In the aftermath of the horrific situation in Boston on Monday, all eyes turn to the ultimate question: who did this?

No groups have claimed responsibility yet, so if it was a terrorist organization we probably would have known by now, especially given the number of amputations that occurred. I can’t find anything official, but the last numbers I read were between 20 and 30.

So, was this a lone wolf? Some signs seem to be pointing that way…

The devices used in the Boston Marathon attack Monday are typical of the “lone wolf:” the solo terrorist who builds a bomb on his own by following a widely available formula.

In this case, the formula seems very similar to one that al Qaeda has recommended to its supporters around the world as both crudely effective and difficult to trace. But it is also a recipe that has been adopted by extreme right-wing individuals in the United States.

The threat of the “lone wolf” alarms the intelligence community.

“This is what you worry about the most,” a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN’s Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger. “No trail, no intelligence.”

Long story short, if you wanted to go out and build a device like the ones used in Boston, you could do that…today.

However, this doesn’t point away from al Qaeda. It also doesn’t point away from right-wing extremists either. The terrorist(s) used what is known as a “low-velocity improvised explosive mixture” and could be made with ingredients you find in common fireworks. Ultimately what this means is we’ll be lucky if we can find out where these components came from. There’s likely no discernible trail here.

So that leads us to the next question: if we do catch the terrorist(s)…what will be done? And that leads us into an article posted on Salon yesterday entitled “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.”

A provocative title, yes, but the essay points out a valid concern for those of us interested in making sure our “war” on terrorism produces as few collateral damage casualties as possible.

Case in point…

Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.

By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)

Do we, as Americans, seem to ignore the threats inside our own borders by our own citizens because those terrorists look like us, talk like us and go to the same churches as us?

Another salient point…

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”

As always, your thoughts are welcome and appreciated.

Take a look at GE, Bank of America, Wells Fargo…and everybody’s favorite…BP.

Want more examples? Find them over at TaxEvaders.net.

Yesterday the Supreme Court considered the question of whether California’s Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage was constitutional. SCOTUSblog reads the tea leaves and reviews the legal arguments:

“The case argued Tuesday — Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144) — was only the first of two, but it is the one that had the most potential for getting to the question of who may marry.Wednesday’s argument, the case of United States v. Windsor(12-307), involves same-sex couples who are already legally married, and the issue before the Court is whether the federal government can legally deny them all of the federal benefits that go with marriage.  But a decision in that case might not resolve the basic issue of equal access to marriage…

The legal consequences of avoiding a ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 would vary sharply, depending upon the route the Court chose to that outcome. If the case were dismissed on the theory that the grant of review was a mistake, that would mean that the Ninth Circuit’s California-only decision would become final and fully effective, that court would remove the temporary order blocking marriages, and same-sex couples could resume getting married in the state.

I am not a lawyer, and will not hazard a guess on how the court will rule – particularly after the surprising SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

The original ruling that led to this case occurred in a California federal court in August of 2010. I wrote a post ruminating on the constitutional and philosophical question of a federal judge negating the wishes of a majority of California voters. Rereading it now, I think it holds up pretty well. I never did get around to posting it on the Donk, so thought I’d rectify that oversight. Since this is a three year old post, some of the links may no longer function. Proceed at your own risk.

Crosspost from The Dividist Papers – August 10, 2010:

In the wake of Judge Vaughn Walker finding California’s Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, we are treated to the predictable spectacle of hypocrisy on parade from politicos across the political spectrum including Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama.

The most compelling arguments against Judge Walker’s ruling are premised on the notion that it violated majority rule. The argument takes a variety of forms: that a court overreaches when it substitutes its judgment for the clearly expressed judgment of a majority of voters; that it would be tactically better for same sex marriage proponents if was legalized by an electoral or legislative majority at either a state or federal level rather than judicial fiat; that it disrespects constitutional sanctity and founder’s intent for majority rule. The argument is getting serious consideration across the blogosphere – some examples include The Crossed Pond, Ordinary Gentlemen, Andrew Sullivan, Allahpundit, Balloon Juice, Ann Althouse, Volokh Conspiracy, and others.

I am sympathetic to the preference for individual rights being protected by a popular majority and/or legislature as opposed to judicial means. Who would not? That said, I don’t think there is any basis for saying it is a decision that should not have been made by a judge. Let me hasten to state that I am not making a legal argument, as I am not qualified to do so, let us call this a constitutional/philosophical observation.

Our Constitution implicitly and explicitly established a hierarchy of rights and powers. Federal powers are specifically enumerated, with the power not delegated to the United States government by the Constitution reserved to the States. This clearly indicates a general preference for state’s rights and powers. The preference for the superiority of majority rule can also be gleaned in the order that the branches of government are enumerated in the articles of the Constitution. First the democratic People’s House, then the republican Senate, then the executive (selected by a non-majoritarian electoral college), then the unelected judiciary. All would argue for the founder’s obvious preference for and superiority of democratic majority decisions, and the state’s exercise of power to that of the federal government.

But – then there is the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would never have been ratified. The enumeration of rights in the first 10 amendments is informed by a self-evident truth that all individuals are imbued with inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – rights that are inalienable by kings, rights that are inalienable by majority rule. These rights are at the pinnacle of and/or transcend the entire hierarchy of preference of power found in the Constitution. The fundamental assertion of the Bill of Rights is that no power may abridge these rights – including a democratic majority at either the state or federal level. All branches of the federal government should regard protection of these rights against encroachment – regardless of source – as a primary responsibility.

Who better to speak to the limits of majority rule, than the architect of the Constitution – James Madison? In Federalist #10 he speaks directly to protecting rights from the majority:

“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.”

And again, in his speech at the Constitutional Convention introducing the Bill of Rights for consideration, Madison is clear about the limits of majority rule:

“But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the Executive power, sometimes against the Legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.

