WTF is a Supercommittee and who is likely to get appointed? (updated)

We’ve had a catfood commission and a gang of six.  Both groups basically had such essential differences that nothing ever came of their recommendations and nothing resembling a consensus appeared.  How is some congressional mandate handed over to a “supercommittee” going to be any different?  I see no reason for the Republicans to not continue the gridlock.  However, I did want to find out more.  So, here’s what I found.

It seems obvious to me that the supercommittee has been given a mandate to do things that no single congress critter wants on his record.  They are there to cut extremely popular programs.  I personally wonder if they will give cover to Republicans that signed on to Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge for reasonable changes in revenue policies as well.  I found a reasonably short explanation of their mandate on the PR&P Tax Update Blog.

The Act reduces spending by $0.9 trillion over the next 10 years and creates a 12-member, bi-partisan joint “super” committee charged with making recommendations to cut an additional $1.5 trillion from the deficit over 10 years.  The committee may recommend any combination of spending cuts or tax increases.  If legislation is not enacted by January 15, 2012 to cut the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, then any shortfall must be taken equally out of defense and social spending by January 1, 2013.  This latter provision is so distasteful to each political party that it is seen as the vehicle to force through an agreement from the super committee.

Super committee appointments are to be made by August 16, 2011 with the first meeting held no later than September 16, 2011.  The committee must vote on their conclusions no later than November 23, 2011.  If a majority votes in favor, then legislative language must be reported out no later then December 2, 2011.  Both the House and the Senate must vote on the proposal by December 23, 2011 with no amendments considered.  The committee may rely on previous proposals to reform spending and taxation due to the time constraint it must work under.

There is an incredible amount of speculation on possible appointments to the supercommittee.  This is Politico’s best guess for the Senate appointees.  They have their guesses for the House appointees as well as a list of ‘dark horses’.

The major contenders to be selected by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.):

• Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) – Finance Committee chairman has jurisdiction over entitlement programs and he served on the Simpson-Bowles commission. The Huffington Post, however, reported on Monday that Baucus is unlikely to be tapped.

• Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) – Reid deputy is a Gang of Six member who also served on Simpson-Bowles.

• Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) – Appropriations Committee chairman participated in the Biden talks.

• Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) – Schumer is a Reid ally who would not let Democrats get rolled in the negotiations.


The major contenders to be selected by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.):

• Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) – Member of leadership team who throws sharp elbows on 2010 healthcare law.

• Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) – Ranking member of Finance Committee told The Hill, “I can live with [being appointed] or live without it.” Some point out that Hatch, who could face a primary challenge next year, will not be keen on finding common ground with Democrats.

• Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) – McConnell’s deputy participated in the Biden talks and is not seeking reelection.

• Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) – Portman, a budget director in George W. Bush’s administration, has been mentioned a lot in recent days. The former House Ways and Means Committee member is widely respected on both sides of the aisle.

Sam Stein at HuffPo writes  that Conrad and Baucus will not make the cut.  Obama mentioned that the White House will be involved in the process of what the supercommittee does but he did not mention how that will happen.

To whom he will be submitting the plan remains the major mystery. But over the weekend, information about potential committee members began to leak from Capitol Hill. According to multiple Democratic sources, Senate Democratic leaders are winnowing down the names on the short list and they are leaning strongly against including some of the party’s most notable budget hawks.

Two senators, in particular, were said to be unlikely to end up on the committee: Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who chairs the Finance Committee, and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who chairs the Budget Committee.

Final decisions have not yet been made, two aides cautioned. But two other Democratic aides with knowledge of deliberations said they would be very surprised if either ended up on the final list.

“The committee is built for failure — everyone will either stack it with loyalists to leadership and the caucuses or with partisan firebrands to make sure those folks defend key priorities,” said one of those aides. “If they don’t, they will immediately regret it. You need grown-up smart pros that know the issues, know the caucus position and will not waver.”

It appears that Conrad himself does not expect to make the cut. On Aug. 1, the night before the debt ceiling deal was signed, a reporter told him that a few people had floated his name as a super committee member. “I’m sure it’s a very few,” the senator responded.

