Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (165889)	7/12/2011 8:51:17 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541777

Well, Steve Benen's reading is a bit clearer since it gets to the issue of whether Obama's tax cut proposals are critical to the deal. Benen thinks not. And has some reasons for thinking so. If he's right, this is the most cynical use of politics I've yet seen. I join Josh Marshall in that read. Nixon couldn't hold a candle to this crowd. ---------------------------------------- July 12, 2011 4:50 PM McConnell’s ‘contingency plan’, cont’d By Steve BenenFacebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious Following up on the last post, the details of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) contingency plan for the debt ceiling are still coming together. At this point, I’m still not sure what to make of it, except to marvel at its Rube Goldberg complexity.(If Republicans simply took five minutes to pass a clean bill, the way they did seven times in eight years when Bush was in office, it’d save everyone a lot of headaches.) A couple of things seem clear at this point. The first is that McConnell realized the talks were going nowhere — Democrats would continue to ask Republicans to compromise and the GOP would continue to refuse. That doesn’t only lead to a catastrophic outcome, it also makes Republicans look ridiculous. He needed a safety valve to get out of this — one that wouldn’t need new revenue — and this new plan fits the bill. The second is that McConnell cares far more about politics and process than policy outcomes. His new scheme is cowardly and kind of pathetic to the extent that it shifts power away from Congress, but it will force a whole lot of votes on the debt, which the Minority Leader hopes will make Democrats feel uncomfortable. If a proposal leads to votes that can be used in attack ads, Mitch McConnell is necessarily pleased. If the proposal allows Republicans to vote against debt ceiling extensions without crashing the economy, he’s even more pleased. It’s the practical details of the process that I’m still fuzzy on. Greg Sargent reported: [A]s McConnell said today, you would need two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to block Obama’s requests for the debt ceiling hikes. If the House and Senate did pass resolutions of disapproval, Obama would presumably veto them — requiring two thirds of both Houses to override the vetoes. […] At bottom, McConnell’s proposal is the latest GOP line on the debt ceiling — it’s Obama’s problem, not ours — taken to its logical and legislative conclusion. Right. When John Boehner said earlier that the entire crisis isn’t his “problem,” the Speaker was probably being literal, or at least aspirational. The one question I can’t find a solid answer to is what, if anything, would be cut and by how much. The Hill reported the administration would be required to “suggest spending cuts” to accompany three separate requests to raise the debt ceiling, “but would not require such cuts.” Obama could not, under this scenario, recommend new revenue. If that’s right, then McConnell seems to be blinking awfully hard. In other words, in this little scenario, President Obama would have to offer proposals for spending cuts, with no corresponding measures to raise revenue. But it also appears that these proposed cuts from the White House need not even be serious — Obama could present plans he doesn’t take especially seriously, with the full expectation that Congress could and probably would reject them. It would make the process needlessly ugly and stupid, but McConnell’s plan would seem to allow for a debt-ceiling increase with no guarantee of any spending cuts at all. Republicans would get a bunch of chances to grandstand, and rant and rave about Democrats, while putting all of the onus on the White House, but that’s not much. Republicans were going to grandstand, rant, rave, and point fingers anyway. washingtonmonthly.com

To: JohnM who wrote (165889)	7/12/2011 8:53:57 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 541777

The honorable GOP along with the beloved FoxNews are up to their old tricks again. Lying about a candidate. Gosh, what a surprise.... The bolding below is mine. GOP Hopes For Upset In CA-36 Special Election Benjy Sarlin \| July 11, 2011, 5:50AM Expected to be a safe Democratic seat, California's 36th' District has become a heated battleground heading into Tuesday's special election. The race pits Democratic City Councilwoman Janice Hahn against Republican businessman Craig Huey to replace Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), who left to become president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Huey surprised observers by making it out of a jungle primary and into the final runoff -- most expected the race to be between two Democrats at this point. He's dipped into his personal fortune to the tune of around $800,000, however, giving him an added edge. The race has become best known nationally for an ad from an independent group that's among some of the most offensive ever cut in a Congressional campaign. The spot by Turn Right USA attacks Janice Hahn's work with gang intervention programs by showing a pair of gun-toting gangsters taking money from Hahn, who is portrayed as a stripper, while rapping "Give Us Yo Cash, B---h!" before finally abusing her with an assault rifle. Huey and the National Republican Congressional Committee have condemned the ad, but they've made its message the central focus of their campaign. A local FOX report in 2008, recently followed up by the same station, alleged that convicted criminals claimed they received money and support via gang intervention programs backed by Janice Hahn. But subsequent fact-checks by Politifact and LA Weekly say the report's claims are false: the criminals portrayed, "PJ Steve," did not receive any taxpayer money (one wasn't even a gang intervention worker at all) and Hahn says a felon's claim that she helped him get out of jail is untrue as well. "The entire Fox story was based on statements made by desperate criminal gang members who would say anything to avoid going to jail," Hahn said at the time per Politifact. "I have never paid these gang members, never had them work for me, nor have I ever helped them to get out of jail." Hahn, who is backed by NARAL Pro-Choice America and EMILY's List, has tried to focus the race on Huey's pro-life abortion position. He once described Planned Parenthood as a "murder mill" on his website, a phrase that Hahn has highlighted in ads comparing him to Sarah Palin. As Democrats did in their upset win in NY-26, Hahn has also made heavy use of the House Republicans' proposal to replace Medicare with a privatized voucher system that offers stingier benefits to seniors, accusing Huey of backing their "radical plan."