In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the Executive Department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker: It therefore must be leveled against the Legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the Legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be leveled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But this is not found in either the Executive or Legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.“

So what should happen when the majority acts against a minority, as in Proposition 8? Particularly when we see the executive branch make a craven political decision to not act, and legislators at both the federal and state level unwilling to act. In such a case, it seems obvious that the judiciary is the last firewall to protect our civil liberties, and it is only the judiciary that can preserve minority rights against the will of the majority. In such a case, not only is judicial action acceptable, it is necessary, even when it means substituting judicial fiat for democratic majority or legislative action. Self evident inalienable individual rights should trump the majority every time.

I suppose that one can argue that same sex marriage does not fall into the category of a self evident inalienable right to pursue happiness. This is where we probably cross the line from a constitutional argument to a legal argument. But on the broader question – whether a judge should substitute their judgment for the judgment of a majority? Yes they should. I was pleased with Judge Walker’s decision, as I saw Prop 8 as a clear attempt by the majority to impinge on the rights of a minority. Judge Vaughn Walker did his job and did it well.

I don’t think this is any surprise, and it certainly sets the stage for a very interesting SCOTUS case coming up.

From ABC News, via Wash Post:

The poll shows that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married; 36 percent say it should be illegal. Public attitudes toward gay marriage are a mirror image of what they were a decade ago: in 2003, 37 percent favored gay nuptials, and 55 percent opposed them.

Not only that, gay marriage has made gains across all political affiliations.

And yes, a majority of Republicans aren’t in favor of it…yet. But the trend is there. I doubt we’ve ever seen numbers below 60% for keeping it illegal. Anything in the 50%s is pretty astonishing.

So why the shift?

Acceptance about why people are gay is one reason…

There has been a related movement in public opinion about homosexuality. Fully 62 percent of Americans now say being gay is just the way some people are, not something people choose to be. About 20 years ago, fewer than half of the public said so.

In the current data, about three-quarters of those who do not see homosexuality as a choice support gay marriage, with most supporting it “strongly.” More than two-thirds of those who see it as a choice oppose gay marriage, with almost all intensely against it.

Also, what’s really shocking is it really isn’t a generational thing. Because when you look at 18-49 and 50-64…the number who want it to be legal are EXACTLY THE SAME AT 73%.

Last, note how younger Republicans and Independents now favor it instead of opposing it. You’ll even see opinions in the evangelical community supporting gay marriage. So, if Republicans want to win elections in the future, there’s no way they can keep opposing this issue. They’ll look and sound like social dinosaurs.

More as it develops…

The great leader Obama, who was dearly loved by (52% of) the people spoke to his minions and said “Hear me! You must fear the great beast Sequester, for if it is loosed upon the land there will pestilence and famine.” And the people listened to Obama and wondered.

“Go now!” He pointed “Go to the dark castle on the Hill, where the Congress of Many Heads created the great abomination called Sequestration. Bring your pitchforks and torches! Storm the castle and kill the great beast or you will surely see sorrow, lamentations, and the rending of garments!” The great leader Obama paused, nodding his head sagely  “And if you accidently kill the Congress of Many Heads that lives in the castle on The Hill, well – you know –  collateral damage… stuff happens… I wouldn’t be too concerned about it.”

The people considered what the dear leader said and asked. “WTF? An only 2.3% decrease in the rate of spending increases? Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea what kind of cuts we’ve had to endure the last four years? And you’re saying you can’t figure out how to cut a lousy 2.3% out of this bloated federal budget?”

And the dear leader’s heart was heavy when the people did not heed his warning. Not to mention pissed. So it came to pass that the Sequestration monster was released to prey upon 48% of the people. And the great leader Obama again went to the people and said “I declare this to be the Season of Sequestivus,  A time of regret, remorse, and recrimination. Let the Airing of Grievances begin.”

And so, as a public service, permit me to offer a selection of public grievances in this first fortnight of the first season of Sequestivus.

Jon Stewart has a grievance with the Congress of the United States.
[NOTE: The video would be embedded here, but my Donk permissions do not allow it. Please add this to my list of grievances]

The Democrats have a grievance with the public. They warned us all that if sequestration cuts went into effect, there would be a terrible political backlash against Republicans. They were right, except for the Republican part.

Poll: Obama approval drops seven points on sequester worries

“President Obama’s approval rating has dipped to 43 percent — a seven-point drop since February 19, as the nation responds angrily to Washington’s inability to strike a deal to avert the sequester, according to a new poll from Reuters and Ipsos.”

President Obama’s numbers plunge in New York

“President Barack Obama’s approval rating in New York fell precipitously in the past month, according to a poll released Monday, and three-fifths of the state’s registered voters now believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. Obama’s approval rating remains high in New York, at 56 percent, with 41 percent disapproving, according to the Siena College poll.But the president’s approval rating was at 66 percent last month, with only 32 percent disapproval — so the change is a net 19 point decline.”

Spring break tourists to Washington D.C. have a grievance with the Secret Service. Due to the sequester cuts, White House tours were suspended so Secret Service resources could be diverted to guarding the President’s golf outings and Michele Obama’s 50th birthday.

White House tours stop running, families disappointed

The self-guided tours are typically arranged through a member of Congress. Natalie Cooper had obtained a ticket through the office of a senator from North Carolina for her son’s 8th birthday.  Standing outside the White House Saturday, shortly before noon, Cooper told the birthday boy, Aaron, that they would no longer be getting a tour. “I was pretty upset about it,” she told CNN. “He had his own bucket list and on that bucket list was D.C. and the White House, so it was a little bit upsetting.” Aaron had already told his class he was going to the White House and added that he was “sad, very sad.” But, he said, they had plans to see more monuments and museums in town. 

