Home » Archives by category » News (Page 2687)
Players Approve Deal to End NFL Lockout

The NFL Players Association executive board and 32 team reps voted unanimously Monday to approve the terms of a deal with owners to the end the 4 month long lockout. (July 25)

Continue reading …

Here he blows! Glenn Beck can always take a tragedy and make it darker for the victims. Apparently youth groups meeting from the left are now considered Hitler’s babies. If you side with the people or labor, you must be a Nazi sympathizer. The bomb in Oslo targeted buildings connected to the Labour Party government, and the youth camp on Utoeya island was also run by the party. I doubt you’ll hear Fox News or Beck mention that the shooter was a fan of right wing bloggers from the US. In the New York Times, Scott Shane looks at the undeniable influence of people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller on the Oslo terrorist: Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S. — And as usual, the most incoherent defense comes from hate group leader Pamela Geller: Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.” “If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote. As I wrote yesterday, the chain of responsibility in this case is much clearer than it was in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. There’s no doubt whatsoever that Anders Behring Breivik was seriously influenced by these people, and they know it. Their guilty consciences are showing. In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik, who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam. His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture. And Rep. Peter King still plans another fearmongering anti-Muslim hearing on Wed . As Markos points out, right wingers gleefully jumped immediately in when this story broke to attack Muslims. Right-wingers could hardly contain their glee when news first broke Friday of the terrorist attacks in Norway. None stepped in it more spectacularly than the Washington Post ‘s Jennifer Rubin. — Oh, they desperately wanted Norway’s attacks to be the handiwork of jihadists so they could continue justifying the trillions of dollars and countless lives wasted on our overseas adventures. Then, it turned out the terrorist was a white Christian conservative, and poof! They lost interest. I mean, how dare you smear an entire group of people based on the actions of just one bad apple? Then those same conservatives shifted into damage control mode when it also turned out that the terrorist was hugely inspired by the tea party. Jennifer Rubin should post an immediate apology or be fired from her job. C&L covers this topic as well as anyone ever has and since our book Over The Cliff hit the stands last year David and I do our best to be accurate about what’s being reported as the rise of violence erupts in our society. It doesn’t warm the soul to be right in the conclusion that we drew in our book.

Continue reading …

Here he blows! Glenn Beck can always take a tragedy and make it darker for the victims. Apparently youth groups meeting from the left are now considered Hitler’s babies. If you side with the people or labor, you must be a Nazi sympathizer. The bomb in Oslo targeted buildings connected to the Labour Party government, and the youth camp on Utoeya island was also run by the party. I doubt you’ll hear Fox News or Beck mention that the shooter was a fan of right wing bloggers from the US. In the New York Times, Scott Shane looks at the undeniable influence of people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller on the Oslo terrorist: Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S. — And as usual, the most incoherent defense comes from hate group leader Pamela Geller: Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.” “If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote. As I wrote yesterday, the chain of responsibility in this case is much clearer than it was in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. There’s no doubt whatsoever that Anders Behring Breivik was seriously influenced by these people, and they know it. Their guilty consciences are showing. In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik, who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam. His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture. And Rep. Peter King still plans another fearmongering anti-Muslim hearing on Wed . As Markos points out, right wingers gleefully jumped immediately in when this story broke to attack Muslims. Right-wingers could hardly contain their glee when news first broke Friday of the terrorist attacks in Norway. None stepped in it more spectacularly than the Washington Post ‘s Jennifer Rubin. — Oh, they desperately wanted Norway’s attacks to be the handiwork of jihadists so they could continue justifying the trillions of dollars and countless lives wasted on our overseas adventures. Then, it turned out the terrorist was a white Christian conservative, and poof! They lost interest. I mean, how dare you smear an entire group of people based on the actions of just one bad apple? Then those same conservatives shifted into damage control mode when it also turned out that the terrorist was hugely inspired by the tea party. Jennifer Rubin should post an immediate apology or be fired from her job. C&L covers this topic as well as anyone ever has and since our book Over The Cliff hit the stands last year David and I do our best to be accurate about what’s being reported as the rise of violence erupts in our society. It doesn’t warm the soul to be right in the conclusion that we drew in our book.

