponsors, and Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) has offered the same bill in his chamber.

Such a system would allow candidates to "run for office without any big money from Wall Street PACs or lobbyists," said David Donnelly, an official with the Public Campaign Action Fund.

Activist Supreme Court Decision: "Dramatic, sweeping, fundamental, seismic—all those adjectives apply to this alteration of the political landscape"

It's hard for me to believe that any news this week could be worse than what happened in Mass on Tuesday. Then the Supreme Court decided American democracy could be auctioned to the highest spender. At least the Mass setback will operate over a relatively short time frame, what the Supreme Court just did will impact us for decades, if not longer. What an unbelievably awful week.

From Katie Connelly:

It's hard to know just yet what the precise impact of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on campaign-finance reform this morning will be. But one thing is for sure: it will be huge. Dramatic, sweeping, fundamental, seismic—all those adjectives apply to this alteration of the political landscape. In all likelihood, Republicans will be the biggest beneficiaries. They've had a long history of taking care of their corporate buddies. And with the Administration today opening a new front in their battle on Wall Street, you can bet the financial industry will happily raid their bursting cash coffers to support Republicans in November.

The decision is a stunning display of judicial activism from a chief justice who promised to engage in anything but. Remember all his promises to respect precedent? Apparently he doesn't. As E.J. Dionne writes: "Remember Roberts saying judges were like umpires calling the balls and strikes? In this case, he and his colleagues canceled the game altogether and decided on their own what the final score would be." Roberts expanded the scope of the initial case before him, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to take on a century's worth of campaign-finance regulation. Dahlia Lithwick describes it perfectly: "The court had to reach out far beyond any place it needed to go....This started off as a case about a single movie. It morphed into John Roberts's Golden Globe night."

For their part Republicans are defending the ruling as rolling back infringements of free speech. They're wrong. The First Amendment protects an individual's right to free speech. Corporations are not individuals, although in this ruling, the Supreme Court equates the two.

Ezra Klein: "Can Democrats govern?"

Ezra Klein:

It's worth taking a step back from health-care reform for a second. What Democrats are doing isn't just abandoning a particular policy issue. They're proving themselves unable to govern.

Democrats spent most of 2009 with 60 votes in the Senate and about 256 in the House. They had a popular new president who was following a disastrous Republican administration and a financial crisis. The opposition party was polling somewhere between foot fungus and spoiled meat. You don't get opportunities like this very often. The Senate majority, in fact, was larger than either party had enjoyed since the 1970s. And what have Democrats accomplished?

Well, not much. You can see a list here. A stimulus that was too small. Ted Kennedy's Serve America Act. Credit card regulations that were largely an acceleration of rules the Federal Reserve was going to impose anyway. I guess they almost passed a compromised health-care bill, but you don't go down in history for almosts.

If Democrats abandon health-care reform in the aftermath of Brown's victory, the lesson will be that they can't govern. No majority within the realm of reason will give them the votes to move their agenda swiftly and confidently. Even the prospect of the most significant legislative achievement in 40 years, an achievement that will save hundreds of thousands of lives, will not keep them from collapsing into chaos when they face adversity.

At that point, what's the pitch for voting for Democrats? That they agree with you? A plumber and I both agree that my toilet should work. But if he can't make it work, I'm not going to pay him any money or invite him into my home. Governance isn't just about ideology. It's also about competence and will. That's where Democrats are flagging.

You could argue that it's not fair to brand "Democrats" as at fault here. There's something to that. The leadership and the president would happily pass and sign legislation. But a party is as a party does. Democrats often run on the need to have enough votes to act. If they can't act even with those votes, then there's a real problem.

Would Republicans be so terrorized if they were in a similar circumstance? The GOP forged ahead with its attempts to impeach Bill Clinton even after voters cut them down for it in the 1998 election. Those were some odd priorities, but at least the party was committed to the agenda it ran on. Democrats may not want to go quite that far in terms of party discipline, but they need to get a whole lot further than they are now.

Paul Krugman To House Progressives: "Stop whining, and do what needs to be done"

Paul Krugman:

A message to House Democrats: This is your moment of truth. You can do the right thing and pass the Senate health care bill. Or you can look for an easy way out, make excuses and fail the test of history.