Paul Krugman has a grievance with Joe Scarborough. Despite being a Nobel Prize winning economist, a prolific New York Times columnist, and every progressive’s favorite Keynesian, Professor Krugman got his ass kicked in a debate about spending, deficits and debt with morning talk show host Joe Scarborough in a venue hosted by Charlie Rose on PBS:

Urk, Charlie Rose Edition

“Well, we’ll see how it comes out after editing, but I feel that I just had my Denver debate moment: I was tired, cranky, and unready for the blizzard of misleading factoids and diversionary stuff (In 1997 you said that the aging population was a big problem! When Social Security was founded life expectancy was only 62!) Oh, and I wasn’t prepared for Joe Scarborough’s slipperiness about what he actually advocates (he’s for more spending in the near term? Who knew?)”

In all fairness to Paul Krugman, Joe Scarborough used unfair tactics. He quoted Paul Krugman’s own words. Really. That was beneath you Joe.

Jeffrey Sachs and Niall Ferguson have grievances with Paul Krugman. Sachs objects to  Krugman’s crude and simplistic Keynesian prescriptions and Ferguson to Krugman’s uncivil partisanship.

Professor Krugman and Crude Keynesianism

“… crude Keynesians like Krugman believe that we don’t have to worry about the rising public debt for many years to come, perhaps well into the next decade. This is remarkably shortsighted. The public debt has already soared, from around 41 percent of GDP when Obama came into office to around 76 percent of GDP today (and with no lasting benefit to show for it). If Krugman had his way, and deficits were not restrained, the debt-GDP ratio would already be above 80 percent by now and would be rising rapidly towards 90 percent and above (as shown in the recent CBO alternative scenario)….  In my view the result of this misguided approach, adopted by the Obama Administration, has been a large build-up of public debt with no long-term benefits for an economy that instead needs a public-investment-led recovery. If we had followed Mr. Krugman’s long-standing advice to double down on this failed approach the situation would have been even worse. Yes, Mr. Krugman, I believe that you are a crude Keynesian at a time when we need subtler, surer, longer-term policies”. 

Paul Krugman’s Style Of Debate Suggests He May Have Been Traumatized As A Child

“In my view Paul Krugman has done fundamental damage to the quality of public discourse on economics. He can be forgiven for being wrong, as he frequently is–though he never admits it. He can be forgiven for relentlessly and monotonously politicizing every issue. What is unforgivable is the total absence of civility that characterizes his writing. His inability to debate a question without insulting his opponent suggests some kind of deep insecurity perhaps the result of a childhood trauma. It is a pity that a once talented scholar should demean himself in this way.”

It’s been a rough Sequestivus for Paul Krugman. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost.

K-Street special interest lobbyists have a grievance with Congress.   They didn’t want the sequester to cut their special interests and Congress was not listening.

Rules of the Game: Sequester Spells Bitter K Street Failure

“From university professors and scientists to cancer victims, defense contractors and federal workers, hundreds of advocacy, trade and labor groups have lobbied aggressively for months to head off the cuts. They’ve run ads, testified on Capitol Hill, staged demonstrations and hounded lawmakers, all to no avail.”

In a related grievance, special interests have a grievance with K Street lobbyists. Why pay them the big bucks if they can’t even protect their interests from dumb sequester cuts? Just sayin’ Special Interests… there might be a better use for your money.

Glenn Sperling has a grievance with Bob Wodward reporting that: 1) The idea for the sequester came out of the White House; 2) that the President moved the goal post on the sequester after election and; 3) That Sperling threatened Bob Woodward with this email:

The Woodward, Sperling emails revealed

“But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really… I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is different. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.”

Sperling has point about the last – it is hard to see anything that resembles a threat in this e-mail. On the other hand, two out of three ain’t bad. And Sperling confesses in the e-mail to yelling at Woodward. A transcript of that phone conversation would be way more interesting than the follow-up CYA e-mail.

Brian Beutler has a grievance with national/beltway media. Apparently they are not following his preferred progressive narrative about the pain the sequester is causing. He is much happier with local coverage.

Outside Washington, Sequestration Begins To Inflict Pain

“If beltway news reflected events in the country at large, the worst consequences of sequestration would amount to griping over politically motivated spending cuts, or programs spared. That kind of coverage stems from a GOP effort to identify unpopular and cynical sequestration cuts and lay them at the feet of the Obama administration lest the public regard them as a direct consequence of sequestration itself. But outside of Washington DC, sequestration is already causing real problems for regular people, and Democrats are engaged in a counteroffensive — highlighting the day-in, day-out problems sequestration is causing outside of the capital.”

Nobody said there would be no pain. But after the massive federal spending increases of the last twelve years, the relatively minor reductions in the sequester barely move the needle. If a little bit of pain now can slow our headlong rush down the unsustainable debt path where we find ourselves, it’s worth it.

The Chicago Tribune has a grievance with the administration. After getting caught repeatedly misrepresenting the pain of  sequester cuts, they now appear to be hell bent on manufacturing enough pain to match their exaggerations.

Truth-squadding sequester hysteria

“All of us who have to live within budgets know how to economize if we have to get by on 97.6 percent of our income. The White House wants us to believe that Washington cannot do so. But selling that cowflop has been hard: Fact-checkers at The Washington Post, Politifact and Politico have dealt Team Obama one rollicking embarrassment after another. Among claims largely or wholly debunked:

• Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s assertion that “There are literally teachers now who are getting pink slips” in Kanawha County, W.Va., because of the sequester? Wrong, Duncan later admitted.

• Obama’s threat that federal prosecutors would “have to close cases and let criminals go”? “Mostly False,” ruled Politifact.

• A White House fact sheet stating that subsidized programs such as Meals on Wheels would serve “4 million fewer meals to seniors”? At best, exaggerated.

• “Up to 70,000 children would lose access” to Head Start programs, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asserted? Incorrect.