The exclusion of Conrad and Baucus could have major implications for the committee’s tenor and the actions it will ultimately take. During the debt ceiling debate, Conrad pushed far-reaching deficit reduction proposals that included entitlement and tax reform and called for one dollar in spending cuts for every dollar in tax revenue raised. Baucus is more protective of entitlements but enjoys close ties to the financial service industry. Both are considered senior statesmen among Democrats on debt related negotiations. They are also distrusted by the party base, primarily because of their long records as fiscal hawks.

There are many concerns that people have expressed with the formation of this group.  One of the major issues is transparency.

Transparency concerns: Some groups have expressed concern that the joint committee will have an extremely powerful role in shaping policy, but may not be subject to the same transparency obligations as other congressional committees. “Right now, the creation of the committee doesn’t come with many requirements for transparency,” noted the Project on Government Oversight.

In a letter to Congressional leadership Aug. 3, the Sunlight Foundation recommended the joint committee include on its website:

  • Live webcasts of all official meetings and hearings,
  • the Committee’s report should be posted for 72 hours before a final committee vote,
  • disclosure of every meeting held with lobbyists and other powerful interests,
  • disclosure of campaign contributions as they are received (on their campaign website), and
  • financial disclosures of Committee members and staffers.
CBS News speculates that the downgrade of US debt by S&P will put even more pressure on the members of the supercommittee,

The downgrade creates “a sense of urgency for the two parties to come together,” Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla. told the Times, adding that the possibility of a further downgrade “scares” him. Added Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, “Anything that encourages the new committee to get the job done and get us back on a rational fiscal path is a good thing.”

At least some lawmakers called on Congress to return from its August recess to take up more deficit-reduction legislation.

“I sent a letter today to Leader Cantor requesting we come back to DC to resolve our deficit and spending issues. We should be in session!” Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., tweeted. West, a Tea Party-aligned House member, gained attention for his early support of the debt deal Republican leaders agreed to with President Obama.

Similarly, Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said in a statement that “Congress should immediately reconvene to take up the fundamental reforms necessary to right the ship and lay the groundwork for a more stable and secure future for our children and grandchildren.”

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said on CBS’ “The Early Show” Monday that “there’s going to be incredible pressure on this commission now to come up with $1.5 trillion worth of deficit cuts,” but he expressed skepticism they’d get the job done. “Do you think if Democrats appoint their six most liberal members and Republicans appoint their six most conservatives that this committee will get anything done?” He said that the two parties should at least be able to support defense spending cuts. As Frank noted, there’s reason to believe the partisan fighting that S&P cited in its downgrade will continue in the supercommittee.

There are undoubtedly many things that will come up in this committee that will impact the future course of US policy.  It is odd to think that 6 committee members from each party will hold so much power.  It is even odder to think that the committee is evenly stacked instead of representing some kind of percentage that is representative of congress now.  This equates a minority power with the majority.  I personally find that very odd and undemocratic.
UPDATE:  Harry Reids picks are place as of this afternoon.

In the first of what will be a closely watched selection process for a powerful new deficit panel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he will appoint Democratic Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.), Max Baucus (Mont.) and John Kerry (Mass.) as his three choices for a super committee charged with finding more than $1 trillion in spending cuts by the end of this year.

Murray will serve as co-chair of the 12-member panel. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will select her co-chair and two other panelists, as required by the next debt limit agreement signed into law by President Barack Obama last week. Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell will each select three additional members.


Making Bad

Experiencing a little buyer’s remorse villagers?

 

“Barack Obama feels more and more like a president from the Jimmy Carter tradition: well meaning but ineffectual”.

Peter Oborne from  ‘In this grave crisis, the world’s
leaders are terrifyingly out of their depth’.

“IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze.”

Drew Westen from  “What Happened to Obama?”

“Obama has suffered, in part, from a clarity gap. Even his own supporters aren’t always sure what he’s willing to fight for.

