UNPRECEDENTED! Harry Reid Invents New Senate Rule To Prevent Vote on Obama Jobs Bill

 Harry Reid invented a new Senate rule tonight, its called "Because I said so!" 

Minority leader Mitch McConnell only wanted to do what the President asked, force a speedy vote on Obama's Jobs bill. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a member of the President's party would not allow it to happen and he created a new Senate rule to make it happen. Because he didn't have enough votes for its passage, Reid delayed Senate action on Obama's bill, Instead he scheduled debate and vote on a bill focusing on China's currency manipulation.

The President however, has been ostracizing the Republicans for not passing his class warfare jobs bill even though he cannot get it through the branch of Congress his own party controls. In answer to the President's demands for a vote, Minority McConnell made a "motion to suspend the rules," to allow a vote on the amendments to the China currency bill,one of which was the Jobs bill. These motions require a two-thirds vote so they are almost always defeated. But the vote would have established for the the Country what was really going on, Obama's charges about a GOP delay were nothing but a cynical political move made by a president who cares much more about his failing re-election effort than our failing economy.

Here's where it gets interesting, the Senate has always allowed motions to suspend to be offered (and voted down). In this case however, trying to protect his president, rather than provide transparency to voters Reid broke with precedent and ruled McConnell's motion out of order.

The Senate parliamentarian admitted the move was unprecedented, but of course the the Democratic chair, ruled in favor of Reid. McConnell appealed the ruling, but by a vote of 51 to 48 the majority Democratic party decided,  rather than to allow the vote, which would indicate to the public that they too rejected Obama's bill, to hide from the voters what was actually going on behind the scenes and to allow the President to continue to unfairly single out the GOP.

In one stroke Harry Reid was able to rewrite Senate rules making it even harder than it already is for the minority party to force votes on any amendments, or even discuss them.  This is the Senate, Constitutionally designed to be a deliberative body, but in one fell swoop Harry Reid said no, because he said so.  Should Republicans retake the Senate next year, it's something that could come back to haunt Democrats in a major way.

Senator McConnell took the Senate floor to express his outrage about this unprecedented move:

The Majority Leader in effect has overruled the chair--with a simple majority vote--and established the precedent that even one single motion to suspend, even one, is dilatory. Changing the rules of the Senate...And if you look back at this bill, what we've had in effect is no amendments before cloture, no motions to suspend after cloture, no expression on the part of the minority at all...Now, the fundamental problem here is the majority never likes to take votes. That's the core problem.”

Not quite Senator McConnell, you are being too polite, the core problem is the Majority wants to legislate behind closed doors, just as they did with the original stimulus, just like they did with Obamacare. In their minds it is a great sin if the people who elected them got an honest accounting of what was really happening in the Senate.

In 2009 Democrats Fought AGAINST "Millionaires Tax"

Sometimes it is really amazing how quickly politicians flip-flop. Anybody who hasn't been on Mars or one of the outer planets during the past few weeks knows how the Congressional Democrats have been playing class warfare, setting up successful people as being selfish and not wanting to pay their "fair share" of Taxes.

But back in 2009 it was a very different story.  During the Obamacare debate Nancy Pelosi was trying to legislate that Obamacare would be partially funded via a surtax on the "rich" ($250,000+ income). Democrats in both houses fought that suggestion "tooth and nail," and Pelosi's attempt was defeated.

Back then Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) told USA Today

“Still, the idea has been criticized by some Democrats. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Tuesday that he has ‘not heard much support’ from his colleagues.” (“House Dems' Health Bill Would Tax Rich,” USA Today, 7/15/09)

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told the Washington Post:

‘Tax is a four-letter word’ with voters, even families not ranking in the top 1 percent of earners ‘hope they're going to be there someday,’ he said. ‘So they don't necessarily think it's fair.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post,7/15/09)

 He told Bloomberg something similar, that "he’s ‘not hearing a lot’ of support for a surtax on wealthy Americans. People in his state don’t like the so-called millionaire’s tax ‘because they are looking someday to get there themselves,’ Nelson said. ‘It’s the American way.’” (“House Health Plan Seeks 5.4 Percent Millionaire Tax,” Bloomberg, 7/14/09)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), was fighting against the Millionaire's Tax, instead he advocated the Cadillac Tax, a tax on the most generous 1 percent of private plans.  Conrad told the Washington Post that the Millionaires tax is ‘a very tough sell.’” (“Health-Care Plan Would Add Surtax On Wealthy,” The Washington Post, 7/15/09)

Perhaps the most surprising repudiation of the Millionaire's Tax was a letter sent by Congressman Polis,  Former Congressman Tickle-me-Massa and twenty other Representatives sent to Strong-Armed (and fake big-lipped) Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Embedded below,  the letter made some of the same anti-tax points that the Democrats are ridiculing today because they are coming from conservatives and Republicans.

“Especially in a recession, we need to make sure not to kill the goose that will lay the golden eggs of our recovery. By concentrating the cost of health care reform in one area, and in one that will negatively affect small businesses, we are concerned that this will discourage entrepre­neurial activity and job growth.” 