Continue reading …
Stuart Varney Affirms That Killing Medicare and Social Security Sole GOP Goal

Click here to view this media So Harry Reid is drafting a plan to “put our fiscal house in order” by cutting, cutting, cutting with no revenues. And he’s tackling what sounds like a counterintuitive plan by taking aim at the Pentagon budget, factoring in the cost of ending the wars, and other spending which is not spending on Medicare and Social Security. As Matt Yglesias points out, Reid is calling the Republicans’ bluff . In the debate over the debt ceiling, for example, Republicans have sought to portray themselves as having two bottom lines. One is that any increase in the debt ceiling must be met dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. The other is that no revenue increases can be part of the deal. What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan. In case you forgot, this plans repeals Medicare. Of course, if you listen to the Republicans talk on cable TV, they all shake their heads in very serious ways and insist that they are, first and foremost, all about getting the spending down. Doesn’t matter how, just that it happens. Never mind that Paul Ryan included some of Reid’s proposed cuts in his own budget that killed Medicare, that doesn’t matter. They’ll tell you ending the wars aren’t really cuts in the budget or spending because they are not “entitlements” Let’s review the bidding. Ezra Klein does it quite well: Originally, the Democratic position was that we should simply raise the debt ceiling . Republicans said “no.” There would have to be a deal that reduced the deficit by at least $2.4 trillion — which is the size of the debt ceiling increase needed to get us into 2013. Then the Democratic position was that we should raise the debt ceiling through a deal that reduced the deficit by about $2.4 trillion , with $2 trillion of that coming from spending cuts and $400 billion coming from taxes. Republicans said “no.” There would have to be a deal that disavowed taxes. Then the Democratic position was that we should raise the debt ceiling through a deal brokered by Barack Obama that reduced the deficit by $4 trillion, with about $3 trillion of that coming from spending cuts and about $1 trillion coming from tax increases. Republicans said “no.” There would have to be a deal that disavowed taxes, and it would have to be cut between the congressional leadership of the two parties. Obama couldn’t have this as a win. So here we are with a deal that satisfies (sort of) the “no revenues” requirement alongside the “cut dollar-for-dollar” spending requirement. And as you’ll see from Stuart Varney, the answer will still be “no”, just as it has been all along. Varney: That’s why I say, the likelihood of this downgrade — let’s be clear — a downgrade means you lose your financial reputation, you’re not the gold standard any longer. Doocy: But it’s different than default. Varney: It is different from default. I am now saying a downgrade now looks very likely, bearing in mind this chaos over the weekend and this Harry Reid plan which means absolutely nothing to investors. Killmeade: It seems as though they’d say if we do something drastic enough that shows people that we’re on a fiscal sustainable path — something Titanic — we could avoid that, don’t you agree? Varney: I would agree with that. If we got our house in order and said we’re going to tackle entitlements, we’ll go after this, we’ll do something concrete. If you did that, the likelihood is that the stock market would go up. Unspoken but implied: The likelihood is that you’d get a deal on exactly the terms Republicans want. Destruction of the social safety net in exchange for an unchanged credit rating and raised debt ceiling. Our banker overlords are decreeing it, you know.