“He needs to plant a flag somewhere,” complained William A. Galston, a former top aide to then-President Clinton. “I don’t care what color it is. But periodically planting a flag and then lowering it is no way to inspire confidence.”

The president took a clear position on only one issue in the debt ceiling negotiations: He said any deal had to be “balanced,” meaning it had to include new tax revenue as well as spending cuts. But in the face of Republican opposition, he backed off even that one demand.

Obama’s negotiating victories in the final deal weren’t on matters of substance, like tax revenue. They were on matters of process: on making sure another debt-ceiling vote doesn’t happen until 2013 and making sure the mechanism for choosing further spending cuts isn’t tilted in the Republicans‘ favor. Try selling those to voters as a victory for the beleaguered middle class.”

Doyle McManus from “Obama’s clarity gap

“The one thing I might say is that we shouldn’t really wonder what happened to Obama — he is who he always was. If you paid attention to what he actually said during the primary and the election, he was always a very conventional centrist. Progressives who flocked to his campaign basically deluded themselves, mistaking style for substance. I got huge flack for saying that at the time, but it was true, and events have borne it out.”

Paul Krugman from “Stuck in the Middle”

“I think that – I don’t – I’m not sure that that’s true. I – I think that it is working. I think that people still, you know, in my interactions with the American people, they liked the guy a lot. They respect him a lot. They don’t feel that he’s in touch with their lives, and his calculation is this, that as this goes on – and – you know, he will be the least damaged of all the various parties.

And that’s what we’ve seen. His standing in – standing in the polls have gone down, but the Republicans’ standing in the polls has plummeted. And so, you know, he’s got to be feeling not terrific at this point, but not too bad politically either, because sooner or later the Republicans have to choose some candidate to oppose him and that candidate is going to have to make a calculation about how close to the Tea Party – which does remain a minority of a minority – how close to the Tea Party does the Republican presidential nominee want to be?

And so, I think the president is bemused by all of this and kind of horrified by the nonsense he’s – you know, that he’s had to deal with. He’s made concessions, unlike – as Arianna was saying – unlike anything we’ve ever seen a Democratic president make before. He proposed raising the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67.

I’m not sure I’m in favor of that.”

Joe Klein on on Global Public Square

The signs were all there in 2008.  It’s just so many people chose to ignore them.  Now, well,  now, we are so f’d.  Go ahead and add to the list.  The Sunday talk shows are full of pithy quotes.


Way to Go Boys and Girls: Countdown to Recession

So, I’m watching the US stock market plummet and laughing to myself in a most unhealthy way.  NOW, they’re worried about no growth and jobs.  What a buncha marroons!  But hey, we maintained that AAA rating so the flight to safety has begun.  Gold any one?

“We have a stubbornly slow economy,” Hank Smith, chief investment officer at Haverford Trust Co. in Radnor, Pennsylvania, said in a telephone interview. His firm manages about $6.5 billion. “The economy is stuck in a very slow growth mode, which means that it’s more susceptible to any external shocks.”

Harvard University economics professor Martin Feldstein said he sees a 50 percent chance that the U.S. will relapse into another recession.

“Nothing has given us much growth,” Feldstein said today in a Bloomberg Television interview on “Surveillance Midday” with Tom Keene. Feldstein is a member of the committee that dates recessions for the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Today’s retreat brought the S&P 500 to within 1 percentage point of its low for the year on March 16 and trimmed its year- to-date gain to about 0.5 percent. All 10 industry groups fell, led by a 2.4 percent slump in industrial companies. General Electric Co. lost 3.7 percent to lead declines in 29 of 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Archer Daniels Midland Co., the world’s largest grain processor, tumbled 2.4 percent as earnings trailed projections after corn and tax expenses rose. MetroPCS Communications Inc., the pay-as-you-go mobile-phone carrier, lost 35 percent for the biggest decline in the S&P 500 as sales fell short of analysts’ forecasts.