Tuesday’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election means that Democrats can’t send a modified health care bill back to the Senate. That’s a shame because the bill that would have emerged from House-Senate negotiations would have been better than the bill the Senate has already passed. But the Senate bill is much, much better than nothing. And all that has to happen to make it law is for the House to pass the same bill, and send it to President Obama’s desk.

Right now, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, says that she doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill. But there is no good alternative.

Some are urging Democrats to scale back their proposals in the hope of gaining Republican support. But anyone who thinks that would work must have spent the past year living on another planet.

The fact is that the Senate bill is a centrist document, which moderate Republicans should find entirely acceptable. In fact, it’s very similar to the plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts just a few years ago. Yet it has faced lock-step opposition from the G.O.P., which is determined to prevent Democrats from achieving any successes. Why would this change now that Republicans think they’re on a roll?

Alternatively, some call for breaking the health care plan into pieces so that the Senate can vote the popular pieces into law. But anyone who thinks that would work hasn’t paid attention to the actual policy issues ...

Reform won’t work unless all the essential pieces are in place. Suppose, for example, that Congress took the advice of those who want to ban insurance discrimination on the basis of medical history, and stopped there. What would happen next? The answer, as any health care economist will tell you, is that if Congress didn’t simultaneously require that healthy people buy insurance, there would be a “death spiral”: healthier Americans would choose not to buy insurance, leading to high premiums for those who remain, driving out more people, and so on.

And if Congress tried to avoid the death spiral by requiring that healthy Americans buy insurance, it would have to offer financial aid to lower-income families to make that insurance affordable — aid at least as generous as that in the Senate bill. There just isn’t any way to do reform on a smaller scale.

So reaching out to Republicans won’t work, and neither will trying to pass only the crowd-pleasing pieces of reform ... Finally, some Democrats want to just give up on the whole thing.

That would be an act of utter political folly. It wouldn’t protect Democrats from charges that they voted for “socialist” health care — remember, both houses of Congress have already passed reform. All it would do is solidify the public perception of Democrats as hapless and ineffectual.

And anyway, politics is supposed to be about achieving something more than your own re-election. America desperately needs health care reform; it would be a betrayal of trust if Democrats fold simply because they hope (wrongly) that this would slightly reduce their losses in the midterm elections.

Now, part of Democrats’ problem since Tuesday’s special election has been that they have been waiting in vain for leadership from the White House, where Mr. Obama has conspicuously failed to rise to the occasion.

But members of Congress, who were sent to Washington to serve the public, don’t have the right to hide behind the president’s passivity.

Bear in mind that the horrors of health insurance — outrageous premiums, coverage denied to those who need it most and dropped when you actually get sick — will get only worse if reform fails, and insurance companies know that they’re off the hook. And voters will blame politicians who, when they had a chance to do something, made excuses instead.

Ladies and gentlemen, the nation is waiting. Stop whining, and do what needs to be done.

"In a city that thrives on nonsense, we've heard more of it in the past few days than you normally do in a year"

Steven Pearlstein:

People, let's get a grip!

Okay, so Massachusetts voters elected a hunky, unknown Republican to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. That's no reason to ignore the result of a national general election, throw out a year's worth of hard work on a range of important issues and rush to embrace a bunch of simple-minded solutions meant to mollify an angry electorate.

Honestly, in a city that thrives on nonsense, we've heard more of it in the past few days than you normally do in a year.

One of my favorite bits of Monday morning quarterbacking is that President Obama should have put health care and Afghanistan and climate change and everything else on the back burner for the past year and insisted that he and everyone else focus exclusively on jobs, jobs, jobs. What do you call a $787 billion stimulus package of tax cuts and increased spending, a $50 billion auto industry bailout, a $1 trillion prop to the housing sector and nearly another $1 trillion in old-fashioned monetary stimulus -- chopped liver? And how exactly do you square the idea that the president and Congress should be working 24-7 to "create" jobs with that other nugget of conventional wisdom, that Americans are demanding smaller government, less spending and lower budget deficits?

Then there is the big question of what to do about health care now that the voters have allegedly turned against the president's proposal.

One reasonable-sounding idea is that the president should reduce it down to just a few of its most popular provisions, such as the one requiring that insurance companies be barred from refusing to cover people with preexisting conditions or charging them sky-high premiums.