Continue reading …
Stuart Varney Affirms That Killing Medicare and Social Security Sole GOP Goal

Click here to view this media So Harry Reid is drafting a plan to “put our fiscal house in order” by cutting, cutting, cutting with no revenues. And he’s tackling what sounds like a counterintuitive plan by taking aim at the Pentagon budget, factoring in the cost of ending the wars, and other spending which is not spending on Medicare and Social Security. As Matt Yglesias points out, Reid is calling the Republicans’ bluff . In the debate over the debt ceiling, for example, Republicans have sought to portray themselves as having two bottom lines. One is that any increase in the debt ceiling must be met dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. The other is that no revenue increases can be part of the deal. What Harry Reid did yesterday was essentially call the GOP’s bluff by outlining a plan that raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion and includes $2.7 trillion in spending cuts, a healthy share of which comes from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans are rejecting this even though it nominally meets their demands. Why? Because it doesn’t achieve either of their two real objectives. In particular, the plan doesn’t cut Medicare, which means that Democratic party candidates for office in November 2012 and 2014 can accurately remind voters of the content of the Republican budget plan. In case you forgot, this plans repeals Medicare. Of course, if you listen to the Republicans talk on cable TV, they all shake their heads in very serious ways and insist that they are, first and foremost, all about getting the spending down. Doesn’t matter how, just that it happens. Never mind that Paul Ryan included some of Reid’s proposed cuts in his own budget that killed Medicare, that doesn’t matter. They’ll tell you ending the wars aren’t really cuts in the budget or spending because they are not “entitlements” Let’s review the bidding. Ezra Klein does it quite well: Originally, the Democratic position was that we should simply raise the debt ceiling . Republicans said “no.” There would have to be a deal that reduced the deficit by at least $2.4 trillion — which is the size of the debt ceiling increase needed to get us into 2013. Then the Democratic position was that we should raise the debt ceiling through a deal that reduced the deficit by about $2.4 trillion , with $2 trillion of that coming from spending cuts and $400 billion coming from taxes. Republicans said “no.” There would have to be a deal that disavowed taxes. Then the Democratic position was that we should raise the debt ceiling through a deal brokered by Barack Obama that reduced the deficit by $4 trillion, with about $3 trillion of that coming from spending cuts and about $1 trillion coming from tax increases. Republicans said “no.” There would have to be a deal that disavowed taxes, and it would have to be cut between the congressional leadership of the two parties. Obama couldn’t have this as a win. So here we are with a deal that satisfies (sort of) the “no revenues” requirement alongside the “cut dollar-for-dollar” spending requirement. And as you’ll see from Stuart Varney, the answer will still be “no”, just as it has been all along. Varney: That’s why I say, the likelihood of this downgrade — let’s be clear — a downgrade means you lose your financial reputation, you’re not the gold standard any longer. Doocy: But it’s different than default. Varney: It is different from default. I am now saying a downgrade now looks very likely, bearing in mind this chaos over the weekend and this Harry Reid plan which means absolutely nothing to investors. Killmeade: It seems as though they’d say if we do something drastic enough that shows people that we’re on a fiscal sustainable path — something Titanic — we could avoid that, don’t you agree? Varney: I would agree with that. If we got our house in order and said we’re going to tackle entitlements, we’ll go after this, we’ll do something concrete. If you did that, the likelihood is that the stock market would go up. Unspoken but implied: The likelihood is that you’d get a deal on exactly the terms Republicans want. Destruction of the social safety net in exchange for an unchanged credit rating and raised debt ceiling. Our banker overlords are decreeing it, you know.

Continue reading …
Anders Behring Breivik: Oslo, Norway Bombing ‘Necessary’