What if they gave a recovery and nobody came? So, What’s missing from the debt ceiling debate?  Jobs. In an aggregate demand led recession, what gives us growth is healthy government spending, not tax cuts, and certainly not austerity.  Welcome to the new anti-growth fiscal policy.

The unemployment rate, currently above 9 percent, is projected to remain high for a long time. For example, the current Blue Chip Economic Indicators consensus forecast puts the average unemployment rate for 2012 at 8.3 percent. The agreement to raise the debt ceiling just announced by policymakers in Washington not only erodes funding for public investments and safety-net spending, but also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.  The spending cuts in 2012 and the failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012, relative to current budget policy.

The agreement would reduce spending by at least $1 trillion over 10 years through budget caps on non-mandatory programs, with additional reductions under discussion in a second phase. While the bulk of the cuts are back-loaded – coming more in the future – the near-term cuts would still have an immediate impact. Applying conventional multipliers, the reduction of $30.5 billion in calendar year 2012 would reduce GDP by 0.3%, and result in roughly 323,000 fewer jobs (as depicted in the table below).

In addition to the immediate cuts to spending, the debt ceiling agreement fails to continue two major policies which had been part of broad agreements in the past.   The payroll tax holiday and extended unemployment insurance were passed last December along with the two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts; but are set to expire at the end of 2011.  While Congress could still extend these policies between now and the end of the year, that scenario is looking much less likely today. (Any economic support subsequent to this deal would have to be offset by other tax increases or spending cuts in 2012 or a further increase in the debt ceiling, neither of which seems politically viable.)

But wait, didn’t the know-it-all in chief just say jobs were priority one now?  Well, let me just laugh. Even Andrea Mitchell knew enough to ask the dmbest person in nearly every room–Valerie Jarrett–with what money are you going to be doing that?

“As we go through the package, and members are beginning to learn what’s in the package, they’re seeing,” the reaction is “better and better,” White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”

“I’ve been on many of these calls since last evening with a wide variety of people who were initially skeptical,” she said. “But when they see the details of the package, they’re becoming increasingly comfortable.”

The deal reached by the president and congressional leaders is “not perfect,” Jarrett said, and is “not the package that the president would have wanted.”

Even so, she said, “it is a package that stays true to his values and his goals, No. 1, long-term certainty, and No. 2, making sure that the people who can least afford to suffer are protected.”

Yup, I should think it stays true to his values and his goals. He wants to clap the confidence fairy to life and ensure that corporate CEOs don’t suffer.  Meanwhile, every macroeconomic model in the country shows this deal will cost millions of jobs and it will bring down GDP growth.  I don’t think they’ve left one economist on the planet with jaw not on the floor.  This deal is so absolutely recessionary that the countdown to the dip has begin as far as I’m concerned.

The Economic Policy Institute, a top nonpartisan think tank, estimates that the deal struck this weekend to raise the nation’s debt limit will end up costing the economy 1.8 million jobs by 2012. Today the Senate is expected to approvethe package passed yesterday by the House and send it to President Obama. But while the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent, the deal does nothing to address chronic joblessness.

The agreement would reduce spending by at least $1 trillion over 10 years, but even the near-term cuts could shrink already sluggish GDP growth by 0.3% in 2012. According to EPI, the plan “not only erodes funding for public investments and safety-net spending, but also misses an important opportunity to address the lack of jobs.” In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the “failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed) could lead to roughly 1.8 million fewer jobs in 2012.”

 Let’s seem them get re-elected in that environment!  Dean Baker suggests we start the Club for Employment.

What we should be worrying about is all the news that Washington has ignored while it was doing the debt ceiling shuffle. Most importantly, the economy has almost stopped growing and unemployment is again on the rise.

On Friday, the commerce department released data showing the economy grew just 1.3% in the second quarter. Even worse, it revised down the first quarter growth number from 1.9% to just 0.3%. This means that the economy was growing at just a 0.8% annual rate over the first half of 2011. This is well below the 2.5% pace that is necessary just to keep unemployment from rising.

