Number of the Day

45.8 million: The number of people in the US currently receiving food stamps, up from 43.2 Million in January. The number would be even higher, "but only about 67 percent of the eligible people actually apply."

Discussion Thread: Recession Realities

In comments, Shaker CassieC writes:

I was wondering if there could be a thread for shakers to share what this recession/depression/catastrophe is doing to them and their friends and loved ones. ... I've just been reading people's accounts here and there, on various threads, and I know how strong the pressure is not to tell these stories of personal difficulties in the US, because of our society's f-ed up code of personal success/failure, which makes it so difficult for the personal to be seen as a collective, legitimate phenomenon.

Here it is.

Commenting Guidelines: Commenters are strictly prohibited from criticizing each other, auditing other commenters' choices, questioning other commenters' circumstances, or offering advice, unless it is explicitly solicited. You are being invited to talk about your own experiences, not stand in judgment of anyone else's.

Pick Up Those Teaspoons

Greg Sargent—GOP winning the larger argument over government:

In recent days, the debt ceiling deal — which just passed the Senate and is about to be signed by the President — has sparked a fair amount of handwringing among liberals who worry that the fight shows the left has lost the larger argument over the proper role and scope of government in our society. Jared Bernstein and Kevin Drum have both argued that until liberals can make headway in that argument, the playing field in such fights will be dramatically tilted against them.

It's hard not to agree with these folks when you look at findings like this one from the internals of the new CNN poll... Sixty five percent approve of deal's spending cuts. But it gets worse. Of the 30 percent who disapprove, 13 percent think the cuts haven't gotten far enough, and only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. One sixth of Americans agree with the liberal argument about the deal. ... [I]t's hard to avoid the conclusion that the public is reflexively disposed to agree with the GOP's economic worldview, and is all-too-willing to blame government for our economic doldrums.

"We will only find success when a majority of Americans agrees with us that government is something worth fighting for," wrote Jared Bernstein. ... Liberals who still hope to shift the playing field have tons of work to do.

Cue the Laverne & Shirley theme.

Whoooooooooops

Stock market tumbles again despite avoidance of U.S. default:

The Dow Jones industrial average slumped more than 265 points Tuesday as mounting concerns about the fragility of the U.S. economy weighed heavily on Wall Street. It was the Dow's eighth straight daily loss, its worst string since the depths of the global financial crisis in 2008.

Though relieved at Washington's ability to forge an eleventh-hour debt-ceiling plan that averted a feared default, investors are spooked by the notion that the government cutbacks called for in the debt plan could further weaken an already torpid economy.

"Investors are looking past the budget situation and realizing this is an austerity plan," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer of Harris Private Bank in Chicago. "We have an economy that's struggling to stay afloat and we don't have the ammunition to keep prodding it forward."

Emphasis mine.

Open Thread: Senate Debate & Vote on the Raw Deal

You can watch it live on C-SPAN here.

Discuss.

UPDATE: It passed, 74-26.

UPDATE 2: Obama is about to make a statement. You can watch live here.

Number of the Day

1.8 million: The potential number of jobs that will be lost in 2012 as a result of the debt ceiling agreement, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

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

...It should be noted that while the payroll holiday creates jobs, there are more effective ways to target tax policy to those most likely to spend the extra income, creating an even bigger bang-for-the-buck without some of the negative side-effects.

...If Congress fails to renew these existing programs or enact improved versions, we can expect slower growth, fewer jobs, and higher unemployment. Specifically, there could be 1.8 million fewer jobs and a 0.6 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate in 2012 as a result of abandoning current budget policies.

...Roughly one in three workers will be unemployed or underemployed in 2011 and there would be little progress on this front in 2012. This persistent high unemployment not only creates great economic distress for those families directly impacted but also undermines wage growth and continues the erosion of benefits of those still employed. Moreover, these high levels of unemployment make it more difficult to face our fiscal challenges over the long run.

And here's another number: 60% of respondents in the latest CNN poll disapprove of the debt deal failing to include tax hikes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. Whooooooops!

Open Thread & News Round-Up: The Raw Deal

The Senate will vote on the Raw Deal today at noon eastern. In the meantime, here's the latest...