“This proposed surcharge will also have a direct negative impact on manufacturers, another industry essential for our recovery. As manufacturers are capital intensive businesses, their taxable income is often higher… Manufacturing machinery can cost over $1 million and many owners have to save for years to expand and buy new equipment. Yet those profits saved each year would be hit by this proposed surcharge, which could lead to reduced investment.”

And my personal favorite:

 “… a surcharge would tax income above $1 million at a new rate of 45 percent. Combined with state taxes, many successful small businesses -- the very kind of business that should lead in creating new jobs and help us emerge from this recession -- will be taxed at over 50 percent.” 

Only two years ago, Congressional Democrats made a pretty compelling argument that a Millionaire's Tax would be a lousy idea and the proposal was pulled from Obamacare. Two years later many Democrats still think that the tax is wrong. Heck that's why Harry Reid did not allow Obama's plan to be voted on yesterday, it didn't have the votes.

Despite his party's objections in 2009 and today, the President continues to place the blame at the feet of conservative Republicans, proving that the only reason for his Class Warfare charge is to demonize his political opposition and divide the country to help him in his fight for re-election.

The full 2009 letter to Pelosi is below, I would suggest that you click on the view in full screen button (bottom left) to read it without hurting your eyes.

Congressional Democrats to Obama: "Sure I Love You, But Just As a Friend"

President Obama put is succinctly yesterday, "If you love me you will help me pass my bill!"

Unfortunately for the President the reply he is getting from Democratic Party lawmakers is we love you but we are not IN love with you, "Can't We Just Be Friends?"

It was obvious that the President had anticipated Objections to his  jobs bill new stimulus plan from the GOP side of the aisle, but the most vocal objections have come from his own party.

This morning on the Joe Scarborough show, NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd declared that the Democrats are in open revolt about the president's Jobs proposal

In a moment, at a time when the campaign, the Obama campaign is desperate to have him seen as a tough leader again, you don’t want to get rolled by your own party.…to have this string of Democratic Senators come out and tell the New York Times… Joe Manchin this thing seems too big and Bob Casey saying, I would like to deal with it piece meal. Oh by the way, Casey and Manchin are up for reelection in swing states/red states in Pennsylvania and West Virginia respectively. So, that is not a good sign.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That NY Times article  talking about in the clip should be rather upsetting to the President:

Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.” 

Democrats like Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who does not want the oil industry singled out for tax changes, object to parts of the bill. The White House has opposed breaking it up. 

“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month.

Reid seemed more bewildered than normal when he spoke to reporters:

“‘I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet with the president's jobs bill, but we're going to have a full caucus meeting on it on Thurs,’ Reid told reporters, saying merely that he had introduced the bill Tuesday. A number of Democrats have previously opposed some of the ideas in the bill

Other Congressional Democrats weighed in on their displeasure to other news sources:

• “Terrible.” “‘Terrible,’ Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told Politico when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. ‘We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.’”

• “Frustrating … There’s an unfairness to it.” “Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, said it was ‘frustrating’ to see the president single out the oil industry after calling on the congressional supercommittee in last week’s address to Congress to find savings. ‘When you start singling out certain industries, there’s an unfairness to it,’ he said in an interview. ‘On the pay-fors, I have a problem.’”

• “I disagree with the president.” Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat whose state includes some of the wealthiest counties in the U.S., said she didn't support the health-care tax, according to Bloomberg News. ‘I disagree with the president,’ she said.”

• Even Senator John "Why The Long Face?" Kerry said the bill would have to be broken up into pieces.  “I don’t think anybody expects it to pass en bloc.” “‘I don’t think anybody expects it to pass en bloc,’ Kerry told reporters yesterday afternoon. ‘So, the issue is going to be what, if any, parts of it might be cherry-picked. And really that depends a lot on the overall mix of the negotiation.’”

According to the Raging Cajun James Carville...its time for the White House to panic.

What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic. We are far past sending out talking points. Do not attempt to dumb it down. We cannot stand any more explanations. Have you talked to any Democratic senators lately? I have. It's pretty damn clear they are not happy campers. …For God's sake, why are we still looking at the same political and economic advisers that got us into this mess? It's not working.”

This jobs plan was to be the cornerstone of the President's reelection effort.  Not the passage of the bill, but the Republican rejection of the bill. For the next 13 and a half months we were to hear nothing but those scary stories of the GOP pushing unemployed people off the cliff, taking away their healthcare and sending their parents back to Mexico (or something like that).

The roadblock Obama didn't anticipate was that when Democratic members of Congress went home, they found a constituency that was sick and tired of the tax and spend policy reflected in both parties.

Unless the Democrats fall in line soon, the president's reelection campaign is going to have to find a different enemy, because it will be a bi-partisan rejection of his Jobs plan.

Hypocrisy? As Time Reporter in 2001, Jay Carney Bashed Bush For Taking Vacation

There was an interesting exchange between Jake Tapper and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney yesterday. Just a short while after Carney proclaimed that the President would "not rest until everyone in America who wants a job has a job", the White House announced that the President will be taking a nine-day August rest in Cape Cod.  This means that Obama plans to have unemployment fixed within the next two weeks or his "not to rest" promise dropped very quickly even for this President.

Tapper decided to ask Carney about the contradiction.

Jake Tapper from ABC News asked Carney if the vacation was appropriate.