OSLO, July 23 (Reuters) – A suspected right-wing fanatic accused of killing at least 92 people deemed his acts “atrocious” yet “necessary” as Norway mourned victims of the nation’s worst attacks since World War Two. Police were hunting on Sunday to see if a possible second gunman took part in the shooting massacre and bomb attack on Friday that traumatized a normally peaceful Nordic country. In his first comment via a lawyer since he was arrested, 32-year-old Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik expressed willingness to explain himself in court at a hearing likely to be held on Monday about extending protective custody. “He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary,” lawyer Geir Lippestad told independent TV2 news. Police said Breivik gave himself up after admitting to a massacre in which at least 85 people died, mostly young people attending a summer camp of the youth wing of Norway’s ruling Labour Party on an idyllic island. Breivik was also arrested for the bombing of Oslo’s government district that killed seven people hours earlier. Norway’s toughest sentence is 21 years in jail. Survivors, relatives of those killed and supporters planned a procession to mourn the dead at Sundvollen on Sunday, near the island where the massacre took place. King Harald would attend a service in Oslo cathedral, a few hundred meters (yards) from where a bomb devastated government buildings including the offices of Labour Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Police said they were seeking several missing people and the toll could rise to 98, in the worst case. Lippestad, speaking late on Saturday, did not give more details of possible motives by Breivik. Breivik hated “cultural marxists,” wanted a “crusade” against the spread of Islam and liked guns and weightlifting, web postings, acquaintances and officials said. A video posted to the YouTube website showed several pictures of Breivik, including one of him in a Navy Seal type scuba diving outfit pointing an automatic weapon. “Before we can start our crusade we must do our duty by decimating cultural marxism,” said a caption under the video called “Knights Templar 2083″ on the YouTube website, which took down the video on Saturday. A Norwegian website provided a link to a 1,500 page electronic manifesto which says Breivik was the author. It was not possible to verify who posted the video or wrote the book. “Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike,” the book said. Norway has traditionally been open to immigration, which has been criticized by the Progress Party, of which Breivik was for a short time a member. The Labour Party, whose youth camp Breivik attacked, has long been in favor of immigration. About 100 people stood solemnly early on Sunday at a makeshift vigil near Oslo’s main church, laying flowers and lighting candles. Soldiers with guns and wearing bullet-proof vests blocked streets leading to the government district. “We are all in sorrow, everybody is scared,” said Imran Shah, a Norwegian taxi driver of Pakistani heritage, as a light summer drizzle fell on unusually empty Oslo streets. “At first, people thought Muslims were behind this,” he said of some initial suspicions that the attacks might have been by Al Qaeda perhaps in protest at NATO-member Norway’s role in Afghanistan or Iraq. Some terrified survivors of the shooting rampage said bullets came from at least two sides. “We are not at all certain” about whether he acted alone, police chief Sveinung Sponheim said. “That is one of the things that the investigation will concentrate on.” Police took almost 1.5 hours to stop the massacre, the worst by a single gunman in modern times. “The response time from when we got the message was quick. There were problems with transport out to the island,” he said, defending the delay. Witnesses said the gunman, wearing a police uniform, was able to shoot unchallenged for a prolonged period. He picked off his victims on Utoeya island northwest of Oslo forcing youngsters to scatter in panic or to jump into the lake to swim for the mainland. “I heard screams. I heard people begging for their lives and I heard shots. He just blew them away,” Labour Party youth member Erik Kursetgjerde, 18, told Reuters. “I was certain I was going to die,” he said. “People ran everywhere. They panicked and climbed into trees. People got trampled.” The bloodbath was believed to be the deadliest attack by a lone gunman anywhere in modern times. The suspect, tall and blond, owned an organic farming company called Breivik Geofarm, which a supply firm said he had used to buy fertilizer — possibly to make the Oslo bomb. Home-grown anti-government militants have struck elsewhere in the past, notably in the United States, where Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a truck bomb in Oklahoma City in 1995. The district attacked is the heart of power in Norway. But security is not tight in a country unused to such violence and better known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and mediating in conflicts, including the Middle East and Sri Lanka. (Additional reporting by Walter Gibbs, Anna Ringstrom, Henrik Stoelen, Terje Solsvik, Patrick Lannin, Johan Ahlander, Wojciech Moskwa, John Acher and Ole Petter Skonnord in Oslo, William Maclean in London; Writing by Alister Doyle; Editing by Matthew Jones) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Continue reading …
Anders Behring Breivik: Oslo, Norway Bombing ‘Necessary’