The Guardian—House of Representatives passes debt bill: "Enough Democrats and Republicans reluctantly joined forces to see the proposed legislation through, 269 votes to 161."

The Hill—Dems furious, see deal as GOP win:

House Democrats on Monday expressed outrage at the White House for how it handled the debt-ceiling negotiations, claiming the administration caved to the GOP and left them in the dark.

The irate lawmakers took exception to the lack of balance between cuts and revenues; they railed against the White House for excluding them from the process; and they accused President Obama of bowing to the demands of Republicans without putting up much of a fight.

"Our negotiators weren't tough enough," Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said Monday. "They didn't do the work."

...Not only did the agreement slash domestic spending while excluding new tax revenues, many Democrats ranted, but the White House left rank-and-file members in the dark through most of the talks.

...[Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)] said most Democrats in the New York delegation had requested a meeting with the White House to discuss potential cuts in graduate medical education.

"We couldn't get a meeting," he said.

When the deal was reached Sunday, Engel continued, the White House "didn't bother" to contact House Democrats.

"We all heard that there was this deal through the media," he said.

CBS—Boehner: I got 98 percent of what I wanted: "When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

LA Times—Biden denies likening Republicans to terrorists in debt talks:

"I did not use the terrorism word," he told "CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley. "What happened was there were some people who said they felt like they were being held hostage by terrorists. I never said that they were terrorists or weren't terrorists, I just let them vent."

Too bad. Because we could really use someone in his position to speak that truth.

The coverage of this debacle abroad has been interesting, to say the least. Two of my favorites today: In Der Spiegel, they're running an interview with "Tea Party Co-Founder Mark Meckler," who is a garbage nightmare, and in The Telegraph, under the awesome headline "The real story of the US debt deal is not the triumph of the Tea Party but the death of the Socialist Left," Toby Young says: "To focus on the Tea Party is to ignore the tectonic political shift that's taken place, not just in America but across Europe. The majority of citizens in nearly all the world's most developed countries simply aren't prepared to tolerate the degree of borrowing required to sustain generous welfare programmes any longer."

Which puts me in mind of that great Edwin Starr classic, "Empathy! Huh! Yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!" Sob.

Elsewhere...

The Hill—Union chief warns of job losses from debt-ceiling deal: "Gerry McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said: 'The deal forced upon the White House and the nation represents a form of economic malpractice,' McEntee said in a statement. 'At the least, it will slow economic recovery and impose more joblessness, wage cuts and hardship on America's working families.'"

David Dayen at FDL—Future Congresses Can Change Austerity Terms, But These Democrats Won't: "I don't see these Democrats, who have been parroting the language of austerity so much they have to believe at least some of it, will ever go beyond this agreement. ... The way out of this box is to find different people than the ones currently in office. I don't see any other way around that."

Politico—Matt Damon weighs in on the debt ceiling: "I'm so disgusted, man. ... The wealthy are paying less than they've paid in any time else, certainly in my lifetime. ... It's criminal that like, you know, so little is asked of people who are getting so much; I mean, I don't mind paying more. I really don't mind paying more taxes."

And here's a fun picture lulz.

Open Thread: House Vote on the Raw Deal

Have at it.

The Latest

Via Taegan Goddard:

Since an agreement was reached last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wouldn't say whether she would vote for the proposal or not. However, multiple sources now say she will vote "yes" when the bill comes up for a vote later tonight.

The latest guidance suggests the House vote will be between 6:30 pm and 8 pm ET.

If the bill passes the House, the Senate will vote on the measure tomorrow.

At which point, if it passes the Senate, President Obama can be expected to sign it into law tomorrow.

We need the second coming of FDR to usher in another New Deal. Instead, we've got FML and the Raw Deal.

Close, but no cigar.

Recommended Reading

This statement by Economic Policy Institute President Lawrence Mishel on the proposed agreement to raise the debt ceiling is really great in succinctly explaining why it's so failful. I'm not even going to try to blockquote it, because it really just needs to be read in its entirety.

David Frum (I never imagined I'd link a piece by Frum under the heading of Recommended Reading, lulz): Wake up GOP: Smashing system doesn't fix it.

