The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has released a comparison of the budgets offered by President Obama, House Republicans, and Senate Democrats. They’re a lot similar than you’d expect given how much the two parties are at each others’ throats about things like Social Security and taxes, huh? Anyway, for those who enjoy charts and graphs, the CBO’s blog post on its budget projections will not disappoint. (h/t Ezra Klein) source
We don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place. The question is, can we do it smarter, can we do it better? And– you know, what I’m saying to them is I am prepared to do some tough stuff. Neither side’s gonna get 100%….But ultimately, it may be that– the differences are just– too wide. It may be that ideologically, if their position is ‘We can’t do any revenue’ or ‘We can only do revenue if we gut Medicare or gut Social Security or gut Medicaid,’ then we’re probably not gonna be able to get a deal.President Barack Obama • Speaking with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulus about the chances of Congressional Democrats and Republicans reaching any sort of compromise on Washington’s latest (semi-manufactured) budget crisis. source
Another Democrat retiring: Michigan Senator Carl Levin has announced that he won’t seek reelection in 2014. In theory, this places what would have been a safe Democratic seat up for grabs. In reality, the seat will be up for grabs until after the Republican primary, at which point it will revert back to being a safe Democratic seat. Okay, in all seriousness, Levin’s retirement is indeed a blow to Democrats hoping to retain control of the Senate, but considering that Michigan is generally a pretty blue state, it’s not as big a deal as, say Jay Rockefeller’s retirement in West Virginia (Photo credit: AP). source
If past is any indicator, a Democratic “threat” to reform the filibuster is much like a Charlie Brown threat to go home if Lucy doesn’t play nice with the football this time. This isn’t the first time the Democratic leadership in the Senate has made noises about reforming the filibuster; it’s not even the first time they’ve admitted that they screwed up filibuster reform last time but are serious about it this time. Democrats always balk at the last minute, so don’t expect this to go anywhere. source
We have moved a bill in the House twice. We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something.
President Obama has said that unless he gets a second tax hike in eight weeks, he will be forced to let criminals loose on the streets, the meat at your grocery store won’t be inspected and emergency responders will be unable to do their jobs. These are false choices. We are faced with the negative effects of the sequester because Democrats have not been able to take even the smallest step towards controlling spending.Rep. Eric Cantor • Painting President Obama as the primary cause of the looming sequester, and resulting budget cuts, which will take effect if Congress doesn’t act by next week. While neither party is particularly popular at the moment, a recent Pew/USA Today poll shows that the GOP is currently eating much of the public blame for the sequester debate, which we don’t imagine sits well with the House Majority. source
Republicans in Virginia and a handful of other battleground states are pushing for far-reaching changes to the electoral college in an attempt to counter recent success by Democrats.
In the vast majority of states, the presidential candidate who wins receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The proposed changes would instead apportion electoral votes by congressional district, a setup far more favorable to Republicans. Under such a system in Virginia, for instance, President Obama would have claimed four of the state’s 13 electoral votes in the 2012 election, rather than all of them.
Other states considering similar changes include Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which share a common dynamic with Virginia: They went for Obama in the past two elections but are controlled by Republicans at the state level.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus recently voiced support for the effort, saying it is something that “a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at.”
Umm … WTF?
The Demographics of Gun Ownership, Nate Silver-Style
Nate Silver has brought his trademark data analysis to the newfound gun control discussion today, breaking down what gun ownership in this country looks like numerically. Using data from a 2008 national exit poll—the question was not included, he explains, on 2012 exit polls—some of the details in his chart will likely strike you as obvious: for instance, that Republicans own more guns than Democrats and that there are far more guns in rural areas. What might be more interesting, as Silver points out, is that gun ownership is not necessarily tied to being religiously devout, despite Presdident Obama’s 2008 suggestion about communities that “cling to guns or religion.” Also, the chart reveals that gun ownership is “highest among the middle class,” as Silver writes, with people making $50,000 to $100,000 per year more likely to own guns than their counterparts in other wage groups.
Nate Silver helping us all out on gun ownership rates, too? These numbers would confirm what we suspect most people would’ve guessed — Republicans own guns at a considerably higher rate than Democrats do..
People who announced on Twitter that they changed parties last night: Charlie Crist. (MSNBC has the details.)
I just find it is so painful at this point for me not only to know he won’t be in the Congress but to know he is still struggling with a serious very serious mental health issue.Rep. Bobby Rush • Discussing the fate of Rep. Jesse Jackson III, who is about to resign from Congress in the wake of a federal investigation and a series of mental health issues that have prevented him from having an active role in Congress for nearly six months. Rush is taking the situation hard. “He just said, ‘Bobby I’m not going to be with you anymore. I can’t carry this thing through,’ and that was it,” he said, noting that “he sounded very, very sorrowful.”
The reporter...
I can’t add much to what’s already been (and will be) ...
One of the perks of being an early employee...
Over the last 90 days, the Digg...
#FMMDI (at 30 Rockefeller Plaza)
Thanks. I guess my thoughts are as follows:
1. I think...
A defining characteristic of this election cycle was Super PACs and the hundreds of millions of dollars outside groups were spending to influence races. Now that it’s all over, we wanted to see which outside groups spent their money on succssful races and which did not. The result was our interactive Not-So-Super PACs: 2012’s Winners and Losers.
…
It’s a bit confusing at first, but the interactive version of this chart (behind the link) is awesome. The thickness of the lines indicate how much money was given, and the success rate of the various PACS is in ascending order on the X-axis. The take-home message? Democrats spent a lot less on super PACS this cycle, yet enjoyed a much, much higher success rate at the ballot box.
Of course she’s not stepping down: Nancy Pelosi announced today that she will run for Minority Leader in the House next session, thus perpetuating her reign as one of the most powerful Democrats in the country. There was a bit of doubt that she’d stick around, really, this wasn’t terribly unexpected. source
For 16 months, Democrats and Republicans behaved like a husband and wife in an ugly divorce proceeding, not speaking to each other except through invective.
Now they will see if their troubled marriage can be salvaged, for the sake of the children, which in this case is the U.S. economy. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reiterated last week that jumping off the cliff would boost the jobless rate to 9 percent from the current 7.9 percent.
For Obama, who won four more years in office in Tuesday’s election, this is his moment to bring a “balanced approach” to healing the nation’s fiscal problems.
In the Democrat’s eyes, that means keeping lower tax rates for the poor and middle class, while forcing the rich to pay more income taxes. White House spokesman Jay Carney renewed the president’s vow to veto legislation that simply extends the tax cuts, which originated during the administration of President George W. Bush.
If Republicans were to agree to the higher tax rates on the wealthy, that would open the door to deals on a new round of spending cuts, including sensitive “entitlement” programs, such as the Medicare healthcare program for the elderly, some Democrats say privately.
Get these guys some couples’ therapy. Please.
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