The problem with that, of course, is that if you don't require everyone to buy insurance, then there will be lots of people who will wait to buy their policies until they get sick and then demand coverage at the "community" rate. That's a great way to drive up premiums, which in turn will drive even more healthy people to drop coverage, which will raise premiums even further.

To prevent this kind of debilitating "insurance spiral," you could add one more feature -- a mandate requiring everyone to buy at least a basic insurance package. Unfortunately, there are lots of low-income households for which the newly mandated premiums could eat up as much as a half of after-tax income, which hardly seems fair. So you'd probably want to make sure that there's enough competition among insurers to keep premiums down, which is what those government-supervised exchanges are all about. And you'd want to have some subsidies to limit the financial hit to low-income families. To pay for the subsidies, you'd either have to raise taxes or cut spending in other areas.

And that, basically, is the outline of Obama's health plan, just as it was Clinton's health plan and the Nixon plan before that. In fact, if you want a health-care system that's universal and affordable and based on a competitive market of private insurers and health-care providers, that's pretty much where you have to start. There is no simple solution to this puzzle ...

"President Obama mistakenly thought he could win Americans over with rational policy decisions and an even temperament"

More rational thought from Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Political Shift in D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Health Reform In Chaos. Dems Too.

As feared in Tuesday's Silver Lining, it looks like the Dems might be complete morons. From Politico:

Health care reform teetered on the brink of collapse Thursday as House and Senate leaders struggled to coalesce around a strategy to rescue the plan, in the face of growing pessimism among lawmakers that the president’s top priority can survive.

The legislative landscape was filled with obstacles: House Democrats won’t pass the Senate bill. Senate Democrats don’t want to start from scratch just to appease the House. And the White House still isn’t telling Congress how to fix the problem.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) both tried to put a good face on the obvious chaos on Thursday, promising to press on. “We have to get a bill passed,” Pelosi told reporters. “We know that.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said, “No way is it dead, because it’s so important for the country. And we will find a way to pass [it].”

But for the first time in the yearlong push, Democratic aides — and even some members — finally acknowledged privately that the fear of failure was real. And Congress recessed for the weekend without an obvious path forward as rank-and-file Democrats started splintering in different directions.

Democrats struggled all year to maintain a coalition in support of health care reform without any GOP votes. Republican Scott Brown’s improbable win in Massachusetts on Tuesday now looks like it has the potential to end that almost-impossible balancing act.

This post-Massachusetts confusion raises the stakes for President Barack Obama’s first official State of the Union address next week, which some now believe must be a last-ditch effort to get health care finished ...

Pelosi took one option off the table Thursday when she told reporters that she doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill unless it undergoes major changes. The White House had hoped to avoid a protracted health care fight by getting the House to adopt the Senate bill, despite deep misgivings among House Democrats.

That leaves two main options for moving forward:

Massachusetts, Two Days Later

As a way to process Tuesday's election results, I spent lots of time yesterday on lots of news sites and blogs. There are way too many to excerpt as is normally done, so instead, here is my index to the best commentary and analysis out there.

How did it happen

The only "exit" poll I know of, from Research 2000:

Mass. Voters Protested Against Weak Wall Street, Health Care Policies

Rick Holmes, a columnist for the suburban Boston Metro-West News thinks it was primarily Coakley's fault:

Martha's many mistakes

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) blames Obama for "health care's demise"

Weiner On Health Care's Demise: We Lacked Leadership From Obama

Michael Scherer of Time broadens that to encompass Obama's first year:

Five Ways Obama Went Wrong

Nate Silver of 538.com builds on David Leonhardt's idea that Obama has pleased no one (and worse, angered many) by not countering the perception he's a progressive even while he pursued centrist policies:

The bills before Congress are politically partisan and substantively bipartisan.

Mass Hysteria:

Jonathan Chait of TNR is seeing Mass Hysteria so he argues that the CW is missing the real forces at play in the Mass election and suggests Obama needs to be like George Bailey during the panicked run on his bank in It's A Wonderlife Life:

Why Democrats need to take a deep, deep breath. Maybe two.