Jake Tapper, ABC News: "You said the President will not rest until the joblessness and the economy are worked out, but the President is obviously going on vacation.... Is there any concern about the impression that the President going to Martha's Vineyard for 9 or 10 days might leave on the American people? And also, if this is such an important issue for Speaker Boehner, for Harry Reid, for President Obama, why the R&R?"

Jay Carney, WH press secretary:... I don't think Americans out there would begrudge that notion that the President would spend some time with his family. It is also, as I think anyone who has covered in the past, either in this administration or others, there is no such thing as a presidential vacation. The Presidency travels with you. He will be in constant communication and get regular briefings from his national security team as well as his economic team. And he will of course be fully capable, if necessary, of traveling back if that were required. It is not very far."

I don't begrudge the President from taking a vacation either, except the timing does seem to be a bit inappropriate. Also the man who defended the President's vacation Jay Carney, bashed President Bush for taking one ten years ago.

In August 2001 (a month before 9/11) Carney was the Washington Bureau Chief of Time Magazine and President Bush was about to go on vacation. The future White House Press Secretary suggested that Bush was going on vacation and the job didn't travel with him. Carney claimed that any work done by Bush during his vacation was nothing more than cynical photo ops.

A Vacationing Bush Works Hard for His Photo-Ops
By Jay Carney Thursday, Aug. 16, 2001

The image-makers who advise George W. Bush got what they wanted this week: a photograph, taken by the Associated Press and published in seemingly every newspaper in the country, of the President lifting a telephone pole as he "helped maintain" a nature trail in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park.

Back in July, when they were planning what the President should do during his month-long vacation (as part of their effort to persuade the public that he wasn't actually on vacation in the generally accepted sense of what vacation means — i.e., having fun and not working), the image-makers hit upon a clever idea. Every week, they decided, they would send the President somewhere outside Texas for a day or a day and a half to hold an event of some kind in which he would mix with "real Americans."

Gee, I am so happy we have a President who doesn't like fake photo ops of  "mixing with real Americans" on his vacation.

Carney Continued:

The events would have little in common, except for the fact that they would be held far from Washington in the middle of August. But to tie them together, to make it seem as though the President were engaged in some concentrated activity of presidential purpose, they would name the entire series of trips — together with his down time at his ranch in Crawford, Texas — the "Home to the Heartland" tour.

Note: "The Home to the Heartland Tour"  was just like President Obama's "Jobs Tour" only it was further away from the re-election campaign

During his first week of vacation, Bush ventured all the way to Waco —about 25 minutes from Crawford — to "help build" a house with Habitat for Humanity. Though Bush actually spent about 15 minutes doing anything, the print media dutifully reported his activity. More importantly, of course, the images of Bush at work on a good deed were carried across the nation on television and in photographs.

The same was true of this week’s stop in the Rockies. Bush didn't actually help build that trail so much as he posed for the cameras as he simulated the act of helping build the trail. While the President also gave a speech at the national park, the image-makers shrewdly pinpointed the real value of both visits: It’s the newsreels and photographs showing the President as a regular guy who cares about the poor and cares about the environment. Both were classic examples of that much maligned but ever-reliable staple of political activity: the "photo-op."

Now, I'm not going to feign shock at the fact that this President is using photo ops in an attempt — some might say a cynical attempt — to influence public opinion. It would be news if he weren't doing just that.

So Jay what's the scoop, does the job follow the POTUS on vacation, or is it a series of photo ops?  The truth is it doesn't really matter except for pointing out that Carney as a reporter was just another political hack. During normal times most Americans are more concerned about what this President does when he is in Washington than what he does on vacation.

The truth is, if  Obama had any sense of leadership, he would send Michelle and the girls to the Martha's Vinyard and stay in the WH (at least on workdays).  It doesn't matter whether he does absolutely nothing when in Washington or works himself to the bone. The truth is we are in a major economic crisis and for public perception alone, we need to see that the "Captain is on the bridge," even if it's just for a photo op.  That is what a leader would do.

Debt Deal: A Political Win For Conservatives, But Is it A Road Map For Saving America?

After weeks of hard negotiation a compromise deal is has been drafted and will be voted on by both houses before the end of the day tomorrow. This deal does give a political victory for some of the players and more importantly can even lead to a victory for the country provided that GOP leadership of both houses consider this as a starting point, and make certain steps to keep the pressure coming. The bill will not forestall a ratings download, but honestly I don't believe that anything could as even a bill that cut $4 trillion doesn't cut the deficit but merely slows down its growth.

The winner in this debate is the tea party movement (somebody tell the media and Senator McCain there is no tea party per se). Think about it for a second, on June 22nd the Democratic party was talking stimulus as part of the debt reduction plan, that talk is gone. The tea party movement has seized the conversation, the debate is no longer spending vs. cutting, now the argument is how much should be cut and/or from where. That in itself is a big win.

The big demand going into these talks was no new taxation and budget cuts that were bigger than the debt ceiling increase.  That too was achieved.  Tea Party demands that weren't achieved were passage of the BBA (the legislation calls only for a vote) and bigger cuts in the budget (the plan only cuts $2.8 trillion), and finally if the GOP leadership chooses incorrectly there is nothing to stop the "super committee" from raising taxes (more about that later).

Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell were also winners. They held to the no new taxes pledge despite daily rumors that they had already folded and crafted a deal prior to tomorrow's deadline. Boehner gets more credit than the Minority Leader as he was the face of the opposition, took all the heat, and showed himself willing to compromise, not only with Obama but with his coalition to make a deal happen.

The President was the big loser.  When the United States needed a leader he was a fear-monger.  There was never a chance of the country defaulting on its debts, but his rhetoric about defaulting scared the heck out of an already shaky investment community.  Obama's demand that any agreement that the ceiling increase go past the 2012 election extended the crises one more week and gave political fodder for his Presidential opponent as he chose politics over the needs of the country.

The President also left himself over-exposed.  His burst of speeches and press conferences took away from the "mystique" of a speech from the Commander-in-Chief, it weakened the power of the Presidential bully pulpit to the point where his prime time speech was panned by all because he was saying the same trite talking points over and over.

Obama's relationship with Democrats in Congress was severely damaged by this debate, some believe that he gave up too much. More importantly than their distaste for the original plan, leaders of the Presidents reluctance to commit on a plan of his own made the Democratic party feel he provided no leadership and left them to twist in the wind. The Democrats did not want speeches, they wanted they wanted Obama to roll up his sleeves and come up with his own deal.

Harry Reid was one of those victims of the President's lack of leadership.  He had negotiated a deal with the GOP a week before the final deal was struck, but the POTUS nixed the deal so Reid had to demonize his own plan. If the President had his own plan Reid would have understood Obama's parameters.

Nancy Pelosi was marginalized in this debate. Notice that Harry Reid was always mentioned as a negotiating partner, Pelosi, whether she was there or not wasn't mentioned as a player. Where she was seen was every-time she spoke over-the-top vitriol about every plan that was being developed. Whether they supported the Democrats or Republicans, all polls said that the public wanted the two sides to play nice and compromise, Pelosi is seen as someone who fought compromise.

The same can be said with the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and the Black Caucus(CBC).

Progressive Caucus leader Raúl Grijalva of Arizona said,

"This deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations. I will not be a part of it.

Congressional Black Caucus  Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver is particularly angry, he called this debt deal “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich," (if it is a Satan sandwich does it have bacon?).

One year ago, Pelosi was Speaker and the CBC and CPC were part of the mainstream. Today they are being described as extremists even by some of the mainstream media.

Moving ahead to turn this from a political victory to a "people's victory" three things have to happen.

Firstly, when selecting members of the super committee, GOP leaders must choose people who are willing to commit (in writing) that they will not vote in favor of any plan that includes tax increases.

Secondly, GOP leadership must anticipate and plan for the cuts in defense spending. They must explore ways to cut spending without damaging security.  I would suggest they begin with the recent Government Accounting Office report which shows that by eliminating redundancies (they give specific examples) in the Defense Department, the government could save a minimum of $100 billion in operating costs, and the potential of much more.

Additionally the GAO must be directed (as soon as possible) to identify similar specific savings throughout the rest of the government. Understand the GAO report wasn't a "fuzzy" lets find savings but a specific road map.

Finally, the Tea Party and the GOP leadership must keep on the pressure. This is a win of the battle, victory in the  war to move our country away from the abyss of financial ruin is far, far away.  The next battle is the budget, a plan such as Rep. Ryan's must be moved through both houses (perhaps even Senator Paul's 1% solution). Without a clear action plan to stop the runaway spending locomotive, as opposed to simply slowing it down America's future is on shaky grounds.

In order to get a viable effective action plan in place it is crucial that Conservative Republicans increase their numbers in the House, and take over the Senate and White House in the 2012 Election. The only way that can happen if the circular firing squad that has developed within the GOP stops now!  Its not just coming from certain elements within the Tea Party movement but its coming from the more "centrist" party voices such as Senator McCain and Columnist's such as Jennifer Rubin who have been downright nasty toward conservatives.  Lets keep our eyes on the prize guys!

Finally, the deal will be voted on by the house today between four and five pm.  It needs to be passed so we can move on to the bigger battles outlined above.  Once again, I urge you to call your congressman and/or senator of either party and urge the bill's passage.

If you would like to read the entire bill, the text is embedded below:

S365 ct 1206

Boehner Releases "Sell Piece" Giving Details Of Compromise (Embedded)

 Embedded below is a power point Presentation sent out by the Speaker to sell the House on the compromise deal worked out between GOP leadership and the POTUS this weekend. I received the presentation from a Congressional Staffer so I know its legit.

As we stand right now, Harry Reid has endorsed the plan  pending approval of his caucus.  McConnell and Boehner negotiated the plan and endorse it, and irony of ironies, Nancy Pelosi wants to read the full bill before she gives an opinion.

This is a huge victory for the Conservative wing of the party.

TWO-STEP APPROACH TO HOLD PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCOUNTABLE
Emerging framework has three main features:
(1) cuts government spending more than it increases the debt limit;
(2) implements spending caps to restrain future spending;
(3) advances the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment
Framework accomplishes this without tax hikes, which would
destroy jobs, while preventing a job-killing national default.