Of course, unemployment has been rising, with the June figure hitting 9.2%. That is up from a post-recession low of 8.8% in March. The unemployment rate does not give the whole story, since many of people have lost hope of finding a job and given up looking for work altogether. The employment to population ratio (EPOP) – the percentage of the population with jobs – has fallen back almost to its low point for the downturn. The EPOP for African Americans has hit new lows in each of the last three months.

The revisions also provided other interesting pieces of information. For example, corporate profits were revised sharply higher for both 2009 and 2010. The share of profits in corporate sector output hit a new record high, more than a full percentage point above its previous peak. Finance was the biggest winner within the corporate sector, accounting for 31.7% of corporate profits, also a record high.

In short, we now have an economy that is stuck in the doldrums. It is operating well below its potential level of output. Furthermore, instead of catching up, it appears to be falling further behind. We are seeing a growth rate far below the economy’s potential, when we should be seeing growth that is far above potential. And the Wall Street guys are fat and happy.

Believe me, an economy “stuck in the doldrums” will look good this time next year.   If Mitch McConnell wanted to over throw or throw over the country, he sure succeeded.  Some one needs to whip his sorry ass.


Tuesday Reads

Good Morning!! I have a few interesting reads for you today, and they aren’t all about the idiotic debt ceiling debate. I’m going to lead off with a few excellent blog posts about that idiocy, and then I’ll move on to something else.

First up, Scarecrow compares the movie Cowboys and Aliens to the events in DC: In Cowboys and Aliens, Humans Win; In Washington’s Zombies Vs. Pods, They Lose. In the movie, Scarecrow writes:

humans of all types realize they have to join together to defeat the rapacious creatures who are looting the planet and turning humans into zombies and pod people. There’s hope for our species!

Back in Washington, D.C. there are no heroes and no upbeat ending. Instead, the looting, muggings and beatings will continue until morale improves.

In our “real” world, there is a radical extremist group driven by zombies and zombie beliefs who successfully blackmail the nation into strangling its own economy. The supposedly “sane” group that is supposed to stop this madness has become cowardly and turned into mindless pod people, who assure the nation that the gutting of American government and essential services and safety nets won’t occur in one step but in several, whose outcome is locked in by an undemocratic Super Congress and the next debt limit blackmail in 2013.

It’s a terrific post.

On a more serious note, Emptywheel asks, Is Mark Warner the Designated Social Security Killer? It’s all about what may happen if the so-called “Super Congress” comes to be. Read it and weep.

At the New Yorker, John Cassidy argues that the debt ceiling bill is all smoke and mirrors.

In removing the immediate threat of a debt default, the agreement…signals that the U.S. government still satisfies the minimum standard of financial functionality: it pays its bills on time. That should be enough to head off an immediate downgrade in the nation’s credit rating, and it explains why Wall Street bounced at Monday’s opening bell.

Beyond that it is hard to see anything very positive about a deal in which President Obama finally persuaded the Republicans to accept a Republican plan. Putting on my ethicist cap, I agree with Bernie Sanders that the deal is wrongheaded and immoral. To be sure, America has a long-term fiscal challenge that needs to be confronted. But at a time when fourteen million Americans are unemployed, and many millions more have been forced to work just part-time, the government should be focussing on job growth rather than cutting the budget….

As I’ve said before, headlines such as “Democrats and Republicans agree on $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years” are virtually meaningless. The United States, like every other country, budgets on an annual basis. What really matters for the economy, and for the unemployed, is how much cash the federal government will spend in the remaining months of the 2011 fiscal year and in fiscal 2012, which begins October 1st. A pledge to cut spending in 2016, say, is just that: a pledge. Between now and then, we will have another bipartisan spending review (that’s also part of the deal), a Presidential election, and who knows how many budget battles. The actual 2016 spending outcome will almost certainly bear little relation to the figures in this agreement.

Also at the New Yorker, Hendrick Hertzberg has a funny piece about Louie Gohmert, looney Texas Republican Congressman quoting Communist Leon Trotsky. I don’t want to ruin it for you by pulling out a quote. It’s not long, so go read the whole thing.