Ezra Klein of the Wash Post uses a very different entertainment reference, Monty Python & the Holy Grail, to make the same point (and the comment a Republican submitted is also worth reading):

Sometimes a bunny is just a bunny

Jon Stewart hits the hysteria nail on the head:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2010 - The Re-Changening
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Analysis of the results and what to do next:

Jonathan Chait next argues that no one should interpret the Mass results as any kind of referendum on health care:

We've got ours, and we don't want to pay for anybody else to enjoy this great system we have.

Steven Pearlstein of the Wash Post argues the same thing as Chait and believes it's not over:

GOP win doesn't mean health reform is dead

Ezra Klein suggests a radical way to move forward on health reform

Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill.

Ezra also warns the Dems if they abandon health care now, their base should rightly abandon them:

If Democrats let go of health care, there is no doubt that a demoralized Democratic base will stay home in November. And that's as it should be.

Tim Egan agrees the Dems need to get a spine and a much, much better mouth:

They can cowboy up, pass health care that helps right the major wrongs of the system, and then explain what they’re doing.

On a more serious note, The NY Times editorial board offers very pointed advice to Obama & the Dems:

It is indisputable that the Republicans have settled on a tactic of obstruction, disinformation and fear-mongering, but it is equally indisputable that the Democrats have not countered it well.

Amy Walter, writing in NationalJournal.com, suggests how the Dems can generally win back Independents:

Will Democrats Feel Voters' Pain?

What The Mass Results Mean: Throw The Bums Out

Here are the reasons I believe Scott Brown won:

• 10% unemployment
• an inept opponent
• 10% unemployment
• health reform sausage making, the GOP's ability to exploit fears and the Dems inability to cut throw that and explain the benefits
• 10% unemployment

Here is the reason he did not win (no matter how the GOP spins it):

• repudiation of the overall Obama agenda

The most recent Va, NJ, and Ma elections, in fact, now join the similar 2008 and 2006 ones: all were 'throw the bum out' elections.  The problem for the Dems is that they are now the bums. The Republicans should also check their unadulterated glee: they're the bums in plenty of places too.

"One year later assessing Obama: Testing the promise of pragmatism"

Wash Post:

A month before he was inaugurated, Barack Obama pinpointed one of the biggest challenges he would face as president ... At the time, Obama said he did not think his victory marked an abrupt end to the skepticism ushered in by President Ronald Reagan toward top-down government and social engineering by Washington.

"What we don't know yet is whether my administration and this next generation of leadership is going to be able to hew to a new, more pragmatic approach that is less interested in whether we have big government or small government; they're more interested in whether we have a smart, effective government," he said on that day in December 2008.

As Obama marks the first anniversary of his inauguration on Wednesday, that question remains one of the most politically charged of his presidency -- and central to the politics of this election year -- and will hinge on how Americans judge Obama and his policies.

Will the public conclude that his policies worked, however much they may cost and however much they may entail more government intervention in the economy? Or will they regard his agenda as intrusive and ineffective big government? What steps may Obama take to alleviate public discontent over these first-year decisions?

The stakes are sizable, with an early referendum coming Tuesday in a special Senate election in Massachusetts. Democrats are fighting to hold the seat once occupied by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a dramatic turnaround in a contest previously seen as an almost certain win. A Republican victory would imperil the administration's health-care initiative and cast a pall over already-nervous Democrats, who fear considerable losses in November's midterm elections.

Obama receives mixed reviews for his first-year performance, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. His approval rating stands at 53 percent, with 44 percent disapproving. Among independents, 49 percent approve, the lowest of any of his recent predecessors at this point in their presidencies.

Majorities disapprove of his handling of the major domestic issues -- the economy, health care and the federal budget deficit. But more approve than disapprove of his handling of terrorism and Afghanistan, and he has broad support for his response to the attempted terrorist bombing on Christmas Day ...

The poll also shows how much ground Obama has lost during his first year of trying to convince the public that more government is the answer to the country's problems. By 58 percent to 38 percent, Americans said they prefer smaller government and fewer services to larger government with more services. Since he won the Democratic nomination in June 2008, the margin between those favoring smaller over larger government has moved in Post-ABC polls from five points to 20 points.

White House advisers maintain that many of Obama's actions are temporary and not a permanent enlargement of federal power at the expense of private industry. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said such actions as the bailouts of the banks and auto companies "were emergency interventions to stabilize" an economy on the edge of a depression.