I'm a Republican. Always have been. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation and limited government. But as I look back at the weeks of rancor leading up to Sunday night's last-minute budget deal, I see some things I don't believe in: Forcing the United States to the verge of default. Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed. Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle. Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

...Republicans have become so gripped by pessimism and panic that they feel they have nothing to lose by rushing into a catastrophe now. But there is a lot to lose, and in these past weeks America nearly lost it.

Krugman answers the question, inevitably intended to be a belligerent conversation-stopper, about what he would have done in the president's position:

I would have made a statement declaring that giving in to this kind of blackmail would constitute a violation of my oath of office, and that my lawyers, on careful reflection, have determined that there are several legal options that allow me to ignore this extortionate demand.

Now, the Obama people say that this wasn't actually an option. Well, I hate to say this, but I don't believe them.

...Why, at this point, should anyone trust these people when they say that they did all they could?

It's much, much too late for Obama and co. to say "Trust us, we know what we're doing." My reservoir of trust is now completely drained. And I know I'm not alone.

Indeed not.

And So the Deal Was Struck

It's bad. Real bad.

The press release from the White House, laying out the specifics of the deal with each detail spun to sound like this it isn't a complete garbage nightmare, is titled: "BIPARTISAN DEBT DEAL: A WIN FOR THE ECONOMY AND BUDGET DISCIPLINE." Well. At least the President didn't have the audacity to claim it's a win for the American people.

(I won't bother reposting it since it's already posted in a million other places; DKos has posted it here.)

The Wall Street Journal calls the deal a Tea Party Triumph, although Tea Party Terrorism Aided and Abetted by Spineless Congressional Democrats and a Ostensibly Democratic President Who Is Really a Moderate Republican would be more accurate.

The New York Times calls it, simply, a Terrible Deal: "There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. It will hurt programs for the middle class and poor, and hinder an economic recovery."

Krugman explains how the deal "will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America's long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status."

Meanwhile, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is very unhappy. Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the CPC, released a statement as the details of the deal were emerging yesterday:

This deal trades peoples' livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals, and I will not support it. Progressives have been organizing for months to oppose any scheme that cuts Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and it now seems clear that even these bedrock pillars of the American success story are on the chopping block. Even if this deal were not as bad as it is, this would be enough for me to fight against its passage.

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. The very wealthy will continue to receive taxpayer handouts, and corporations will keep their expensive federal giveaways. Meanwhile, millions of families unfairly lose more in this deal than they have already lost. I will not be a part of it.

Republicans have succeeded in imposing their vision of a country without real economic hope. Their message has no public appeal, and Democrats have had every opportunity to stand firm in the face of their irrational demands. Progressives have been rallying support for the successful government programs that have meant health and economic security to generations of our people.

Today we, and everyone we have worked to speak for and fight for, were thrown under the bus. We have made our bottom line clear for months: a final deal must strike a balance between cuts and revenue, and must not put all the burden on the working people of this country. This deal fails those tests and many more. The Democratic Party, no less than the Republican Party, is at a very serious crossroads at this moment.

For decades Democrats have stood for a capable, meaningful government – a government that works for the people, not just the powerful, and that represents everyone fairly and equally. This deal weakens the Democratic Party as badly as it weakens the country. We have given much and received nothing in return. The lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want. While I believe the country will not reward them for this in the long run, the damage has already been done.

A clean debt ceiling vote was the obvious way out of this, and many House Democrats have been saying so. Had that vote failed, the president should have exercised his Fourteenth Amendment responsibilities and ended this manufactured crisis. This deal is a cure as bad as the disease. I reject it, and the American people reject it. The only thing left to do now is repair the damage as soon as possible.

Other progressive groups are responding with resounding contempt as well.

It's probably too much for which to hope that progressive Democrats in the House will be able to tank this thing, but, last night, Pelosi would not commit her support to the bill: "We all may not be able to support it, or none us may be able to support it."

So there is still a glimmer of hope, but, realistically, it's probably the glimmer of fool's gold, since we've got a Democratic president up for reelection who is INEXPLICABLY FUCKING DETERMINED to capitulate to Republicans and ruin the country in order that he might appear reasonable.