As Far as the BBA, well sorry Jennifer Rubin, the deal calls for a BBA vote, but it doesn't  require its passage, but there is a penalty if the BBA is not sent to the states:

BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
‣ Same as House-passed bill, framework requires both House & Senate to vote on a BBA
after Oct. 1, 2011 but before the end of year.
‣ Similar to House-passed bill, framework authorizes POTUS to request second tranche of
debt limit increase of $1.5T if:
‣ Joint Committee cuts spending by greater amount than the requested debt limit hike,
OR
‣ A Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states.
‣ Creates incentive for previous opponents of a BBA to now support it.

Read the full plan below. (If you cannot see the embedded presentation below please click here) And make sure to look below the Boehner Power Point for what finally seems to be a look at the President's plan.


3 7-31-11 Debt Framework Boehner

The White House Released his summary of the agreement, to be used sell the public.  The Obama version doesn't mention the BBA, probably because the POTUS doesn't believe a BBA is a "good thing"



Fact Sheet: Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

• Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline

Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;

• Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;

• Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;

• Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;

• Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.

Mechanics of the Debt Deal

• Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.

• President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.

• Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

• Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

1. REMOVING UNCERTAINTY TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

• Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.

Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.

2. A DOWNPAYMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION BY LOCKING IN HISTORIC SPENDING DISCIPLINE – BALANCED BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND PENTAGON SPENDING

• More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.

• Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.

• Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

• Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.

3. ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011

• The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.

• This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.

• To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.

4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER

• The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.

• Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.

• Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.

5. A BALANCED DEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITMENT TO SHARED SACRIFICE

• The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.

• The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

• In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

 And the President's Plan?

BREAKING----DEAL! Boehner And White House Reach Debt Ceiling Accord

 The first indication of a deal was when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) abruptly delayed a late-Saturday night test vote on his plan lifting the federal debt ceiling until 1 p.m. Sunday afternoon, and said the move was made at the request of the White House.

Then around 11pm Jonathan Karl of ABC and Major Garrett of National Journal (formerly of Fox) have both announced a deal to end the debt ceiling stand off. Both reporters are describing a similar deal, which is very close to the Boehner plan but it has an automatic trigger in place to secure the "second half" of the debt ceiling increase, so no new negotiations will be necessary in December.


The deal begins with a short term increase of the debt ceiling, just a few days worth so the deal can be put in legislative language and passed.

Other component parts of the tentative deal include:

• $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.

• The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.

• The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years. If that doesn't happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.While medicare benefits would not be cut, other cost savings would be achieved here which seems like nonsense.

• If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification (at least according to Major Garrett, the ABC report is that there has to be a Balanced budget vote either way)

• The Super Committee is allowed to discuss spending cuts only...No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee's deliberations.

Jennifer Rubin of WAPO also reported a deal, but without a BBA.  Which gave Ms. Rubin another opportunity to show her hatred of conservatives.

And the GOP extremists don’t get their balanced budget amendment passed and sent to the states or the satisfaction of blowing up the deal. As for the country, if it passes, the agreement will take us from the days of automatic debt-ceiling raises to the first, tentative steps toward fiscal sanity.

Her column is called "Right Turn"  maybe it should be called I hate the Right.  I don't know what the woman's problem is, maybe a conservative once pushed her aside to take away a cab from her, or maybe when she was in kindergarten a mean conservative stole her lunch money, possibly she once dated a conservative who broke her heart. Its just hard to understand why Jennifer Rubin has such venom for the right.

The Associated Press has weighed in they say the deal requires a vote for the BBA but not passage.

Congress would be required to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but none of the debt limit increase would be contingent on its approval.

Getting late..will update in the AM

UPDATE: My Friend Dan Riehl disagrees, he doesn't believe that Jennifer Rubin hates conservatives, its just that Jennifer Rubin Is An Asshole

Boehner Bill Passed, Moody's Says No Change and Boehner's Emotional Speech

Thankfully, the Boehner bill passed (as expected) but by a relatively close margin 218-210 and 7 abstentions .

Most of the debate was the normal political hoo-ha, but Boehner's speech was emotional and hard hitting.

Boehner said in part:

“I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States. I stuck my neck out a mile. I put revenues on the table,” Mr. Boehner said, his voice rising.

"I've offered ideas, I've negotiated," Boehner said in closing debate on his bill. "Not one time, not one time did the administration ever put any plan on the table. All they would do is criticize what I put out there.

"I stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the President of the United States," Boehner continued to grumbling among Democrats. "Hey, I put revenues on the table i order to try to come to an agreement in order to avert us being where we are. But a lot of people in this town can never say yes."

Boehner closed his remarks by thundering: "This House has acted. And it is time for the administration and time for our colleagues across the aisle… put something on the table! Tell us where you are!" (if you cannot see video below click here)

Good News, Moody's the major ratings service least likely to downgrade US debt announced:

Moody’s Investors Service said today it expects the U.S. will get to keep its Aaa credit rating, “albeit with a shift to a negative outlook,” provided Congress and the White House can work out a deal to avoid missing payments to U.S. bondholders.


Moody’s launched a review of the U.S. credit rating on July 13, as the fight over how to raise the current $14.3 trillion federal borrowing limit was starting to heat up. Moody’s review will finish when the debt limit is extended “for more than a short period of time,” the company said. That line gives some ammunition to Democrats and President Barack Obama, who have said any debt deal should lift the borrowing cap through the end of 2012.