The promise of change, which echoed so powerfully during his campaign, is now another source of division. At the time of his inauguration, three-fourths of the country said Obama would bring needed change to Washington. Today the nation is evenly divided on whether he has. Three-fourths of Democrats say yes; three-fourths of Republicans and a majority of independents say no.

Around the White House these days, the president's advisers draw analogies with Reagan to paint a hopeful portrait of Obama's weakened standing. Reagan, they note, had approval ratings around 50 percent at the end of his first year in office and ended up winning a landslide reelection victory in 1984. What they don't say so vocally is that Reagan's approval dipped into the 40s in the fall of 1982, and that his party suffered substantial losses in Congress that November ...

Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota, said the Obama team's analysis that America was ready for a sharp change in direction was not as misguided as many conservative critics contend. When the administration launched the stimulus and the health-care package, he said, "they thought the country was at a very different place ideologically -- and had reason to believe that it was at a different place."

Since then, Weber said, the country has reattached itself to its more centrist moorings, or even moved to the right.

"When the Clinton administration faced similar difficulty, they were quite adept at reorienting themselves to the center ideologically," Weber said. "Can this administration and this Congress do that? It's not clear to me how they do that."...

Growing partisanship

Obama begins his second year having failed to ease political polarization. "What I haven't been able to do in the midst of this crisis is bring the country together in a way that we had done in the Inauguration," he told People magazine recently. "That's what's been lost this year."

"There may be no better place to measure the shifting fortunes of President Obama and the Democratic Party than" Massachusetts

NY Times:

There may be no better place to measure the shifting fortunes of President Obama and the Democratic Party than in the race being fought here this weekend for the Senate seat that had been held by Edward M. Kennedy.

When Mr. Obama was inaugurated one year ago this week, he and his party had big majorities in the Senate and House, enjoyed the backing of much of the country and were confidently preparing to enact an ambitious legislative agenda. Republicans seemed directionless and the conservative movement exhausted.

This weekend, Democrats are struggling to hang on to a seat held by Mr. Kennedy for 46 years in one of the most enthusiastically Democratic states in the country. Conservatives are enjoying a grass-roots resurgence, and Republicans are talking about taking back the House in November.

As Mr. Obama prepares to come here on Sunday to campaign for the party’s beleaguered Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, Democrats across the country are starting to wonder aloud if they misjudged the electorate over the last year, with profound ramifications for the midterm elections this year and, potentially, for Mr. Obama’s presidency.

Win or lose in Massachusetts, that a contest between a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat could appear so close is evidence of what even Democrats say is animosity directed at the administration and Congress. It has been fanned by Republicans who have portrayed Democrats as overreaching and out of touch with ordinary Americans.

“It comes from the fact that Obama as president has had to deal with all these major crises he inherited: the banks, fiscal stimulus,” said Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democrat who holds the Massachusetts seat on an interim basis pending the special election. “But for many people it was like, ‘Jeez, how much government are we getting here?’ That might have given them pause.”

Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the atmosphere was a serious threat to Democrats. “I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.”

Ms. Coakley, the state attorney general, could still defeat her Republican opponent, State Senator Scott Brown. Polls show the race as very close, and measuring public opinion in special elections is always difficult.

Support for the health care overhaul could grow if it is enacted into law and Americans decide that it has left them better off, as Mr. Obama says will happen. The economy could take a turn for the better by this summer, validating Mr. Obama’s policies in time to influence the midterm elections. And for all the national forces at play here, Ms. Coakley has, in the view of most Democrats, made things worse with a slow-starting and low-energy campaign marked by several high-profile errors.

Still, Mr. Obama’s decision to tear up his weekend schedule to come here reflects concern in the White House that a defeat of Ms. Coakley would be seen as a repudiation of the president’s first year. It would also raise the question of whether Mr. Obama squandered political capital by focusing so much on health care at a time of rising unemployment.

“If it works well, it was a good thing to do for the country here,” Mr. Bayh said. “But there’s definitely an opportunity cost. You could only spend political capital once; it now can’t be spent on other things.”