• Our favorite: Officials predicting dreadful airport delays, juxtaposed with TV images of passengers meandering casually through uncrowded airports.

The most brazen fomenting of sequester hysteria came from an arm of the Agriculture Department, which told a federal official in North Carolina that available funds couldn’t be spread across several states to minimize the effect of service cuts. The word from Washington: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else” about the cuts, “So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

Not cool Agriculture Department. Not cool at all. Heads should roll.

It is an ill wind that blows no good. So it is with the sequester. Motivated by a common desire to moderate or replace some of the sequester cuts,  budget proposals  are being prepared and presented by Senate Democrats and House Republicans. Unsurprisingly, they look nothing alike. Surprisingly we may actually get a compromise Grand Bargain that puts us on a sustainable fiscal path.  The only certainty is that the airing of grievances will continue for the foreseeable future. 

^{Cross posted on “The Dividist Papers“}

Some described Rand Paul’s historic 13 hour filibuster as “libertarian porn”. Note we are talking about a CSPAN feed of a man speaking at a podium for 13 hours, yet I couldn’t stop watching. It was far more engrossing and entertaining than it had any right to be. I reluctantly tore myself away at the nine hour mark to keep an evening engagement, and was sorely disappointed to learn it was over when I returned.

Rand Paul was ostensibly using the filibuster to block a vote on John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, but he made it clear the nomination confirmation was not his primary reason for the filibuster. Rather it was administration evasion on a simple question – Does the President think he legally has unilateral authority to launch a drone strike on an American citizen in America? During the filibuster Rand Paul referenced and read several articles into the record. They explain the issue better than I can:

Conor Friedersdorf: Killing Americans on U.S. Soil: Eric Holder’s Evasive, Manipulative Letter

“Any thinking person can see that Holder’s letter is non-responsive, evasive, and deliberately manipulative in its sly reassurances, right down to the rhetorically powerful but substantively nonsensical invocation of 9/11 To credulously accept this sort of response, on an issue as important as this one, is behavior unfit for any citizen of a free country, where safeguarding the rule of law is a civic responsibility.”

Kevin Gosztola: Attorney General Eric Holder: US Government Has Authority to Target & Kill US Citizens on US Soil

“Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who sent three letters to CIA director nominee John Brennan requesting an answer on “whether the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil,” finally received an answer from Attorney General Eric Holder. The answer indicates the administration of President Barack Obama does, in fact, believe it has the power to assassinate US citizens on US soil with lethal force…

As interesting as the filibuster itself was the reaction from the punditocracy. Commentary on the filibuster came from across the political spectrum with the most withering criticism from his fellow Republicans.

Ezra Klein - A great day for the filibuster, and for filibuster reform

” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went down to the floor of the Senate and used his prerogatives as a senator to mount a sustained, public argument against John Brennan’s nomination to lead the CIA. Now Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is picking up the argument. This is the highest purpose of the filibuster: Allowing a passionate minority to slow down the Senate and make their case to both their colleagues and the American people. If more filibusters went like this, there’d be no reason to demand reform. And if there is reform, it needs to hold open the possibility for filibusters like this.”

Steve Benen - Opportunistically Standing with Rand

“… yesterday was quite a spectacle and brought legitimate questions about the scope of executive power to the fore — and the floor — in a way Americans haven’t seen in quite a while… Filibusters are supposed to be difficult, which made yesterday’s display a refreshing change of pace. It was not at all uncommon for even Paul critics to watch his endurance test and say, “Good for him.” … For the record, I don’t question the senator’s sincerity in the slightest, and I believe Paul would be raising the same questions and concerns if a member of his own party were in the White House.”

Nick Gillespie –  3 Takeaways from Rand Paul’s Filibuster About Drone Strikes

“The filibuster succeeded precisely because it wasn’t a cheap partisan ploy but because the substance under discussion – why won’t the president of the United States, his attorney general, and his nominee to head the CIA explain their views on limits to their power? – transcends anything so banal or ephemeral as party affiliation or ideological score-settling… The chills started early in the filibuster as Paul said things along the lines of, “If you’re gonna kill people in America [as terrorists], you need rules and we need to know your rules” … Those are not the words of a career politician trying to gain an advantage during the next round of horse-trading over a pork-barrel project. They are the words of a patriot who puts his country first and they inspire accordingly.”

Laura Ingraham –  Rand’s stand: principle and persuasion gives GOP reason for hope

“As a gaggle of GOP senators were returning from a cozy dinner with President Obama Wednesday night, the junior senator from Kentucky was in the midst of a marathon filibuster giving CSPAN2 what must have been its best ratings ever. I couldn’t turn it off… The Attorney General’s failure to categorically rule out such Executive kill lists is unconscionable. It is the duty of the legislative branch to check and challenge such blatant and dangerous over reach by any president, regardless of party….  Rand Paul didn’t eat for much of the day himself, but with his filibuster he fed an electorate hungry to hear from a politician of principle.”

Taylor Marsh –  Rand Paul Makes Democrats Look Feckless on Civil Liberties

“Democrats should be ashamed today. While Senator Rand Paul led a filibuster on the importance of civil liberties, fan politics and propping up their people in Obama administration gagged them into irrelevance on the issue…  It was a very good day for Senator Rand Paul. He helped Republicans find some meaning on an issue that matters… By comparison, the Democratic party looked petty, small, and hyper-partisan… But at least there is one honest man in the Senate, even if I rarely agree with him. Senator Rand Paul is a man to watch.”

Doug Mataconis:  Rand Paul Filibustering Brennan Nomination

“Paul says that he will continue this filibuster until he gets an answer from the Obama Administration regarding the use of drone strikes on American soil that is far less ambiguous than the one that Attorney General Holder issued late yesterday. He’s spent a good deal of his time pointing out the hypocrisy of the left on this issue, arguing quite convincingly that their silence over drone strikes under President Obama is starkly different from their justified criticism of the Bush Administration’s extraordinary tactics in the War On Terror. … Paul’s filibuster can’t last forever, of course, and Brennan is likely to get confirmed at some point. However, the Senator is raising important questions that we deserve answers to from the Administration. For that, at least, he deserves some thanks.”