Susie Madrak has a great post at Crooks and Liars: This Year We’ve Broken Or Tied 2,676 Heat Records – So Far. Think We Could Talk About Climate Change Yet? Be sure to check it out.

Do you realize how many people go missing in the U.S.? A lot. And most of them seem to be women and children. Here is a slide show of 64 people from the FBI’s kidnapped and missing persons list.

The little girl whose photo comes first is 11-year-old Celina Cass, from West Stewartstown, NH. Her body was found today in a river near her family home. Sadly, when a child disappears, a family is often responsible. In this case, I have a feeling her stepfather had something to do with Celina’s death. I hope I’m wrong. At least she was found fairly quickly.

Many missing people aren’t found for years, if at all. Indiana University student Lauren Spierer disappeared from Bloomington, Indiana on June 3. Despite intense searches by hundreds of volunteers and a large reward offered by her parents and IU, she has not been found. It looks like people whom Lauren thought were “friends” may have had something to do with her disappearance, because just about everyone who was with her before she went missing has lawyered up and isn’t talking to police.

A Denver woman, Amy Ahonen, disappeared without a trace a few weeks ago. Her car was found parked unlocked along the highway with her purse, ids, cell phone, and keys inside. What happened to her? No one knows and the police have stopped looking. It so happens that a budding serial killer was on the loose in the area at the time of her disappearance, but the police don’t seem to be making that connection.

There are many more stories like this breaking every day in this country. Why do we accept that women and children will disappear daily and in most cases, they will be found murdered and often raped?

Speaking of missing people, a legendary missing person has resurfaced in the news. From the LA Times: D.B. Cooper hijacking mystery is revived with ‘promising lead’

D.B. Cooper, the infamous airplane hijacker who vaulted into urban mythology by parachuting out of a jetliner over the Pacific Northwest with a $200,000 ransom, is back on the FBI’s radar screen.

Cooper, whose case remains the only unsolved airline hijacking in U.S. history, became the stuff of legend on the night of Nov. 24, 1971, when he jumped from a Boeing 727 into the skies between Portland, Ore., and Seattle. He disappeared with the ransom he extorted — 10,000 $20 bills.

The case has remained open, but the trail has been cold despite hundreds of tips, thousands of theories and dozens of breakthroughs in scientific investigation. Now the FBI, which has previously said that Cooper is likely dead, is looking at fresh evidence, according to weekend reports in the media in Seattle, the epicenter of the story that seemingly can never die.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The man investigated as a suspect in the D.B. Cooper case – the nation’s only unsolved commercial airplane hijacking – has been dead for about 10 years, and a forensic check didn’t find fingerprints on an item that belonged him, an FBI spokesman told seattlepi.com Monday.

“There are also other leads we’re pursuing,” agent Fred Gutt said. “Some of the other names have been out in the public, some of the names have not come out.”

The name of a man not previously investigated was given to the FBI nearly a year ago by a law enforcement colleague, and an item that belongs to him was sent for fingerprint work at the agency’s Quantico, Va., forensic lab, agents told seattlepi.com.

“The nature of the material was not good for prints,” Gutt said.

He added agents are obtaining other items that may have the suspect’s fingerprints in hopes of matching them with prints taken from the Northwest Orient plane after Cooper jumped the night of Nov. 24, 1971.

The situation in Syria is escalating. There has been a great deal of violence there for some time, and it is not getting the same attention that Egypt, Iran, and Libya have gotten. But now the UN Security Council plans to take up the issue.

Reacting to new bloodshed in Syria, European powers relaunched a dormant draft U.N. resolution to condemn Damascus for its crackdown on protesters, circulating a revised text to the Security Council at a meeting on Monday.

Following the hour-long closed-door meeting, several diplomats said that after months of deadlock over Syria in the council, the fresh violence appeared to be pushing the divided members towards some form of reaction.

But envoys disagreed over whether the 15-nation body should adopt the Western-backed draft resolution or negotiate a less binding statement.