Below the fold (on most browsers), the President's remarks last night on the deal.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
July 31, 2011

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
8:40 P.M. EDT


THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default -- a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy.

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President -- but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Now, I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced. Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they’re still around for future generations.

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act. And over the next few months, I’ll continue to make a detailed case to these lawmakers about why I believe a balanced approach is necessary to finish the job.

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Now, this process has been messy; it’s taken far too long. I've been concerned about the impact that it has had on business confidence and consumer confidence and the economy as a whole over the last month. Nevertheless, ultimately, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise. And I want to thank them for that.

Most of all, I want to thank the American people. It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days. And the American people's voice is a very, very powerful thing.

We’re not done yet. I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal with your votes over the next few days. It will allow us to avoid default. It will allow us to pay our bills. It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way. And it will allow us to turn to the very important business of doing everything we can to create jobs, boost wages, and grow this economy faster than it's currently growing.

That’s what the American people sent us here to do, and that’s what we should be devoting all of our time to accomplishing in the months ahead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END
8:44 P.M. EDT

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Reportedly, a deal is being struck and may be announced as soon as this afternoon...

ABC—Congressional Sources: Republicans and Democrats Reach Tentative Debt Deal:

Democratic and Republican Congressional sources involved in the negotiations tell ABC News that a tentative agreement has been reached on the framework of a deal that would give the President a debt ceiling increase of up to $2.4 trillion and guarantee an equal amount of deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

...Here, according to Democratic and Republican sources, are the key elements:

* A debt ceiling increase of up to $2.1 to $2.4 trillion (depending on the size of the spending cuts agreed to in the final deal).
* They have now agreed to spending cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
* The formation of a special Congressional committee to recommend further deficit reduction of up to $1.6 trillion (whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase). This deficit reduction could take the form of spending cuts, tax increases or both.
* The special committee must make recommendations by late November (before Congress' Thanksgiving recess).
* If Congress does not approve those cuts by December 23, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare. This "trigger" is designed to force action on the deficit reduction committee's recommendations by making the alternative painful to both Democrats and Republicans.
* A vote, in both the House and Senate, on a balanced budget amendment.

So, no new revenue (OMFG).

And never mind, of course, that cuts to Medicare, which is underfunded, and cuts to Defense, which has the most wildly bloated budget of any government program in the nation, are not remotely equal. This is an absolutely fucking absurd "compromise." But we're supposed to feel okay about potential cuts to Medicare because they "are designed to be taken from Medicare providers, not beneficiaries." Oh, that's fine then, because not paying providers will definitely have no effect on beneficiaries when they can't find any providers willing to accept them as patients!

Again, I feel obliged to point out that this entire framework, tying budget cuts to raising the debt ceiling, is bullshit, because we raise the debt ceiling to accommodate spending we've already done. Future spending should be based on what we need, not on what we've already spent.

President Obama and Congressional Democrats never should have conceded that the debt ceiling talks be contingent on anything else. They never, ever, should have budged from the position of a clean raise. Twelve-dimensional chess my big fat ass.

And let me stress again: No new revenue. This is unfathomably stupid.

McClatchy—Economists: Now is wrong time for Congress to cut spending:

Some House Republicans backed by tea party groups demand even deeper front-end cuts, perhaps as much as $100 billion, arguing that politicians can't be trusted to keep their promises further out.

That'd be dangerous, warned Mark Zandi, chief economist for forecaster Moody's Analytics.

"I think the idea is a very serious policy error," he said. "This would be the fodder for another recession. The economy may be able to digest $25-30 billion more (in federal spending cuts) ... but $100 billion, I don't think it could digest that."

Zandi, who's frequently cited by Republicans and Democrats alike, favors spending cuts "when the economy is off and running," but he cautions that "to add more fiscal restraint in the latter part of 2011 and 2012 would be a mistake."

Additionally, Suzy Khimm rightly points out that the deal will squeeze state governments, which will ultimately lead to decreased spending and layoffs in the public sector, deepening the economic crisis.

There isn't enough UGH in the world for this mess.