The morning after Paul yielded the floor, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham went on the attack. I’d like to believe they represent the last gasp of the discredited old guard Neocon faction in the Republican party, but – who knows? I will simply conclude with the hope I expressed as a “tweet” during the filibuster.

@politicallogic The Old Guard Senate Neocons are dead. Long live the young libertarian guns.
— The Dividist (@Dividist) March 6, 2013

As the final minutes of the Brenner nomination debate wound down, Rand Paul again took the floor. He confirmed he finally received an unambiguous response from Attorney General Holder to the question that prompted the filibuster:

White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’

“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.” Paul said that was good enough for him. “I’m quite happy with the answer,” he said during a CNN interview. “I’m disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it, but we did get the answer.”

Shortly thereafter the Senate voted to confirm John Brennan as Director of the CIA 63-34. Rand Paul voted against.

Well done Senator Paul. You got the answer you were looking for and the country got the debate we deserved.

^{Cross-posted at “The Dividist Papers”}

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently updated their analysis of the underlying causes of our debt and deficit problems. Their key findings are summarized in these two charts.

Their shocking conclusion – Four years after he left office, the deficit is still all George W. Bush’s fault:

“Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion).  By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.  (See Figure 2.)” 

In fact, the CBPP project that our debt and deficits will continue to be George W. Bush’s fault for as far as the chart can see – throughout President Obama’s second term, through the next president’s first term, to 2019 and beyond. Before we take a look under the covers, it’s worth reviewing the history of their thesis.

In 2010 it became very important for Democratic strategists to explain to the electorate that our exploding federal spending and the consequent mushrooming deficits and debt were not the fault of the unified democratic party rule in place since the 2008 election. Voters were laboring under the mistaken impression that two trillion dollars of new spending passed in just two legislative acts ( Stimulus and Obamacare) on purely partisan votes in two years of one party democratic rule might have had something to do with it.   Au contraire mon ami.

This CBPP thesis was initially unveiled three years ago in February 2010, shortly after passage of Obamacare. The first version of the above charts made an appearance in an updated analysis in June that same year. Post mid-term election the GOP took control of the House restoring divided government and in 2011 the CBPP updated the analysis again. Variations of this analysis were picked up by MSM, embraced by the left-o-sphere and used as ammunition for the “Grand Bargain” negotiation. The very negotiation that ultimately failed and spawned the bipartisan “sequester” cuts just implemented.

I was dubious about the argument at the time, finding it to be – charitably speaking – disingenuous:

“Let’s think this through – the basis for the chart is that all costs for all time are attributable to a new policy that is enacted during the term of that president. Okay…Then how about we add a bar for FDR and load 70 years or so of total Social Security costs to this chart exclusively under his name? Or how about Truman who must bear the burden of all costs for maintaining US Troops in Korea for the last sixty years, and I guess Europe too with the Marshall Plan and NATO. Then we can move on to LBJ who gets all of the accumulated fifty years of costs for food stamps, welfare, medicare, and medicaid. Stack these three up, and neither GWB or OHB will show up as a rounding error. Now that I think about it, a standing army was a new policy enacted by George Washington – Once we pile up 200+ years of defense spending on George, I guess we finally have tracked down the real culprit for our deficit and insane spending.”

Dubious premise notwithstanding, as noted above the CBPP published the same argument yet again last week. They are still calling the tax cuts and war expenses a  ”Bush Legacy” and attributing most of our current and future debt and deficit to Bush. Problem being – policy has changed since they started publishing this thesis three years ago and they are not acknowledging the facts in their graphic presentation. The argument itself, the dubious premise – those are exactly the same as when first presented three years ago. What has changed are the facts about political ownership of the policies they are tracking. And by ignoring these facts, the CBPP has moved from a  dubious, “disingenuous” argument to outright misrepresentation and falsehood.

The Bush policies invoked by the CBPP in their chart had expiration dates, negotiated terminations, or were superseded by completely different policies explicitly advocated and implemented by the Obama administration.  So to help the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities get the facts straight, I’ve hacked up a repaired version of their deficient deficit graphic:

Some facts supporting the new improved CBPP chart:

Bush Obama Tax Cuts:
The Bush Tax Cuts were never permanent. They had a sunset provision that expired in December 2010. In 2010 they were extended unchanged for two years over President Obama’s objection. Let’s be generous and call those two additional years Bush Legacy Tax Cuts. But on December 31, 2012 those tax cuts and that law and that legacy expired. It was replaced by new policy and new law that was supported and strong-armed through Congress by President Obama. President Obama promoted, fought for and signed this new policy into law. He took full credit and praised this new permanent policy of tax cuts for the 98%. His supporters insist that the cuts should be known as the Obama Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts are dead. Long Live the Obama Tax Cuts. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities should stop promoting a lie.

The Bush Iraq War is over:
In December 2008 President George W. Bush signed an agreement with Iraq to withdraw all U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011. President Obama honored and executed that agreement. Iraq was a Bush Policy. The costs were a Bush legacy. But that policy and legacy ended with the agreement to withdraw in 2011 signed by George W. Bush. The Iraq War was a mistake. Bush negotiated our exit before he left office. Obama executed that exit. The War in Iraq is not driving our deficit anymore.

