Matt Yglesias writes about this shilling piece by Harold Ford and John Sununu for the telecom "grassroots organization" Broadband for America. Matt points out that the "op-ed" piece makes no sense.

I'm more interested in what the telecoms think they get out of subsidizing Ford and Sununu. It's one thing to use them as conduits to pay make contributions to Congress folk. But to "shift public opinion?" Harold Ford? John Sununu? You gotta be kidding me.

An efficient market would have ended this gravy train for the likes of Ford and Sununu, who can't persuade anyone of anything. Here's my suggestion to the telecoms to help their bottom line - stop throwing your money away on the likes of Harold Ford and John Sununu.

Speaking for me only

There is a strain of defense of President Obama that truly baffles me -- I call it the "Presidents don't matter" defense. Matt Yglesias trots out perhaps the weirdest version of it yet:

Why Is Abortion Legal?

For the endless presidential power debate, I wonder how it is people think that abortion is still legal in the United States of America. Is its availability severely curtailed? Sure. Has the core holding of Roe v. Wade been substantially eroded? Obviously. Has illegal terrorist violence reduced the practical availability of abortions beyond what’s been done through the political process? Clearly. But still, we have over 800,000 abortions per year in the United States and we have over 200 abortions per 1,000 live births, each and every one of them legal. That’s despite Ronald Reagan and the big GOP gains in the 1980 election. It’s despite twelve years of Republican control of the White House. [. . .] My working hypothesis is that we have hundreds of thousands of legal abortions every year in the United States because major policy shifts are difficult to undertake.

Via Digby, here comes the Super Catfood Commission Dem team's embrace of Simpson-Bowles:

Together We Can Beat the Deficit

Over the past few months, in debating the debt ceiling and deficit reduction, that light of common cause has appeared to flicker at times in our nation's capital. As appointees to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction—12 members of Congress charged with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade—we hope to remedy that.

How will they remedy that you ask? Take a guess:

Here is how I think the posturing on the super commission on the debt will play out - Dems will be for Simpson-Bowles (Kerry and Murray said yes to Simpson-Bowles. Baucus said no, but, come on, it's Baucus.) Republicans will be for no new taxes. Joan McCarter fills us in on the GOP picks:

John Boehner (R-Ohio) has appointed Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) to serve on the deficit supercommittee. [. . .] Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) appointed his deputy Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), former Bush budget director Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Tea Party favorite Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.)

The kicker - all six are slaves to Grover Norquist and his no new revenues pledge.

So we now see what the atmospherics will be. What about the result? No deal means automatic cuts. Is there room for a no revenues deal? Only the President knows. I assume Yes.

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum writes:

Just to make sure that everyone is still clear about this, here's the current trajectory of politics and the American economy stripped down to its bare essentials:

2001-2008: Republicans run economy into ditch.
2008: Obama elected.
2009-2011: Republicans respond by doing everything possible to prevent him from fixing things.

How would you argue the highlighted part? What would Obama claim he wanted to do that Republicans prevented him from doing? The only thing I can see that the President clearly enunciated was wanting to raise taxes on the rich. That's a good argument, but is that really why the economy is in tatters?

Speaking for me only

Kevin Drum writes:

Contrary to his reputation, Bush mostly succeeded by pressing a moderate, and sometimes even liberal, agenda. Tax cuts aside, which he passed solely with Republican support, the only real ruthlessness he showed toward Democrats on behalf of a conservative priority was the campaign hardball he played to add a union-busting provision to the Homeland Security bill.

Other than 4 trillion dollars in tax cuts, oh and the Iraq Debacle (FTR, Drum seems to forget the Iraq war funding issues after the Dems retook the Congress, among other things.), Bush enacted a moderate, liberal agenda. Think what an amazing statement that is.

It just goes to prove my central axiom about wonky pundits, they always always underestimate the importance of tax policy. Drum also delivers the usual spiel about how limited Presidential power is. It has always been a silly argument which I have addressed in the past and am no longer interested in even giving the argument a hearing. It is just plain silly.

Speaking for me only

Via Digby, Jon Cohn:

The automatic cuts will still hurt, because they’d still affect plenty of important programs. And among them may be the administration’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act.

The new health care law will make insurance more affordable by providing subsidies to people who buy insurance on their own. [. . . B]oth administration and congressional sources are confirming, the cost-sharing subsidies are not exempt. They will decline. And that’s worrisome because the subsidies were already pretty low. In fact, many of us were hoping that, over time, lawmakers would see fit to raise them rather than reduce them. [. . .]

Imagine you are 62, making $40,000 a year with employer sponsored health insurance. How are you feeling about the next 5 years?

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein writes that To govern responsibly, the White House will need to negotiate like Republicans. Not only do I agree, I said so from the beginning of Obama's Presidency. I developed my thoughts further in my Madman Political Bargaining Series. Enough with the 'I told you sos.' Here's Ezra:

Just as Republicans planted a trigger for 2011 that ensures spending cuts, Democrats should use the Bush tax cuts as a trigger in 2012 to force revenue. Which is not to say they should campaign for raising taxes. They should campaign against an outdated, inefficient, unfair tax code as well as the Washington way of leaving hard problems for somebody else to handle.

[MORE . . .]

Remember this?

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." - Barack Obama, January 2008

President Obama wishes he could do what Bill Clinton did at this point. Dreams of "transformation" are long gone. Some people are noticing how good Clinton looks in comparison:

Ezra Klein presents the White House talking point that the defense spending triggered spending cuts are a real stick in the mini-Catfood Commission bargaining:

What it includes instead are massive cuts to the defense budget. If Congress doesn’t pass a second round of deficit reduction, the trigger cuts $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Fully half of that comes from defense spending. And note that I didn’t say “security spending.” The Pentagon takes the full hit if the trigger goes off. [. . .] Whether you think the trigger will work depends on whether you think the GOP would permit that level of cuts to defense.

Ezra rightly dismisses the WH spin that revenue increases are in fact on the table. They aren't. (Ezra makes the more plausible case that the Bush tax cuts expiring is the real revenue trigger.) That said, cutting defense spending via an automatic trigger is meaningless when you consider the Congress can reverse those automatic cuts through separate legislation. Which they almost certainly would. Indeed, they could easily use President Obama's own words:

It appears that we are winding our way to inevitable defeat in the Debt Ceiling Debacle. The loss was guaranteed in December, and the President and Democrats in Congress basically have no choice but to capitulate. Not raising the debt ceiling would be catastrophic.

The hope was that immediate spending cuts would be minimized. There is no reporting on that crucial aspect of the deal nor on who is expected to vote for the debt ceiling deal (is it going to pass with GOP support or Dem support?) More . . .

Reid says he has a deal:

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, has tentatively signed off on the budget deal being negotiated with top Republicans by the White House, moving Congress closer to taking up a measure that could pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support and be signed by President Obama, averting a fiscal calamity.

Not clear where the votes come from in the House. Especially when you consider:

The negotiators appeared to be having a hard time defining what kind of cuts would occur at the end of the year if Congress failed to act on the committee’s recommendations.

If they have not figured that out, how do they have a "deal?"