The Massachusetts campaign has neatly encapsulated the major themes that have come to deplete Mr. Obama’s popularity, themes that have fueled the rise of the Tea Party movement on the right and created an atmosphere where growing numbers of Democrats in conservative-leaning districts and states have decided not to run again.

Time To Dump The Obama Is "Too Cool & Detached" Meme

Greg Sargent:

You hear this line again and again from opinionmakers. Obama's approach to the Christmas Day terror plot was "too cool." He's too "detached." Not emotionally engaged. Doesn't give you the sense he's in charge. Isn't a "strong father," as Maureen Dowd put it.

But a raft of polls gives us more than enough info to call B.S. on this meme.

Yesterday's Gallup poll found Obama's rating on terror has actually inched up since the foiled plot. Yesterday's Quinnipiac poll said that 66 percent view Obama as a "strong leader." A CNN poll found that 64 percent like Obama's personality and leadership qualities.

That isn't all. A CBS poll found that 57 percent approve of Obama on terrorism. Still another poll found that 65 percent have confidence that Obama will protect them from terror. Got that?

These findings, to be clear, don't say much about the public's attitudes towards his actual policies, which have indeed taken a dip in the polls.

But they clearly show that the electorate is comfortable with his temperament and leadership tone. So it's time to junk the "Obama as Spock" meme. Wouldn't you say?

"For Obama, a tough year to get the message out"

Dan Balz:

In winning the White House, Barack Obama's team earned a reputation for skill and discipline in dominating the communications wars with opponents. In office, virtually the same team has struggled, spending much of the past year defending the administration's actions on the two biggest domestic issues -- the economy and health care.

The White House has sought to sell health-care reform as a way to make coverage affordable and accessible to middle-class families. But it was also presented at various times as a cost-containment measure, a restraint on greedy insurance companies, a moral imperative to cover the uninsured and, to Democratic lawmakers, as a "can't fail" enterprise. The president and his aides sent mixed signals on the "public option" as well, voicing support for a government-run plan while signaling their willingness to see it die to get a bill passed.

On the economy, administration officials put themselves at a disadvantage with faulty projections of the jobless rate and an overly rosy prediction of how many jobs the stimulus package would create or save. Once they had put in place policies to deal with the worst of the crises Obama inherited, they moved on to health care and later to Afghanistan. The result was a perceived loss of focus in addressing public unrest about unemployment that has prompted a shift back to the economy recently.

It is an axiom of political communication that the president wields the world's biggest megaphone and is therefore capable of setting an agenda and dominating a debate. Obama has used his rhetorical skills repeatedly to good effect, but officials acknowledge that there are limits.

"There is real power there," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said of the president's platform. "But it's not a magic wand. The bully pulpit does not put people to work."

Obama's advisers have learned what previous White House teams came to realize when they arrived in Washington, which is the vast difference between campaigning and governing. Asked what happened to the Obama team, Mark McKinnon, who was a media adviser to President George W. Bush, said, "They're human. They've walked into the propellers of the federal government."

Axelrod said the challenge of managing and controlling messages in a campaign and in the White House is "the difference between tick-tack-toe and three-dimensional tick-tack-toe. It's vastly more complicated." <Continue reading.>

Now, Senator Nelson Wants All States To Be Exempt ... Just Like Nebraska

Prescriptions:

Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, has been under fire in recent days for winning some plum provisions for his home state in exchange for voting for his party’s big health care legislation. But in a statement on Thursday, Mr. Nelson said he would fight for all states to get the same benefits as Nebraska — a move that some Senate colleagues had predicted as inevitable.

When Mr. Nelson was negotiating with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, over whether he would support the health care bill, he demanded that the federal government pick up the total cost of a proposed Medicaid expansion in Nebraska, even though other states would eventually have to share the cost of expanding their Medicaid programs.

Mr. Reid agreed and inserted a provision for the federal government to pay Nebraska’s new Medicaid costs indefinitely. But that provision has had its own political cost, with Republicans accusing Democrats of bribing Mr. Nelson with a “sweetheart deal” to win his vote ...

Now Mr. Nelson says he will fight for California and other states to get the corn, too. And that could cost the federal government a whole bunch of beans.