The Obama Afghanistan War has just started:
Candidate Obama campaigned on expanding our military presence in Afghanistan. As President he “surged” and expanded the scope of that war far beyond anything envisioned or intended by the Bush administration. Whether that decision was right or wrong remains to be seen. Regardless, it was a new policy that extended and expanded our military commitment in Afghanistan. Our Afghanistan policy is Barack Obama’s policy and not George W. Bush’s policy. The cost of our continuing expanded presence in Afghanistan belongs exclusively to the Obama administration.

To use one of our president’s favorite phrases – Let me be clear. Legacy Bush policies are no longer a meaningful contributor to our debt or deficit. Our deficit is driven primarily by Obama administration policy. Our debt is primarily driven by Obama administration policy. If there was any question before, it does not exist now. President Obama policy is primarily responsible for, has significantly contributed to, and is the primary reason for the debt and deficit problem our country faces.

The legacy of the Obama administration will be the debt and deficit he leaves behind.  He still has time to fix it. A  Grand Bargain negotiated in the next 30 days may be his last best chance.

^{X-posted from “The Dividist Papers“}

The steady drumbeat in the mainstream media about the sequestration “crisis” is getting louder by the day. With less than two weeks until the cuts go into effect it is already approaching an absurdist crescendo.

The sequestration is coming!

Let’s be clear. The “sequester” is not a crisis.  The “sequester” is not the problem. The real problem is the massive growth in federal spending creating unsustainable deficits and debt that will be shouldered by generations to come.  The “sequester” is a solution to a real problem facing America.

That said, the “sequester” is not a great solution.  It’s not even a good solution.  The sequester cuts are not a smart way to address the spending problem. The sequester cuts are also not adequate to solve the spending and unfunded liability disaster that looms in our entitlement programs. But the odds of getting anything smart out of this administration and congress that has even as little impact as the sequester cuts are vanishingly small. Since it’s a bad bet to rely on our leaders for smart significant cuts, let’s at least bank the cuts they already passed.

This is what “gutting” the defense budget looks like.

The across-the-board sequestered spending cuts that go into effect March 1st were proposed by President Obama, passed with a bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate, and signed into law by President Obama. The president even threatened to veto any changes to the sequester. The hypocrisy of the principal architects of the legislation from both parties trying to undo it border on the farcical. Recall that President Obama supported sequester before he opposed sequester. And note that Paul Ryan can’t decide whether he likes the sequester or not. Then there is…

Nancy Pelosi then:

“Pelosi also on Thursday became the latest leader to say that she will oppose any efforts by members to undo the $1.2 trillion across-the-board spending cut that will go into effect in 2013 if the supercommittee fails.“The sequester is what it is,” Pelosi said.

And Nancy Pelosi now:

“Well, I think that the sequestration is a bad idea, all around. It is something that is out of the question. The fact is, we have had plenty of spending cuts…”

Screw ‘em.  They passed it. They supported it. I say if we can’t get the cuts we love, love the cuts we’ve got. And I am not alone in that assessment.

Howard Dean:

“We should let it happen,” Dean said of $1 trillion in domestic, defense and Medicare spending cuts set to be triggered on March 1. “I’m in favor of the sequester. It is tough on things that I care about a lot, but the fact of the matter is, you are not going to get another chance to cut the defense budget in the way that it needs to be cut.”

Cato Institute:

“Sequestration likely won’t be as bad as special interests and those in favor of ever-increasing military spending claim. The reductions would only apply to FY 2013 budget authority, not outlays. The Pentagon and Congress will then have greater flexibility starting in FY 2014 to adjust the reductions under the BCA spending caps. In the meantime, many programs could continue on funding already authorized.  We must also keep the cuts in proper perspective. The DoD base budget under sequestration would total $469 billion, about what we spent in 2006, which was not exactly a lean year for the Pentagon. And as for the claim that the military cuts will result in perhaps one million lost jobs, that seems implausible considering that the cuts would amount to less than three tenths of one percent of GDP.”

Charles Krauthammer:

If they do nothing, the $1.2 trillion in cuts go into effect. This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything. Get them while you can. Of course, the sequester is terrible policy. The domestic cuts will be crude and the Pentagon cuts damaging. This is why the Republican House has twice passed bills offering more rationally allocated cuts. (They curb, for example, entitlement spending as well.)  Naturally, the Democratic Senate, which hasn’t passed a budget since before the iPad, has done nothing. Nor has the president — until his Tuesday plea.

Senator Tom Colburn

“We’re gonna have a sequestration. we’re gonna have some pain because the politicians on the Hill aren’t going to make cogent, smart decisions about alternatives to this until they start feeling some pain,” Coburn said on Wednesday’s Morning Joe. “It’s a stupid way to govern, but that’s the way we’re doing it right now. I think the blame lies on everyone’s shoulders including the president’s. Then we’re going to start coming around and picking and choosing what’s important and eliminating what’s not of great value and what we can’t afford.”

Dave Cote – CEO Honeywell

“We need the reduction,” Cote said. “You could argue that the reduction would make more sense if we did it thoughtfully and spent a lot of time on it. I’m not sure that’s a real option, though. The options seem to be let it happen or take it away.” Cote remains a leading voice in the corporate “Fix the Debt” group, which spent months last year lobbying the Democratic White House and Republican lawmakers to reach a deal to reduce the national debt and avoid a year-end “fiscal cliff.” of spending cuts and tax increases. Having seen that deadline quickly replaced by the March 1 sequester deadline, Cote said that allowing the cuts previously agreed to take place may be the most practical way to start trimming the debt.”

Professor Jeff Bergner – Georgetown University

“The most likely way to achieve significant reductions in spending is by across-the-board cuts. Each reduction of 1% in the $3.6 trillion federal budget would yield roughly $36 billion the first year and would reduce the budget baseline in future years. Even with modest reductions, this is real money. …let’s give up the politically pointless effort to pick and choose among programs, accept the political reality of current allocations, and reduce everything proportionately. No one program would be very much disadvantaged. In many cases, a 1% or 3% reduction would scarcely be noticed. Are we really to believe that a government that spent $2.7 trillion five years ago couldn’t survive a 3% cut that would bring spending to “only” $3.5 trillion today? Every household, company and nonprofit organization across America can do this, as can state and local governments. So could Washington.”