ThereIsNoSpoon [TW for violent imagery]:

It's hard to imagine how it gets much worse than this. If this deal goes through, it would represent nothing less than a capitulation on the part of the President and the Democratic Senate to economic terrorism on the part of the Republican caucus, and would set a major precedent for more accountability-free hostage taking in the future. Grover Norquist seems pretty happy about it, and why not? The gameplan for drowning the government in the bathtub is obvious from here. It's clear that the Democrats won't do a thing to get in the way, because there's no hostage the Democrats will be willing to shoot--or even threaten to shoot--when the GOP takes one, nor will the media abandon its postmodern "both sides are just as bad" shtick no matter how asinine the GOP becomes.

None of which even touches the fact that the discretionary spending cuts and bipartisan commission to recommend entitlement cuts are right in line with what President Obama has repeatedly said he wanted, anyway. We're certainly not going to get any help to stand up to this atrocious "compromise" from the President: he actively wants most of what is in it.

I just don't know what to say anymore. We are simply not being governed by responsible and decent people who are keen to represent the interests of and be accountable to the US citizenry. Our democracy is lost.

UPDATE: Additional recommended reading...

Digby: The New Deal vs. The Bad Deal

Reuters: Britain, Japan warn of disaster if no U.S. debt deal.

Debtpocalypse Open Thread

The House is garbaging around with Boehner's revised plan. There will be voting! And then the Senate will drink Boehner's milkshake. Or something.

This is an exercise in futility, because even if the legislation on the table passes the House, it won't pass the Senate, and, even if it inexplicably passed the Senate, Obama would veto it. It's a huge waste of time, orchestrated by people with balled-up paper towels where their sense of decency should be.

Anyway, here's an open thread for discussion, if anyone still has the energy to talk about this nightmare.

An Observation

I feel like I have spent an enormous amount of energy paying attention to debt ceiling and spending negotiations the resolution of which will make me even more tired.

I may need to sleep for 100 years to recover.

And the stupid thing is, I already know the outcome: Austerity and garbage.

Obama on Debt Talks

President Obama is scheduled to deliver a statement on the status of the debt ceiling negotiations at 10:20 ET. Consider this an open thread for discussion.

You can watch the statement live at CNN and at MSNBC and at C-SPAN.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

Peter Daou sums up where we are: "So, two parties are bickering over opposing plans to sink the country into recession and if they can't pick one, they'll torpedo the economy." Pretty much.

As I mentioned last night, "House Republican leaders have postponed indefinitely a vote on Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) debt limit bill after they could not persuade enough Republicans to support the measure."

You know we're really in trouble when Joe Klein is a voice of reason: "Let us not put too fine a point on it: [Any] House vote on Speaker John Boehner's debt ceiling proposal is a joke. If it passes the House, Harry Reid has said it is dead on arrival in the Senate. If it somehow passes the Senate, which it won't, President Obama will veto it. It is, therefore, a symbolic act that is wasting precious time. It follows last week's Republican theatrics, the passage of the Cut and Demolish Act (or whatever they called it), which also was a waste of time. These are the actions of a party that has completely lost track of reality–and of a leader, John Boehner, who has lost the support of his party."

By the way, that lack of support is owing, in part, to the fact that there are members of the Republican caucus who "are angry that it includes $17 billion in supplemental spending for Pell Grants, which some compare to welfare."

In the sense that Pell Grants are money provided by the government to people who need it, they are like welfare, which I don't consider a dirty word. Of course, that is not an opinion members of the Republican caucus share with me. Which is basically why we're in the situation we're in—a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and "entitlements," which Republicans spit out like a curse. Personally, I don't find anything controversial about the idea that old, ill, injured, disabled, widowed, orphaned, poor, unemployed, or otherwise needful people are entitled to assistance from the rest of their society.

Anyway, speaking of the Republicans being jackasses...

James Fallows in The Atlantic: Five Reasons the House GOP Is to Blame. (And he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook, either.)

Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman takes a further look at the disaster that is centrism:

The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. ... Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a "Grand Bargain" with Republicans over taxes and spending. To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of G.O.P. extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. As The Times's Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter's preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter's preferences.

But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? "Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric." A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he's in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!

...Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don't. Wisdom doesn't necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.

For further general reading, there's a lot of good stuff in the Guardian's Economics section.