“As a former governor, I’ve long fought against unfunded federal mandates, which force Washington rules on states with little or no money to pay for them,” Mr. Nelson said. “The current health care bill has an unfunded mandate for expanding Medicaid. While helping more Americans obtain health coverage is important, this mandate could burden state budgets in uncertain economic times ahead.”

He added: “I’ve been in serious discussions with Senate leaders and others to secure changes in the bill to treat all states equally. At the end of the day, whatever Nebraska gets will apply to all states.”

Of course, the Medicaid provisions now in the Senate bill are not an unfunded mandate for Nebraska. And federal officials have long contended that Medicaid is not in fact a classic unfunded mandate. Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans, has always been a partnership – with the federal government and states sharing the costs.

"In a political universe ruled by ideological yellers, [Obama] lacks both an ideology and the pipes"

Richard Cohen is worried. Are you?

Last month, no American soldiers were killed in Iraq. Last month, the unemployment rate dipped a bit, the stock market ended the year up, the financial system did not crater, Detroit's Big Three began to get a pulse -- and yet a consensus started to form that Barack Obama, who is either responsible for or merely presided over all this good stuff, is a failure.

What's more, the consensus came supported by numbers ... Obama began 2009 with 43 percent of Americans strongly approving of his performance and ended it with 26 percent feeling that way. Any way you measure the polls, Obama did not have a good year.

On the left, the president is being pummeled for health-care legislation that does not include a public option and that has not dispatched insurance executives to Guantanamo. On the right, he is being pummeled for socializing the economy, establishing death panels and allowing maniacal Nigerians to load their Calvins with boom-boom and fly into peaceful Detroit. It's a cartoon.

In foreign policy, Obama has sorely disappointed his fans on the left for escalating the war in Afghanistan and on the right for not escalating it enough. Guantanamo, which he vowed to close, is still open. He supports gay rights, but don't ask and don't tell about "don't ask, don't tell." He zigs, he zags. Change! Hope! But not much of the former and little of the latter.

To some, he's weak on the environment. To others, he's too strong on the environment. He is camouflaged in the incomprehensible, leaving no (carbon) footprint and quixotically tilting at energy-producing windmills. He confers too much with our allies, bows when he should shake and has not brought peace to the Middle East -- as, you will remember, George W. Bush did.

Much of this critique is asinine. If the Republican Party had its way -- and God sees to it that it doesn't -- the country would by now have reverted to the barter system and the unemployment rate would be around 25 percent. The GOP economic program simply does not exist, and even Bush knew this. When push came to shove, he tossed his ideology overboard and used government money to bail out financial institutions.

Still, the reason the GOP criticisms have started to stick is that Obama can be made into anything his critics want. He is a lean man of ideological clay who has let others mold his image. His bottom line is forever on the move. It's not that he's not good or smart; it's rather that in a political universe ruled by ideological yellers, he lacks both an ideology and the pipes.

The White House faces a major political problem. Obama's first year was not a bad one -- and yet he suffered. The coming year threatens to be much worse. Fatalities are going to increase in Afghanistan. Unemployment could fester. The debt is going to increase, and all over the country, state and municipal governments are going to go broke and look to Washington for help. The land will roil with anger, and Mr. Cool in the White House is not up to FDR-like fireside chats. He was born to blog.

Journalists like to believe that if they are getting criticism from both sides of the story, they must be doing something right. This is not true for journalists -- they may actually have gotten the story doubly wrong -- and it is certainly not true for political figures. In Obama's case, his misfortune is to be a leader without a cause.

He wanted a health-care bill. Why? To cover the uncovered. Maybe. To rein in the insurance companies. Maybe. To lower costs. Maybe. What mattered most was getting a bill, any bill. This is not a cause. It's a notch on a belt.