Liberal Democratic Blogger:

“As I said, cuts would hurt, and not just for those of us in the Federal government.  It’s a horrible time to cut spending, given that the economy is finally just getting back on its feet.  Economists have stated the sequester would likely reduce GDP by a full percentage point for the next few quarters. But the pragmatic side of me states that across-the-board spending cuts would force agencies to streamline, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  The pragmatic side of me says a short-term hit to the economy is worth it, IF it gets the U.S. to take a more realistic look at our military spending. Sequester?  Just let it happen.”

Conservative Republican Blogger:

“This sequester is a political test for those of us who want to cut the size and scope of government. Here we have $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts set to take place. All Congress has to do is nothing for them to happen. If we can’t get Congress to do nothing and let $1.2 trillion in cuts take place, how are we going to pass the deeper spending cuts and entitlement reforms we need to rescue our country from financial ruin? Finally, here is a chance to take on the sacred cow that is defense spending. If we cannot make these modest defense spending reductions, how are we going to take the hard look at our foreign policy that we desperately need? This is one time where Congress can help the country by doing nothing. They should not act and let the sequester happen as a small first step to getting the nation’s financial house in order.”

Let’s start fixing the real problem. Take the bird in the hand. Let the sequester go into effect.

Politically the sequester evens up the score. Democrats got some tax increases in December. Republicans get some spending cuts now. The stage is set yet again for another run at a “Grand Bargain”. Both tax and entitlement reform will be on the table while negotiating the continuing resolution and budget in March. That will be our last best chance in this administration to solve the real problem and fix any sequester issues.

I choose to be optimistic. I can only…

^{Cross-posted from “The Dividist Papers“}

This New York Times article lays out THE reason why the GOP got their asses handed to them last November.

In short, they’re simply behind the times. Both from a technology and messaging standpoint.

Now, their are plenty in the GOP who feel like they need to change, adopt new messaging, open the tent, run smarter campaigns, etc. One of them is GOPer Patrick Ruffini, who attended a Dem political strategy summit recently…

On Nov. 30, more than 2,000 progressives shuffled into the Washington Convention Center to participate in RootsCamp, an annual series of seminars hosted by the New Organizing Institute, where the most cutting-edge digital and grass-roots organizing techniques are discussed. The shaggy and the achingly earnest are well represented at RootsCamp, which makes it an easy target of derision from the right. A reporter from the conservative publication The Daily Caller attended the postelection gathering in 2010 and made great sport of the “unconference,” with its self-conscious inclusiveness, which the reporter termed “multilingual, multicultural and multi-unpurposeful.”

But the handful of conservatives who attended the conference this past November were in no mood to sneer. One was Patrick Ruffini, a 34-year-old leader of the G.O.P.’s young-and-restless digerati. At RootsCamp, his breathless tweets of the sessions held by top Obama organizers — “In eight years, calling people will be obsolete”; “Digital organizing director and field director will be one and the same” — set off a buzz among Republican techies. Ruffini was plainly impressed by the openness of the experience. “I’m like, Wow, they’re doing this in front of 2,000 people, and the system seems to actually work,” he told me a month later. “The thing I was struck by at RootsCamp was that in many ways, the Democratic technology ecosystem has embraced the free market — whereas the Republican one sort of runs on socialism, with the R.N.C. being the overlord.”

Wait, the GOP organizes their campaigns…like a church? You don’t say.

So that speaks to the tech gap. It’s very wide right now, but could be closed rather quickly because younger GOPers are interested in fixing it. And let’s face it…there’s money in them thar hills.

But what about the perception/message of the GOP? Check out this focus group of swing voters…

About an hour into the session, Anderson walked up to a whiteboard and took out a magic marker. “I’m going to write down a word, and you guys free-associate with whatever comes to mind,” she said. The first word she wrote was “Democrat.”

“Young people,” one woman called out.

“Liberal,” another said. Followed by: “Diverse.” “Bill Clinton.”“Change.”“Open-minded.”“Spending.”“Handouts.”“Green.”“More science-based.”

When Anderson then wrote “Republican,” the outburst was immediate and vehement: “Corporate greed.”“Old.”“Middle-aged white men.” “Rich.” “Religious.” “Conservative.” “Hypocritical.” “Military retirees.” “Narrow-minded.” “Rigid.” “Not progressive.” “Polarizing.” “Stuck in their ways.” “Farmers.”

And this is really why I’m asking the “impossible” in the title. Do we really think Dems are going to become less progressive? Republicans ALWAYS lag when it comes to social issues. So how will they attract younger voters who think the GOP is woefully out of touch?

The article is a fantastic read and really points toward some ways forward for the GOP. Whether or not they’ll pay attention is another story.

Looks like we have movement on immigration reform a lot sooner than many anticipated. And wouldn’t you know it, Rubio is front and center.

From Fox News:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the eight senators, called the new proposal a “major breakthrough” and said he hopes to turn it into legislation by March — with the goal of passing something out of the Senate “by late spring or summer.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., standing beside him, claimed 2013 is the “best chance” lawmakers will have to tackle immigration for years. [...]

The eight senators who unveiled the new principles are Democrats Schumer, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado; and Republicans McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

So what does their plan outline? Here are details so far…

–Creating a path to citizenship for the estimated illegal immigrants already in the U.S., contingent upon securing the border and better tracking of people here on visas.

–Reforming the legal immigration system, including awarding green cards to immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from an American university.

–Creating an effective employment verification system to ensure that employers do not hire illegal immigrants.