Moody’s also offered a definition of “default” – which could be of some comfort to conservative lawmakers who have said that action on the debt ceiling isn’t strictly necessary by the Treasury’s Aug. 2 deadline.


“What would Moody’s consider a default? We do not consider delayed payments for obligations other than debt service to be a default.” In other words, President Barack Obama could make good on his warnings that Social Security checks wouldn’t go out, and that wouldn’t constitute a “default.”

 It would have been much better if that announcement came from Standard and Poor's which is the credit rating service most likely to downgrade  US debt.

Bottom Line:  Senator Reid, your dice

SLAM! Sharron Angle SMACKS-Down John McCain

Yesterday John McCain got stood up on the Senate floor and displayed once again why he lost the 2008 Presidential election, the man who was a hero in the military does not show the same bravery in Politics.  Rather than take a real stand, he looks for the mediocre middle and finds a place to hide.

McCain yesterday, made an anti-tea party speech:

Mr. McCain mocked Tea Party-allied Republicans in the House for believing — wrongly, he said — that President Obama and Democrats will get the blame for a default if Republicans refuse to increase the nation’s debt ceiling.

By that flawed logic, “Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform entitlements and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth,” he said, quoting a Wall Street Journal editorial.

“This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into G.O.P. nominees,” he jeered, referring to two losing Tea Party candidates for the Senate in 2010.

Strong  words for a guy who less than a year ago was running around his state begging  tea partiers to vote for him saying, "no please, I promise, I really am a conservative!"

Sharron Angle responded to McCain this morning delivering a well-deserved smack down. Giving him a new nickname, The Lord of Tarp:

A statement from a 'Tea Party hobbit'

One man in Washington, who chose Sarah Palin to be his VP running-mate and came to Nevada to campaign for me last year in the Senate race against Harry Reid, is now promoting attacks against Tea Party activists, ordinary American citizens, and fiscally conservative members of Congress – all of whom are adamantly opposed to continuing the deficit-spending strategies proposed by some congressional members and the president.

Ironically, this man campaigned for Tea Party support in his last re-election, but now throws Christine O’Donnell and I into the harbor with Sarah Palin. As in the fable, it is the hobbits who are the heroes and save the land. This Lord of the TARP actually ought to read to the end of the story and join forces with the Tea Party, not criticize it.

It is regrettable that a man seeking dialogue, action and cooperation for votes on the floor of the United States Senate has only one strategy to achieve that effort: name-calling. Nice.

It is similarly unfortunate that Senator McCain brings no new ideas to the Senate floor. In fact, so unoriginal is Senator McCain’s effort that he is reduced to borrowing words from an editorial – rather than bringing anything constructive to this debate.


While Senator McCain advocates raising the debt ceiling as a solution – world markets and credit rating industries propose to down-grade our credit worthiness, impacting the value of the U.S. dollar and the state of our economy because of our world-famous spending problem.

Senator McCain can continue on with his borrowed soliloquies, just as he can continue to vote to raise our nation’s debt ceiling – all in an effort to spend money that we don’t have, to fund programs and policies that don’t work, with a currency that continues to lose its value.

Meanwhile, we look forward to meeting members of Congress and the President at the polls in 2012… when ‘We the People’ choose the names we call to serve us in Washington – and we will keep in mind those who supported increasing our nation’s mountain of debt, what could be called their very own Mount Doom.

 John McCain has proven himself to be exactly the type of Republican we do not need. It is one thing to get up and urge compromise, but to demonize a large segment of the populace (one that he worked so hard to recruit just last year) shows how that he is out of touch.  Just who is he trying to impress by bashing the tea party? What is he trying to prove?

I suppose he is just trying to let the Democrats know that he is still out there and still on their side, he certainly doesn't act as if he is on the side of the GOP.

The August 2 Drop Dead Date For a Deal Is Really August 10th

Well, well if August 2nd is the drop dead date for raising the debt limit, it seems the US gets eight days of being undead. According to a NY Times report, early tax payments and some treasury department maneuvering has allowed Turbo-Tax Tim Geithner to store a little extra money under the White House mattress.  The result is while the US still won't be able to borrow money after the 2nd, there is enough cash on hand to pay all bills until August 10th, at least according to estimates Barclays Capital Research and some of the Wall Street banks.

After August second, the US will be able to make its interest payments, medicare, social security, military salaries etc. about 60% of its projected budget, unless off course President Obama decides to change priorities and turn seniors into a political pawn.

Some Republicans have expressed skepticism about the Aug. 2 deadline, describing it as an artificial line drawn by the Obama administration for political reasons. Analysts emphasize, however, that the deadline is real; it’s just the date that is inexact.

“Should policy makers wait till Aug. 10 to come to an agreement? If they can agree sooner, absolutely not. There are no definites in this case,” analysts for Barclays Capital wrote in a note to clients entitled “Is August 2 really ‘August 2’?”

Analysts also said that all of the estimates, including those from Treasury, were necessarily inexact, because they relied on variables like incoming tax payments. That means each passing day without a deal increases the risk that money will run out.

“This is more like predicting the weather than predicting the sunrise,” said Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a nonprofit in Washington that has analyzed the issue.