Germany requested the meeting after human rights groups said Syrian troops killed 80 people on Sunday when they stormed the city of Hama to crush protests amid a five-month-old uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

More than 1600 people have been killed during the Syrian uprising.

From the Daily Beast:

You have to wonder if President Barack Obama ever rereads his speeches.

At the State Department last May, the president spoke at length of democratization in the Middle East. He chose his words carefully, dropping caveats and provisos. But Obama also bluntly declared that, “it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.” He justified the intervention in Libya by recalling that “we saw the prospect of imminent massacre … Had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed.”

Yet precisely such sordid outcomes have come to pass, not in Libya but during the four-month uprising against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Around 1,600 people are believed to have been killed, not mentioning some 3,000 disappeared, many of them presumed dead. Massacres have proliferated, and on Sunday, the eve of the holy month of Ramadan, the Syrian army entered the city of Hama, which had effectively escaped from government writ weeks ago.

Throughout, the White House has painstakingly avoided demanding that Assad step down, saying only that he must lead a transition to democracy or get out of the way. The Syrian dictator has, of course, done neither.

I’ll end with just one more link on the debt deal that Dakinikat sent me.

Reuters analysis – Debt deal unlikely to boost investor confidence

Rather than a relief rally, U.S. stocks ended modestly lower on Monday as ugly economic data and some lingering concerns about whether the deal would get through Congress dominated trading. But even when the House of Representatives voted to pass the plan late in the day there was little reaction from U.S. stock index futures.

The deal agreed to by Republican and Democratic leaders will raise the government’s borrowing ceiling while cutting spending by at least $2.1 trillion over 10 years. All of the burden could fall on spending cuts with no guarantee of steps to lift tax revenues.

Rather than perceiving it as a meaningful effort at tackling the United States’ huge debt problem, investors worried about the impact of austerity on an economy already hit by souring business and consumer confidence.

Plans for such a significant fiscal retrenchment, even though most of the impact will be in the latter years of the program, come at a vulnerable time for the world economy. Recession risks are rising in the United States, the European economy remains entwined in its own debt crisis, and China’s supercharged economy could slow.

“Risk markets may rally temporarily, but until economic growth and job creation is addressed, there can be no sustained rally,” Bill Gross, the co-chief investment officer of PIMCO, which manages more than $1.2 trillion, said in an interview.

Will Washington ever wake up to reality? I’m afraid they (and we) will have to hit bottom first. They are like alcoholics, except they are drunk on greed and power. So on that note, what are you reading and blogging about today?


Deficit Debacle: Live Blog on the Murder of Middle Class America

Everything is on the table.  Except taxes.  WTF?

I’m watching Bernie Sanders trying defend our precious safety nets right now.  The debate over this horrible capitulation to right wing extremists is carried on CSPAN .  Sanders is reminding the president that all the polls call for shared sacrifice.  He’s saying the proposal is bad and unfair.  He’s just announced on the floor he will not vote for the package.  What were getting is sacrificed on the alter of greed. At least some one recognizes this.

They’re taking a senate quorum call right now.

Here’s some headlines for you to  think about.

From former Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein: Lousy Negotiation skills are not the problem.

What did we just go through and what does it mean for our national politics, our fiscal and economic policy?

–First, a small but influential group of extreme conservatives are so intent on shrinking the federal government that they would credibly threaten national default;

–Second, Democrats, including the president, do not have a strategy to counteract such extremism, so they accepted a plan far less balanced than they would have liked—the final deal could well turn out to be $3 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, with no revenue increases to offset the cuts.

–Third, and perhaps most importantly, like every debate about the size of government, it’s impossible for normal people, if not the “experts,” to figure out what anyone is really talking about and therefore to judge the deal.

What does it mean to cut $3 trillion in government spending?  How will it affect retirement security?  Education? Jobs in the short run and investment over the long run?  Does it put us on a sustainable fiscal path.

We’re about to agree to cut $1 trillion from something called discretionary spending.  That probably sounds great to some folks and bad to others.  But what does it mean?