–Allowing more low-skill workers into the country and allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can demonstrate they couldn’t recruit a U.S. citizen; and establishing an agricultural worker program.

All in all, this is good news. If this many GOP Senators can get behind it, the GOPers in the House are going have a hard time saying no. Yes, there will plenty that do…but enough to defeat it? Doubtful.

More as it develops…

And replace it with a revenue neutral sales tax?

The story…

“The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana’s workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity,” Jindal said in a statement released by his office. “It’s time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs.”

Jindal said the plan would be revenue-neutral and that the goal would be to keep sales taxes “as low and flat as possible.”

But…

The governor’s office has not yet confirmed or denied an article in The Monroe News-Star that reports eliminating the state income tax could require increasing the state sales tax from 4 percent to 7 percent.

As most of you know, this is hugely regressive for lower income folks who pay very little income tax in the first place and live from paycheck to paycheck. The sales tax goes up on all the essentials they buy. It’s merely tax replacement. Because guess what the tax rates are in Louisiana for individuals? 2% for income up to $12,500 for individuals and up to $25K for couples. 4% for income up to $50K for individuals and $100K for couples. And over $50K for individuals and over $100K for couples…it’s 6%. You don’t need to be a numbers expert to see which income brackets are getting their income taxes cut in half and which will see theirs raised.

Listen, I get that Republicans think that people will spend more if they have more in their pockets. And they will. But only if they’re closer to the bottom. Those who benefit from it the most (the wealthy) do not spending it to drive the economy. Sure, they spend some, but they are much more likely to either invest (which may or may not help the overall economy…I’ll get to that soon) or they save. That’s great for them, but when our economy relies pretty much solely on consumer spending…you can see how tax cuts like these do not help stimulate job growth.

Let’s look at this in a different way. What do wealthy people do with tax cuts? Invest. A lot. So they become shareholders. Partial owners of a company, so to speak. What do they expect that company to do for them? Make them money. How do companies make money? By maximizing profits. How do you maximize profits? By running an efficient business. How do you run an efficient business? By producing the most amount of revenue with the least amount of overhead. What is always the most expensive overhead? Employees.

See how investment doesn’t necessarily provide a clear line to jobs?

And remember, private companies are holding the biggest amount of cash reserves they have EVER had. They’re not spending. They claim that it’s because of economic uncertainty, but if you’ve ever worked in a corporate environment…waiting is not rewarded. Never. Ever. The corporate culture demands plans, action, now! These companies are keeping that money because they don’t need to spend it, not because they don’t want to spend it. At the same time, they’re squeezing every last hour out of their smaller workforces because all of that economic uncertainty makes it harder for workers to ask for better pay for the extra work they’re doing, thus benefitting all of those companies bottom lines even more. And once companies start hiring again…that’s a signal to workers to demand more pay. So it doesn’t benefit any of these companies to hire unless they absolutely need to.

What this all boils down to is that what Jindal is saying makes a decent sound bite…but does it make economic sense? On paper, no. It doesn’t. At least it doesn’t appear to make sense. And it’s not like Louisana’s poorest is in any great shape to begin with. And I personally care much more about them than those near the top. Because those near the top will always do well. They’ll find a way, tax cuts or not, to try and make as much money as is humanly possible. Our focus should be helping those who don’t have those skills to find a way up out of their situations. And raising their taxes isn’t going to do that.

Your thoughts?

Here’s more from NBC News…

So, the heads of the Senate went to work…

After weeks of fruitless negotiations between the president and Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama turned to Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader — two men who have been fighting for dominance of the Senate for years — to find a solution. The speaker, once seen as the linchpin for any agreement, essentially ceded final control to the Senate and said the House would act on whatever the Senate could produce.

“The hour for immediate action is here. It is now,” Mr. Obama said in the White House briefing room after an hourlong meeting with the two Senate leaders, Mr. Boehner and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader. He added, “The American people are not going to have any patience for a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy, not right now.”

But what are they not addressing?

Despite the new optimism, it was clear that any deal in the next three days would only alleviate the worst aspects of the “fiscal cliff” while leaving big decisions on taxes and spending to the next showdown, most likely by February when Congress must raise the government’s debt limit. A Republican aide briefed on the meeting said the speaker told the other negotiators that House Republicans would not turn off $100 billion in automatic military and domestic spending cuts in 2013 without equivalent cuts elsewhere. Also likely to be left out of a deal is any agreement to raise the debt limit.

Those three things could really grind this fledging recovery to a halt if they don’t get figured out…especially raising the debt ceiling. But just remember who brought all of this on our heads. We could easily raise the debt ceiling, but Tea Party House members refuse to do it. And if we default…wow. Bad news.

More as it develops…

If Boehner can’t get House Repubs to play ball on a bill that Obama didn’t even agree to…what can we expect for something that’s worse in their eyes?

Answer: nothing.

Hopes of a grand-bargain — to shave trillions of dollars off the deficit by cutting entitlement programs and raising revenue — are shattered. House Republicans already failed to pass their “Plan B” proposal. And now aides and senators say the White House’s smaller, fall-back plan floated last week is a non-starter among Republicans in Senate — much less the House.

On top of that, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the nation would hit the debt limit on Dec. 31, and would then have to take “extraordinary measures” to avoid exhausting the government’s borrowing limit in the New Year.

So how is this going to get done? I see a couple different scenarios.

First, Republicans realize they’re giving Obama a huge political win and pass a stop gap measure to make sure unemployment insurance and tax cuts for those making under $250K don’t expire, while not cutting military spending, etc. Then they can do additional deals down the road.

Second, we wait until after the first of the year…and a new deal is cut. This also gives Obama a political win because now these are the “Obama tax cuts” and the word “Bush” is wiped away.

But the big looming question in all of this is the debt ceiling. Republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to not raise it…and that’s the truly catastrophic situation we’re facing.

More as it develops…