OSLO, July 23 (Reuters) – A suspected right-wing fanatic accused of killing at least 92 people deemed his acts “atrocious” yet “necessary” as Norway mourned victims of the nation’s worst attacks since World War Two. Police were hunting on Sunday to see if a possible second gunman took part in the shooting massacre and bomb attack on Friday that traumatized a normally peaceful Nordic country. In his first comment via a lawyer since he was arrested, 32-year-old Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik expressed willingness to explain himself in court at a hearing likely to be held on Monday about extending protective custody. “He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary,” lawyer Geir Lippestad told independent TV2 news. Police said Breivik gave himself up after admitting to a massacre in which at least 85 people died, mostly young people attending a summer camp of the youth wing of Norway’s ruling Labour Party on an idyllic island. Breivik was also arrested for the bombing of Oslo’s government district that killed seven people hours earlier. Norway’s toughest sentence is 21 years in jail. Survivors, relatives of those killed and supporters planned a procession to mourn the dead at Sundvollen on Sunday, near the island where the massacre took place. King Harald would attend a service in Oslo cathedral, a few hundred meters (yards) from where a bomb devastated government buildings including the offices of Labour Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Police said they were seeking several missing people and the toll could rise to 98, in the worst case. Lippestad, speaking late on Saturday, did not give more details of possible motives by Breivik. Breivik hated “cultural marxists,” wanted a “crusade” against the spread of Islam and liked guns and weightlifting, web postings, acquaintances and officials said. A video posted to the YouTube website showed several pictures of Breivik, including one of him in a Navy Seal type scuba diving outfit pointing an automatic weapon. “Before we can start our crusade we must do our duty by decimating cultural marxism,” said a caption under the video called “Knights Templar 2083″ on the YouTube website, which took down the video on Saturday. A Norwegian website provided a link to a 1,500 page electronic manifesto which says Breivik was the author. It was not possible to verify who posted the video or wrote the book. “Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike,” the book said. Norway has traditionally been open to immigration, which has been criticized by the Progress Party, of which Breivik was for a short time a member. The Labour Party, whose youth camp Breivik attacked, has long been in favor of immigration. About 100 people stood solemnly early on Sunday at a makeshift vigil near Oslo’s main church, laying flowers and lighting candles. Soldiers with guns and wearing bullet-proof vests blocked streets leading to the government district. “We are all in sorrow, everybody is scared,” said Imran Shah, a Norwegian taxi driver of Pakistani heritage, as a light summer drizzle fell on unusually empty Oslo streets. “At first, people thought Muslims were behind this,” he said of some initial suspicions that the attacks might have been by Al Qaeda perhaps in protest at NATO-member Norway’s role in Afghanistan or Iraq. Some terrified survivors of the shooting rampage said bullets came from at least two sides. “We are not at all certain” about whether he acted alone, police chief Sveinung Sponheim said. “That is one of the things that the investigation will concentrate on.” Police took almost 1.5 hours to stop the massacre, the worst by a single gunman in modern times. “The response time from when we got the message was quick. There were problems with transport out to the island,” he said, defending the delay. Witnesses said the gunman, wearing a police uniform, was able to shoot unchallenged for a prolonged period. He picked off his victims on Utoeya island northwest of Oslo forcing youngsters to scatter in panic or to jump into the lake to swim for the mainland. “I heard screams. I heard people begging for their lives and I heard shots. He just blew them away,” Labour Party youth member Erik Kursetgjerde, 18, told Reuters. “I was certain I was going to die,” he said. “People ran everywhere. They panicked and climbed into trees. People got trampled.” The bloodbath was believed to be the deadliest attack by a lone gunman anywhere in modern times. The suspect, tall and blond, owned an organic farming company called Breivik Geofarm, which a supply firm said he had used to buy fertilizer — possibly to make the Oslo bomb. Home-grown anti-government militants have struck elsewhere in the past, notably in the United States, where Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a truck bomb in Oklahoma City in 1995. The district attacked is the heart of power in Norway. But security is not tight in a country unused to such violence and better known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and mediating in conflicts, including the Middle East and Sri Lanka. (Additional reporting by Walter Gibbs, Anna Ringstrom, Henrik Stoelen, Terje Solsvik, Patrick Lannin, Johan Ahlander, Wojciech Moskwa, John Acher and Ole Petter Skonnord in Oslo, William Maclean in London; Writing by Alister Doyle; Editing by Matthew Jones) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Continue reading …
‘Super Congress’: Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