This gives the parties a few more days to come to an agreement. As discussed yesterday, it wont delay a downgrade of US debt. The downgrade may happen as early as tommorrow as the ratings agencies are less concerned about the US defaulting (they are sure it won't) than the massive $14.5 trillion dollar debt. Whether we end up with Harry Reid's  $2.7 trillion cut plan which really only cuts $1.7 trillion or Speaker Boehner's $1 trillion dollar cut which actually cuts only $850 billion or some other scheme which we don't know about as of yet, one thing is very clear, the United States is about to lose its AAA Credit Rating.

As to what will happen then? Well according to Bill Murray:




But for the rest of us...the cost of money will rise, the debt will become more expensive, the stock market will fall but thankfully no human sacrifice.

Note: Johnah Goldberg feels that missing the deadline will bring about The RED HOUR!

Obama Has The GOP Set Up To Take Fall For Credit Rating Downgrade

Whether we end up with Harry Reid's  $2.7 trillion cut plan which really only cuts $1.7 trillion or Speaker Boehner's $1 trillion dollar cut which actually cuts only $850 billion or some other scheme which we don't know about, one thing is very clear, the United States is about to lose its AAA Credit Rating. In fact even a real cut of $4 trillion would do very little to stem the inevitable. And it may even happen before August 2nd.  I would suspect that the coming downgrade had more to do with last night's Presidential speech than any feud with the tea party or the GOP.

The White House had been alerted repeatedly over the past month by rating agencies that without a strong, long-term plan to restructure the country’s debt, they would lower America’s credit rating as soon as this Friday, according to two officials familiar with the process. The White House was warned that the deal would have to be significant—and not a short-term fix over the next few days to avoid a credit drop.

Analysts with Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, the nation’s top two rating agencies, declined to be quoted on the record, indicating that even benign statements about timing and ratings decisions can rattle markets and startle investors. But earlier this month, both agencies placed the U.S. government on notice of a downgrade of at least one notch, if not more, to a AA rating. In a written statement, S&P analysts said they believed "there is an increasing risk of a substantial policy stalemate enduring beyond any near-term agreement to raise the debt ceiling."

Ya think?  It has become painfully obvious that President Obama has decided that his stand on the budget will be the cornerstone of his reelection strategy. This fight is tailor made for Barack Obama. He can make false charges about the GOP picking big corporation over grandma.  Any cuts could be matched with rhetoric about sharing the burden.  And the President can look like Obama the peacemaker just trying to keep the stiff-necked Republican party in line, as no one calls him on his partisanship.  As an added bonus he gets to slam those pesky tea partiers who cost him the house in 2010 (despite the fact that if it wasn't for the tea party no one would be considering major budget cuts).

Obama is taking his stand so he can look good when the US's credit rating gets down graded no matter what he does. 


Reuters contacted 53 economists and 30 of them predicted that the US would be down graded by at least one of the three major ratings services Standard & Poor's, Moody's or Fitch.

The most likely to downgrade would be Standard and Poor's who has said there was a 50-50 chance of a downgrade, if Congress and President Obama failed to find a "credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden." S&P said it may cut the U.S. rating to AA within 90 days. Passing a $4 trillion agreement could prevent a downgrade, S&P said.

A $4 trillion debt-reduction plan sounds a lot like the agreement that was being negotiated by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner last week, at least until Obama insisted on raising the revenue part of the deal by $400 billion. 

Moody's Investors Service, said the U.S. government would likely keep its top rating if it avoids a default."

Most of the Reuters-polled economists believe the chance of a default is next to nothing but the exploding federal debt and the debate about cutting the debt has already done damage to the economy.

If the downgrade happens, things will get more expensive. Mortgage rates could rise. States and cities, already in trouble, could find it more difficult to borrow. Stock prices may tumble.

And there's more.  The same Reuters poll predicted that there's a 20% chance of another recession.

Now put this all together, US Government credit rating is likely to get downgraded whether we make the cuts or not, and the economy which has been slowing down since April may fall into recession, now Obama's speech yesterday makes sense.

Yesterday President Obama was trying to attack a deal that was already made. He kept talking about the "balanced approach" even though Harry Reid already presented a plan with no tax increases, and Obama endorsed it! He talked about the debt limit the credit rating and GOP intransigence. Obama talked about how the GOP would push the country into default and hurt our credit rating, even though he knows that there is very little chance the US will default and very little chance we will avoid a downgrade.


What seemed weird yesterday seems like a set up today.  Assuming that the US is downgraded, and the economy falls into the recession it has been flirting with since April, Barack Obama will state the case that we went into recession because of the downgrade which was caused by the Tea Party Republicans.


The possibility of this scenario makes it even more important for the GOP to hold its ground.  You can't avoid the inevitable, but you can force major spending cuts, prevent job killing tax-increases, and in the end save our economy in the long run.

Mr. President The Debt Ceiling is More Important Than The Next Election

A few news sources this morning (including the Atlanta Constitution Journal and Byron York at the Washington Examiner) claimed that John Boehner and Harry Reid worked out a resolution to the debt crisis yesterday only to have it rejected by the president because would interfere with his re-election campaign.

The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan,” a senior Republican aide on Capitol Hill told me. Another senior Republican aide in a different office and a GOP lawmaker confirmed the story as well.

The bipartisan offer sounded much like what Republicans have been trying to sell in recent days – a short term extension of the debt limit of about $1 trillion into next year, and then the creation of a special committee to wring out even more budget savings later.