The President bragged on this very point last night, telling America that discretionary spending as a share of the economy will come down to its lowest level since Eisenhower.  As if we’ve all been walking around thinking, “if only we could get this budget category down to Ike levels, everything would fall into place.”

In fact, these cuts will hurt our ability to pursue what I view as most positive aspects of the President’s economic agenda—investment in infrastructure, clean energy, research, education.  They will pinch programs that are already budget constrained…programs that help low income people with child care, housing, and community services.  (One piece to watch for here—defense spending is also in this category, and is supposed to account for about one-third of the cuts…that helps, of course, take pressure of these other parts.)

Then, in part two of the deal, we unleash the gang-of-twelve who are assigned to come up with $1.5 trillion more in deficit savings.

They’ll be hitting the entitlements—Social Security, Mcare, Mcaid—and more defense, but if they deadlock—a non-trivial probability—automatic cuts ensue.

My thought is that the political game has become all important in this negotiation and no one is really thinking about the outcome.  The Teabots are insane so they can be discounted, but all of this fall-in by senators and representatives that know what’s going on has got to be the most painful thing I’ve ever watched.  Can’t some of them use their brains and consciences for a change instead of checking their labels and owner dog tags?

Paul Krugman: The President Surrenders

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

They are killing any hope we have of a decent recovery.  We don’t have one now.  The US Manufacturing Index just fell to a two year low.  This is one of the first leading indicators to show a looming recession. One of the most telling signs this morning about this is that the stock market is going down and now there is a flight to safety.  Oddly enough, the flight to safety is to US Treasury bonds.

“We’ve turned from budget crisis to economic crisis,” said Paul Horrmann, a broker in New York at Tradition Asiel Securities Inc., an interdealer broker. “We’ve gone from worrying about a budget and default to the economy long term. Higher prices are bringing in buyers, not sellers.”

Still, what about the JOB crisis?

Kevin Drum at MOJO: Why the Debit Ceiling Deal Sucks

It’s a shit sandwich no matter how you look at it. And it’s a shit sandwich in at least two very specific ways: (1) It means we’ll continue to live in a fantasyland that says we don’t need any tax increases even though our population is aging and we’re plainly going to need higher revenues to support this demographic reality; and (2) we’ll continue to live in a fantasyland that says our problems are primarily caused by discretionary spending. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of reality, which means we’re going to screw the poor and do nothing serious about the long-term deficit. Nice work, adults.

Easy-to-Hate Debt-Ceiling Compromise Called “Sugar-Coated Satan Sandwich” By Some

Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are also possible within the plan. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, called the deal a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich,” which itself deserves $1.2 trillion.

We’re seriously f’d on this one folks.

Notable tweets:

daveweigel

I haven’t seen this many pissed off Democrats since the last time I saw some Democrats. #beenatoughyear
tbogg

Gene Sperling: Obama ‘didn’t give one inch’ : politico.com/news/stories/0… So Obama’s people say he owns this shit sandwich. Jesus. #Quitdigging

SatanSandwichSugar Coated
The moment I convinced President Obama of the virtues of austerity: bit.ly/nbv5C6 #FYEAH
ThePlumLineGSGreg Sargent

House Dem leaders NOT pressing Dems to vote for the debt deal, potentially complicating passage: http://wapo.st/o3wyDP

nytimes The New York Times
How the Debt Plan Would Work

Read this CBO letter to Congressional Leaders.  They’re putting discretionary funding caps on Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, Medicaid, et.  Iraq and Afghanistan are exempt from spending caps.  This is AWFUL!!!  Worse than I thought … Please read this analysis from the CBO to congress!!!

House DEBATE and vote on package: running here at CSPAN. They are voting on the debate rules right now at 3:30 pm cst.  Progressive Caucus leaders talking right now saying they will not support the deal because it’s incredibly wrong and worse than the Reid Compromise.  Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee announcing they will vote no.


Please report on who you know is voting for or against below so we can keep track of who needs to face a real democrat in a primary,