WASHINGTON — Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress. This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party. Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say. A picture of Boehner’s proposal began to come into focus Saturday evening: The debt ceiling would be raised for a short-term period and coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts, somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars over ten years. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of a Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts. Because the elevated panel would need at least one Democratic vote, its plan would presumably include at least some revenue, though if it’s anything like the deals on the table today, it would likely be heavily slanted toward spending cuts. Or, as Obama said of the deal he was offering Republicans before Boehner walked out, “If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.” Republicans, however, are looking to force a second debt ceiling fight as part of the package, despite the Democratic rejection of the plan. Under the Republican plan, lawmakers would need to weigh in on the debt ceiling during the heat of the presidential election, a proposal Democrats reject as risky to the nation’s credit rating. “We expressed openness to two stages of cuts, but not to a short-term debt limit extension,” a Democratic aide close to the negotiations said. “Republicans only want the debt ceiling extended as far as the cuts in each tranch. That means we’ll be right back where we are today a few months down the road. We are not a Banana Republic. You don’t run America like that.” The aide said that Democrats are open to a series of cuts as well as a Super Congress, but only if the debt ceiling is raised sufficiently so that it pushes past the election. “Our proposal tonight was, do two tranches of cuts, but raise the debt ceiling through 2012 right now, though the McConnell process would be one way,” said the aide, leaving open the possibility that Boehner could craft a new process and distinguish it from McConnell’s, which the Tea Party despises as a dereliction of duty. “Do that now with a package of cuts, and have the joint committee” — the Super Congress — “report out a package that would be the second tranch. Republicans rejected that, and continued to push a short-term despite the fact that Reid, Pelosi and Obama all could not have been clearer that they will not support a short-term increase. A short term risks some of the same consequences as outright failure to raise the ceiling — downgraded credit rating, stocks plunge, interest rates spike, etc. It is unclear why Republicans have made this their sticking point.” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel argued that the inability to come to a larger deal so far left a short-term extension as an “inevitable” option. “For months, we have laid out our principles to pass a bill that fulfills the president’s request to increase the debt limit beyond the next election. We have passed a debt limit increase with the reforms the American people demand, the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ bill. The Democrats who run Washington have refused to offer a plan,” he said in a statement. “Now, as a result, a two-step process is inevitable. Like the president and the entire bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership, we continue to believe that defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is not an option.” Obama has shown himself to be a fan of the commission approach to cutting social programs and entitlements. Shortly after taking office, Obama held a major conference on deficit reduction and subsequently created, by executive order, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The White House made two telling appointments to chair the commission: The first was former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a well-known critic of Social Security who earned notoriety by suggesting, among other things, that the American government had become “a milk cow with 310 million tits!” Yet Obama’s Democratic appointment was even more indicative of whose interests took priority: former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Bowles is a member of Morgan Stanley’s board of directors; an adviser to Carousel Capital, a private equity firm; and a director of Cousins Properties Incorporated, a firm with significant investments in commercial and mixed-use real estate. Simpson and Bowles, perhaps unsurprisingly, produced a report recommending corporate and high-end tax cuts, along with cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits and a host of other social programs. The commission needed 14 of 18 members to approve the plan in order for it to advance to Congress for a vote. The commission fell short, but did win a majority. Proponents of slashing spending won’t make the same mistake with a new Super Congress. Only a simple majority will be necessary.