Apparently not only had the two agreed on the outline of the deal but their staffs were working on the legislative language, until Reid pulled his team out after a meeting with President Obama.

"He and his staff were writing the bill with us," says a senior Republican. "We were still working on it by the time he got back from the White House." Asked whether Reid and his staff were fully involved in the work, the senior Republican replied, "edit after edit after edit." A key GOP aide confirmed the account.

The President's problem with the bill is that it would have required another debt ceiling increase next year before the election.

"I think Reid wants to get this done," says the senior Republican. "The problem is, the White House is so far out on a limb on vetoing anything that doesn't get Obama through the 2012 election that it's now kind of personal." For Reid to keep working with the GOP would be a slap at the president and leader of the Democratic party -- a virtually impossible scenario for the Majority Leader.

But Republicans believe the entire dynamic on Capitol Hill will be changed if the House passes an actual bill to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling. "Then it's not a theoretical exercise any more," says the senior Republican. At that point, Reid will have more options. "He has to publicly oppose it," the Republican says. "But privately, he might not go out of his way to kill it."

So Boehner will introduce his plan on his own, and get it passed by the house, and Reid will insist on a bogus $2.7 trillion dollar plan, over one trillion of which is savings from our three wars, counting money not spent on wars that the nation is already planning to end is widely viewed not as savings but another of the budget gimmicks that got us into this mess.

Throwing more gas onto the fire is the fact that Goldman Sachs has warned that the U.S. will lose its credit rating unless at least four trillion are legitimately cut from the deficit.

So where does that leave us.  While everyone on the left (and Bill O' Reilly) blame the tea party for being stubborn in this debate, the truth is that this would have all been over yesterday if the President of the United States didn't put politics in front of the needs of the country.  The President has said that poll show that 80% of the country agrees with his approach.  While I have never seen this poll he is talking about, if he believes that he is correct and has the public support, than having part two of this debate next year should help his re-election chances.

Screwing the country to help get re-elected, that is the change people elected in 2008.

INSANE!!! Democrats Fight For New Stimulus As Part of Deficit Reduction Plan

It has become painfully obvious that the collective leadership of the Democratic Senate has taken one too many acid trips. Face it, that can be the only explanation for their latest folly.  The day after it was reported that the 2009 stimulus plan had little or no effect on ending the "great recession," and the same day the Congressional Budget Office painted a dire picture of America's economic future due to massive debt, the geniuses in the Democratic leadership have decided they want a stimulus as part of the deficit-reduction package being negotiated by Vice President Biden and six members of Congress. It makes no sense, lets waste more money in our save money program?

No formal proposal will be tabled in the session of the talks to be held Wednesday by Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) or Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). The group is still reviewing various stimulus proposals and is not "wedded" to any one, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters.

Ah Little Chuckie Schumer is involved, he must think it will get him some extra time in front of a camera.

As part of deficit reduction, we can have job creation embedded as part of the deficit-reduction package. That’s what we are asking today,” he said.

"We're recommending to the Biden deficit commission that they put jobs as part of what they're doing to help stimulate the economy, because, I repeat, cutting is only part of the game," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. He said that he was instructing committee chairs to hold hearings in the coming weeks and come up with ideas by Aug. 1-- the eve of the debt ceiling deadline.

Clearly these Senators have not talked to anyone in business. The issue behind the lack of jobs is not stimulus. It is the administrations full on assault on business, from higher energy and health care costs to the new and sometimes confusing regulations.

Schumer said extending or expanding the payroll tax reduction enacted in the December 2010 tax cut deal between the White House and Congress is high on the list. Infrastructure spending and support for clean energy are other possible Democrat demands.

In other words more "stuff" that doesn't work. As we reported yesterday, based on the numbers the stimulus had little or any role in ending the recession.

The chart below shows that the recession had pretty much bottomed out by the time the stimulus bill was signed.



According to economists,  the recession officially ended in June 2009. Only 15% of the stimulus dollars had been spent by that date, so its safe to say very little of those funds had anything to do with getting us out of the recession.

He told reporters that if the stimulus cannot be included in the package by Aug. 2, Democrats want it passed simultaneously. Democrats plan to launch a yearlong "Jobs First" campaign to pressure the GOP on job creation in September, he said.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has spoken to the President and the SCHMOTUS about including a new stimulus in the deficit reduction plan and not surprisingly they are open to it.

“We just made the formal proposal; we have been talking to them for a long time,” he said. “The Republicans are fixating on the deficit and it is a serious problem.”

It became even a more serious problem today as the new CBO report on long term debt, released today warned of economic doom for America if the deficit isn't reduced...fast!

Durbin said that he hopes Congress will raise the debt limit enough so that another increase is not necessary before the 2012 elections, but he is not sure Biden can get an agreement that would secure that.

“I think we can do it in two steps,” he said. He said that the $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years that is needed likely will not be agreed to by Aug. 2.

By any rational measurement another stimulus right now is a lame-brained plan, adding it to a deficit reduction plan is even crazier, but another stimulus plan added to  deficit reduction plan after an unsuccessful attempt to turn around the economy with a similar stimulus plan is pure lunacy. Or as Albert Einstein once said,  “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”