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

TPMDC—Hope for Boehner? Some House Conservatives Closing Ranks on Debt Limit Bill: "On Tuesday, conservative Republican Study Committee chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) predicted defeat for House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) plan to raise the debt limit. ... He was counting on the opposition of dozens of House conservatives who have in the past pledged not to raise the debt limit on terms that compromising with Democrats would require. Twenty-four hours later, after taking a beating from the GOP establishment and party leadership, and after watching Democrats grow more and more confident in their ability to split the Republican coalition, those conservatives are reconsidering their rebellion."

But outside Congress...

The Hill—Tea Party leader: Boehner must go: "Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips called on House Speaker John Boehner 'to go' and be replaced by a 'Tea Party Speaker of the House' in a blog post Wednesday morning, the same day that Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said that her group was looking into the same idea. 'Now Boehner is in the process of surrendering again. He is surrendering not to [President] Obama, but to the status quo in Washington,' Phillips wrote."

Back in the Speaker's office...

Think Progress—Boehner: 'A Lot' of Republicans Want to Force Default, Create 'Enough Chaos' to Pass Balanced Budget Amendment: "House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said today that some members of his own caucus who are refusing to agree to a compromise debt ceiling deal are hoping to unleash 'chaos' and thus force the White House and Senate Democrats to make bigger concessions than they're already offering."

Oh, look who's talking...

The Note—McCain Blasts Tea Party for 'Foolish' Demands in Debt Debate:

"To hold out and say we won't agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution. It's unfair, it's bizarre," McCain railed on the Senate floor, "And maybe some people have only been in this body for six or seven months or so really believe that. Others know better."

Many of the most conservative members of the House have said they will not vote for any debt ceiling increase that does not include a Balanced Budget Amendment and deeper spending cuts. Similarly, some conservatives Republicans in the Senate have said the same.

McCain called this "amazing," "foolish" and "deceiving" that some members believe that this can happen, now with only 6 days left until the nation defaults on its debts with the August 2 deadline for action looming.

"To somehow think or tell our citizens that if we have enough debate and amendment here in the Senate in the short term in the next six days that we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is unfair to our constituents," McCain said.

McCain is a supporter of a Balanced Budget Amendment but does not believe that the station now, just six days away from the August 2 deadline for action, is the correct time to be pushing for this when it does not stand a chance when connected to the debt ceiling increase.

When John McCain is your voice of reason, Republicans, you have DERAILED.

The Caucus—Senate Democrats Promise to Reject Boehner Plan: "Fifty-three Democratic senators have signed a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner saying they intend to vote against his plan for an increase in the debt ceiling, virtually assuring its defeat in the Senate even as the speaker lines up Republican votes to pass it in the House on Thursday. Votes are not final until they are cast. But if the Democrats hold to their promise in the letter, Mr. Boehner's plan for a six-month increase in borrowing authority will not make it to President Obama's desk."

D-Day at FireDogLake: "Both parties have insistently harped on the desirability of cutting the deficit for the past six months [at the expense of progressive economic options]. The public may not be tuned in, but they pick up on these broad themes, and since there has been no debate on public investment in job creation, they naturally gravitated toward the fantasy of expansionary contraction. To those who want to say that the President is making the best of a bad situation, THIS is the problem. It changes the entire dynamic of the realm of possible economic solutions for the next decade or more. And when the economy suffers from austerity, since a Democrat basically called for it, that's who will be blamed."

David at Hullabaloo: "As if the White House couldn't get any more dense, members of President Obama's text message feed received the following today: 'Join President Obama in calling on Congress for a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. Contact your House representative at [number].' You've got to be kidding. Since the Grand Bargain is pretty much dead, there are only two plans on the table, and they're pretty similar: Harry Reid's right-wing austerity approach that counts savings from reductions in spending on the wars overseas while shifting the need to take up this argument again until after the 2012 election, and John Boehner's even farther right-wing austerity measure that doesn't count those savings, while forcing everyone to go through this fight again early next year."

Open Thread & News Round-Up: Debt Negotiations

Here's the latest...