Continue reading …
‘Super Congress’: Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New Legislative Body

WASHINGTON — Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress. This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party. Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has made a Super Congress a central part of his last-minute proposal, multiple news reports and people familiar with his plan say. A picture of Boehner’s proposal began to come into focus Saturday evening: The debt ceiling would be raised for a short-term period and coupled with an equal dollar figure of cuts, somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars over ten years. A second increase in the debt ceiling would be tied to the creation of a Super Congress that would be required to find a minimum amount of spending cuts. Because the elevated panel would need at least one Democratic vote, its plan would presumably include at least some revenue, though if it’s anything like the deals on the table today, it would likely be heavily slanted toward spending cuts. Or, as Obama said of the deal he was offering Republicans before Boehner walked out, “If it was unbalanced, it was unbalanced in the direction of not enough revenue.” Republicans, however, are looking to force a second debt ceiling fight as part of the package, despite the Democratic rejection of the plan. Under the Republican plan, lawmakers would need to weigh in on the debt ceiling during the heat of the presidential election, a proposal Democrats reject as risky to the nation’s credit rating. “We expressed openness to two stages of cuts, but not to a short-term debt limit extension,” a Democratic aide close to the negotiations said. “Republicans only want the debt ceiling extended as far as the cuts in each tranch. That means we’ll be right back where we are today a few months down the road. We are not a Banana Republic. You don’t run America like that.” The aide said that Democrats are open to a series of cuts as well as a Super Congress, but only if the debt ceiling is raised sufficiently so that it pushes past the election. “Our proposal tonight was, do two tranches of cuts, but raise the debt ceiling through 2012 right now, though the McConnell process would be one way,” said the aide, leaving open the possibility that Boehner could craft a new process and distinguish it from McConnell’s, which the Tea Party despises as a dereliction of duty. “Do that now with a package of cuts, and have the joint committee” — the Super Congress — “report out a package that would be the second tranch. Republicans rejected that, and continued to push a short-term despite the fact that Reid, Pelosi and Obama all could not have been clearer that they will not support a short-term increase. A short term risks some of the same consequences as outright failure to raise the ceiling — downgraded credit rating, stocks plunge, interest rates spike, etc. It is unclear why Republicans have made this their sticking point.” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel argued that the inability to come to a larger deal so far left a short-term extension as an “inevitable” option. “For months, we have laid out our principles to pass a bill that fulfills the president’s request to increase the debt limit beyond the next election. We have passed a debt limit increase with the reforms the American people demand, the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ bill. The Democrats who run Washington have refused to offer a plan,” he said in a statement. “Now, as a result, a two-step process is inevitable. Like the president and the entire bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership, we continue to believe that defaulting on the full faith and credit of the United States is not an option.” Obama has shown himself to be a fan of the commission approach to cutting social programs and entitlements. Shortly after taking office, Obama held a major conference on deficit reduction and subsequently created, by executive order, The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The White House made two telling appointments to chair the commission: The first was former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), a well-known critic of Social Security who earned notoriety by suggesting, among other things, that the American government had become “a milk cow with 310 million tits!” Yet Obama’s Democratic appointment was even more indicative of whose interests took priority: former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles. Bowles is a member of Morgan Stanley’s board of directors; an adviser to Carousel Capital, a private equity firm; and a director of Cousins Properties Incorporated, a firm with significant investments in commercial and mixed-use real estate. Simpson and Bowles, perhaps unsurprisingly, produced a report recommending corporate and high-end tax cuts, along with cuts to Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits and a host of other social programs. The commission needed 14 of 18 members to approve the plan in order for it to advance to Congress for a vote. The commission fell short, but did win a majority. Proponents of slashing spending won’t make the same mistake with a new Super Congress. Only a simple majority will be necessary.

Continue reading …
Entourage Recap: The Beginning of the End

The opening act of Entourage’s last season promised more in the way of clarity than fireworks. When we last saw mega movie star Vincent Chase and his boys (manager/best friend E, bodyguard/brother Johnny Drama and driver/buddy Turtle) in last season’s finale, Vince had reached the apex of a cocaine addiction by taking on Eminem’s posse (unsuccessfully) and

Continue reading …