CNN’s Brooke Baldwin: I will spare you the figures and the math [on deficit reduction] because it quite simply makes my eyes glaze over.
Malibu Stacy: Thinking too much gives you wrinkles
Day: December 2, 2010
Right on, Kevin Drum. Implicit here is what nobody ever seems to say: if your taxable income is $250,001, you will see tax increase only on that last one dollar. You still get the tax break on the first $250K, just like every single other American. Compare that to the GOP plan (red portion of bars). Utter and indefensible lunacy.
And yet The Democrat is absolutely getting his clock cleaned on this.
I don’t see any possible repercussions to this fecklessness and timidity in the face of a fight on which you hold the economic, moral, and public-opinion high grounds once we get to the real fight early next year on the debt ceiling.
I’m delighted to hear the eloquence of the Senator from New York. And as I was listening to him I was reminded that the people — most of the people whose taxes he is trying to raise live in New York. I mean they’re not in Tennessee, we’re a relatively low income state. So I admire him for his courage on — that’s almost a tax earmark, you know, to — to be so specific that we’re gonna raise taxes on just a small number of people, most of whom live on Wall Street in New York.
Lamar! Alexander, (R, TN) letting some truth leak out. Expect a tearful retraction later today in which he details how tax hikes on the richest 2% will only take low wage, non-union jobs away from people in Tennessee.
Filibuster Reform
Democrats have exactly two chances to see filibuster reform: The first comes in a few weeks, when they can reform it in any way they see fit and pass said reforms with a simple majority; preserve what they think is good, eliminate the parts they think are choking the system currently. The linked proposal is the best I’ve seen, really. It preserves the notion of unlimited debate but makes it punishing for the minority to keep the debate going: they have to have more and more members on the floor as the debate extends. This setup would work perfectly well if you were, say, defending Social Security; not so well if you were throwing a one-Senator temper tantrum and secretly holding all nominees…there’s simply no way you’d reach the ratcheting floor requirement in the absence of a truly objectionable nominee or bill, so why even bother. And it removes the ridiculous current requirement that the majority be there 24/7 to defeat repeated quorum calls by the sole minority Senator who needs to be there to push the debate ever onward. Likewise you’d lose the foolish “marinating” process that the GOP deftly uses to extend debate without actually, you know, extending debates.
The second “chance” at altering filibuster rules comes the instant the GOP next is in control of the Senate, maybe as soon as 2012. The filibuster will be the first thing they eliminate. And eliminate it they will, at least for Democrats.
Lemkin 