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
Because the sequester is (and is likely to continue to be) very ill-defined in the minds of most Americans, the politics of it will devolve into a popularity contest between the major players. Which gets us to the fact that Obama is at (or close to) his high-water mark in terms of job approval, while Congress sits in political reporter/used car salesman territory.The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, theorizing that there’s no way possible way Congress can win the sequester battle against President Obama. The thinking here is is based on three premises: One, that Obama believes the sequester ultimately will not be avoided, because Congress is dysfunctional and if they could have struck a deal on these cuts, there wouldn’t have been a sequester to begin with; two, that effects of the sequestered cuts will be felt by many Americans once they come into effect; and three, that Obama is significantly more popular than Congress. Given these three assumptions, it seems reasonable enough to conclude that if the sequester happens, Congress—and the GOP-led House of Representatives—will be blamed by the American public. It’s not a bad theory, though it’s still quite speculative given the assumptions. More information on the sequester here. source
Congress punts on debt ceiling: The House of Representatives passed a bill today that extends the nation’s debt limit until May 18th, effectively tabling the issue for another couple of months. This time, the GOP majority didn’t ask for spending cuts in exchange for the increase; rather, it simply demanded that both houses of congress pass a budget before April 15th. Otherwise, per the bill, all members of both bodies will have their salaries withheld (there’s some debate over whether or not this provision is constitutional). Also, while the majority of Republicans did vote for the bill, enough defected that John Boehner had to rally up a couple of Democrats to get it passed. Harry Reid says it’ll fly through the Senate without issue. (Photo credit: AP) source
This may be a moment in Senate history, when a senator made a proposal that, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal…I don’t think this has ever happened before.Sen. Dick Durbin, after Mitch McConnell’s latest scheme blew up in his face. McConnell introduced legislation today that would allow the president to unilaterally raise the debt limit, suspecting that Democrats wouldn’t have the guts to vote for it. When it became clear that Democrats did indeed have the votes to pass the bill with a simple majority, McConnell filibustered it, preventing its passage. The United States Senate, ladies and gentlemen. source
How The Poor, The Middle Class And The Rich Spend Their Money
Interesting detail in this graphic: Spending on transportation goes up for the middle class.
(Source: planetmoney)
In case you haven’t seen this, the Post’s coverage of how members of Congress are directing spending to places where it benefits them personally is pretty impressive. Examples: Sen. Richard Shelby helped push more than $100 million in earmarks to help rebuild Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and much of that money went to nicen up an area directly around an office building he owns in the city, which has risen in property value as development has increased. (Watch the video; it syncs up with a map of Tuscaloosa.) He’s not alone. Congressmen around the country directly or indirectly benefited from millions in spending that, at the very least, might give them a nicer view around their property — or in other cases, benefited their family members. The Post did a lot of great work on this piece, and it shows. source
As the chart we posted last night has been kinda controversial (Jasen Comstock’s take on it is our favorite), we’d like to also point out this one James Fallows brought up when discussing it. Fallows also contacted the makers of the chart to ask about specific breakdowns in the chart we posted yesterday, which has drawn some criticism for its use of projections and representation of the ongoing effects of Bush’s policies. According to the authors, contacted by Fallows, the chart lines up like so: “It indicates the legacy effects of the changes made by each Administration. For instance, neither Bush nor Obama is credited with the entire cost of Pentagon spending or entitlements, but only the changes his Administration made, up or down. By this logic the long-run effect of tax cuts initiated by Bush is assigned to him, as any long-run effect of savings he initiated would be too.” Whatever the case may be, do you think the criticism of the NYT chart is warranted?
» The wages of war: When President Obama referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America’s wars in the last decade, he clearly hadn’t spoken to the folks running the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute. The project determined the above figure through calculations that included future costs, such as health services for wounded veterans returning home, as well as counting what’s generally referred to as our “secret” war in Pakistan.
Full faith and credit: Moody’s Investors Service warns that a failure by the U.S. Congress to come to an agreement on raising the debt limit could imperil the country’s AAA credit rating: “The heightened polarization over the debt limit has increased the odds of a short-lived default. If this situation remains unchanged in coming weeks, Moody’s will place the rating under review.” You may remember a similar warning from Standard and Poor’s last April — it’s becoming increasingly clear that the debt limit struggle, in addition to the gaping chasm between what Democrats and Republicans would care to do on spending and deficit issues (such a chasm usually means gridlock), is causing angst for financial agencies. source
In 2007, I was...
I started tumblr when I was at one of the lowest points of...
Exclusive: How the Syrian Electronic Army hacked the...
soon
Yahumblr.
Google found the...
Why are we doing all this when the most powerful person in these negotiations, our president, has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for?Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin • Calling out President Obama’s leadership on the floor of the Senate today. That this criticism came from freshman Senator Manchin shouldn’t come as a big surprise, as he’s a very conservative Democrat (you may remember him shooting the cap-and-trade bill with a rifle). With the looming departure of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2012, the West Virginia senator seems primed to hoist the title of “Democrat who most antagonizes his own party” going forward. source (via • follow)
In case you didn’t see our comment on Rachel Maddow’s war of words with PolitiFact, we’d like to point it out again for your kids. We think that there is a lot of context worthy of your time. Above is Maddow’s clip from last night, which, while accurate in pointing out that PolitiFact isn’t always right, does the same kind of cherry-picking that PolitiFact did. From the report, they only quoted a two-second part of a clip that has much more direct context at play. Tommy Christopher at Mediaite took a swing at this whole issue, too, and you know what? He noticed the same thing we did about her surplus/deficit quote. “That passage can be read both ways, but in at least the semantic sense, Politifact is wrong. Their reading of this passage is a matter of interpretation.” In other words, while the exact quote Rachel Maddow pulled proves PolitiFact’s headline is in fact “False,” the problem is that the larger context, which claims that Walker turned a surplus into a deficit (the point of the article), is closer to the truth than Maddow’s people will like. Sorry, Rachel. source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