Obama could be a great president. He has already achieved much -- possibly saving the country from financial ruin, salvaging the auto industry, getting some sort of health-care reform. Possibly, possibly. Yet his numbers sink as his achievements rise. He is the Johnny Appleseed of cognitive dissonance, so utterly detached that when he wins it seems to be only for himself. Pollsters measure him but poets have described him. William Butler Yeats got it down years ago: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Xmas Bomber Cartoons

Defending The Filibuster

Though I'm as frustrated by what the Senate has done to vitiate health reform as the next progressive guy, Ross Douthat makes some compelling arguments in favor of keeping a selective use of the filibuster:

While liberal pundits — and a few liberal Senators — crusade against the filibuster, Jay Cost rises to its defense. His argument turns the usual case against the filibuster on its head: While critics charge that the rise of filibustering is the fruit of a poisonous polarization, Cost argues that supermajority requirements are actually our best protection against polarization run amok. The filibuster “is indeed an obstructionist tool,” he writes, “but it is also a way to promote moderate policies, even as the parties have become more ideologically extreme.” In the absence of a filibuster, a polarized political system would produce wild policymaking swings, with Al Franken writing legislation one session and Jim DeMint writing it the next. Its presence requires even the most ideologically-charged majority to cut some deals before it rams legislation through. If we “get rid of the filibuster to facilitate legislative policymaking,” Cost concludes, “we should brace ourselves for ideologically polarizing laws that will leave a third to a half of the country deeply unsatisfied.”

I’m of several minds on this issue. On the one hand, Cost is right that the major consequence of increased filibustering to date has been legislation tailored to the concerns of centrist Senators, rather than no legislation at all. The Bush tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Part D all passed with Senate supermajorities, and the Bush-era legislative pushes that failed — Social Security reform and immigration reform chief among them — did so because lots of Senators decided they weren’t interested in voting for them, not because the bills got 58 votes but couldn’t get 60. In the Obama era, meanwhile, the Senate has already voted to pass the most expensive stimulus package in history, a sweeping reorganization of the American health care system, and a host of more modest legislative initiatives. In this environment, there’s something a little strange about the stridency of liberal complaints about the filibuster, given what they’ve accomplished — and are on the cusp of accomplishing — even with it as an impediment.

That said, using the filbuster to spike judicial nominees (as Democrats did in the Bush era) or to hold up routine votes (as the Republicans are doing now) does strike me as much more problematic than using it to shape or halt expensive new entitlement programs. And on a broader level, I’m more sympathetic than many conservatives to liberal complaints about America’s growing ungovernability. Unlike the left, I’m not worried about a liberal Congress’s inability to pass a public option — but I am worried that our political culture is ill-equipped to deal with the looming gulf between our projected revenues and our spending commitments.

Note that most of the bills listed above attracted supermajority support while either cutting taxes or hiking spending. (The pending health care legislation promises to pay for itself, but everyone, from the CBO on down, is taking that promise with a substantial grain of salt.) This trend can’t continue: In the next decade or so, we’ll need to either raise taxes, cut spending, or both, or else the American future will resemble the Californian present. And anyone who thinks that Congress is ready to make those kind of hard choices hasn’t been paying attention to our politics lately.

The question, though, is whether the filibuster, specifically, is really a major threat to America’s long-term solvency.

Change Comes To Government Secrecy

NY Times:

President Obama declared on Tuesday that “no information may remain classified indefinitely” as part of a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch’s system for protecting classified national security information.

In an executive order and an accompanying presidential memorandum to agency heads, Mr. Obama signaled that the government should try harder to make information public if possible, including by requiring agencies to regularly review what kinds of information they classify and to eliminate any obsolete secrecy requirements ...

He also established a new National Declassification Center at the National Archives to speed the process of declassifying historical documents by centralizing their review, rather than sending them in sequence to different agencies. He set a four-year deadline for processing a 400-million-page backlog of such records that includes archives related to military operations during World War II and the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

Moreover, Mr. Obama eliminated a rule put in place by former President George W. Bush in 2003 that allowed the leader of the intelligence community to veto decisions by an interagency panel to declassify information. Instead, spy agencies who object to such a decision will have to appeal to the president.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama campaigned on a theme of making the government less secretive. But in office his record has been more ambiguous, drawing fire from advocates of open government by embracing Bush-era claims that certain lawsuits involving surveillance and torture must be shut down to protect state secrets.

Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, expressed cautious optimism about Mr. Obama’s new order, saying it appeared to be “a major step forward” from the vantage point of those who believe the government is too secretive.

“Everything depends on the faithful implementation by the agencies,” Mr. Aftergood said, “but there are some real innovations here.”

Mr. Obama also suggested that his administration might undertake further changes, saying he looked forward to recommendations from a study that Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, is leading “to design a more fundamental transformation of the security classification system.”