Politico—CBO: John Boehner's debt bill comes up short: "New cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office could pose a problem for Speaker John Boehner as he tries to rally conservative support for his two-step plan to raise the federal debt ceiling and avert default next week. ... The first installment of $900 billion is contingent on enacting 10 year caps on annual appropriations which the leadership had hoped would save well over $1 trillion. But CBO late Tuesday came back with a report showing the legislation would reduce deficits by $850 billion when measured against the agency’s most current projections for spending."

AP—House GOP to rework budget plan after new estimate: "A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner says House Republican leaders are working to rewrite their deficit-reduction plan after receiving an estimate that it won't cut spending as much as advertised."

CNN—Conservative groups come out against Boehner proposal: "As House Speaker John Boehner and the House Republican leadership continues to build support for its proposal to raise the debt ceiling, several influential tea party and conservative groups Tuesday voiced opposition to it. ... Many of these conservative groups and members only would support increasing the ceiling if it is accompanied by larger spending cuts as well as enactment of a balanced budget amendment while some others flatly oppose any hike."

The Hill—Cantor tells House to 'stop whining' about Boehner debt-ceiling plan: "Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday bluntly told House Republicans to stop 'grumbling and whining' about Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) new proposal for a limited debt-limit increase."

Greg Sargent in the WaPo—Dems plot the endgame in debt limit fight: "Here's the game plan, as seen by Senate Dem aides: The next move is to sit tight and wait for the House to vote on Boehner's proposal. The idea is that with mounting conservative opposition, it could very well be defeated. If the Boehner plan goes down in the House, that would represent a serious blow to Boehner's leadership, weakening his hand in negotiations."

So that's where the debt negotiations, such as they are, stand. Meanwhile, Paul Krugman observes that this entire debacle exposes the "true moral failure" of "the cult of balance, of centrism."

We have a crisis in which the right is making [unreasonable] demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

...You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? ... And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The "both sides are at fault" people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it's out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.

It's a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.

At TPM, Josh Marshall makes a similar observation: "It's been said many times. But it's never enough: the conventions of journalistic 'objectivity', as currently defined, frequently make journalists violate their biggest duty, which is honesty with readers. The top headline running now on CNN reads: 'They're all talking, but no one is compromising, at least publicly. Democratic and GOP leaders appear unwilling to bend on proposals to raise the debt ceiling.' By any reasonable measure, this is simply false, even painfully so."

The Return of Fred Thompson

You know you totally missed him. (Especially if your name is Deeky W. Gashlycrumb.) So you are obviously very happy to hear that our dear Fred Thompson, star of screen and senate, has returned (by which I mean I just happened to notice something that he wrote today).

Behold: An Open Letter to the House GOP, a missive about the ongoing debt negotiations which has the actual subhead "Accept the victory and move on," starts out with, "You won, and so did the country," and is signed:

Sincerely,

Your friend,

Fred Thompson

Niiiiiiice.

Double closing, single signature. The hallmark of a fancy man who really knows what he's talking about.

This is what privilege looks like.

Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics:

The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from 2009.

These lopsided wealth ratios are the largest since the government began publishing such data a quarter century ago...

From 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell by 66% among Hispanic households and 53% among black households, compared with just 16% among white households.

...Moreover, about a third of black (35%) and Hispanic (31%) households had zero or negative net worth in 2009, compared with 15% of white households. In 2005, the comparable shares had been 29% for blacks, 23% for Hispanics and 11% for whites.

...Household wealth is the accumulated sum of assets (houses, cars, savings and checking accounts, stocks and mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc.) minus the sum of debt (mortgages, auto loans, credit card debt, etc.). It is different from household income, which measures the annual inflow of wages, interest, profits and other sources of earning. Wealth gaps between whites, blacks and Hispanics have always been much greater than income gaps.

The piece cites "plummeting house values" as the "principal cause of the recent erosion in household wealth among all groups," which disproportionately affected Latin@s, but, of course, there are other reasons: Whites are more likely to be invested in the stock market (even if merely through a retirement account like a 401k), which recovered its value in a way home equity has not; people of color are more likely to have been targeted by predatory lending; whites are more likely to have inherited wealth; etc.

All of which is a function of privilege.

[Related Reading: Can't Vs. Won't.]