May as well share with y'all, you've supported me, chastised me, and made me a part of this life.

One Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that in the White House talks so far, negotiators had agreed on about $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts, far less than the $2.4 trillion or so needed to meet Obama's demand that the debt limit go up enough to tide the Treasury over through the 2012 elections.

A summary that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., prepared for the talks earlier in the week showed the bulk of cuts coming from day-to-day operating budgets of federal programs.

Also included were as much as $245 billion from Medicare, including higher premiums for wealthier beneficiaries, and additional savings from skilled nursing homes and home health care. The summary indicated that federal workers would pay more for their pensions, agriculture subsidies would be cut and food stamp spending would be restrained. link

"I'll be dam*ed if, at a time when so many people are struggling in this economy, we cut social security!"

Edge: Potter

Specifically, during questioning a witness, the prosecutor played a tape of the Congressional hearing where Clemens testified. During the hearing, a member of Congress read from a letter written by the wife of one of Clemens' teammates recounting things her husband told her Clemens said.

Right now, it's questionable if the case will be retried.

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe -- and I believe this can be done -- a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.

Nevertheless, as Chairman Mills of the House Ways and Means Committee pointed out this week, the size of the deficit is to be regarded with concern, and tax reduction must be accompanied, in his words, by "increased control of the rises in expenditures." This is precisely the course we intend to follow in 1963.

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton and top Republicans agreed Thursday to end a budget impasse that prompted the longest state government shutdown in recent history, after the Democratic governor surrendered on raising taxes.
Dayton said the state government would be back in business "very soon," but he didn't say exactly when.

The deal to erase a $5 billion deficit came after a big sacrifice from Dayton, who made new income taxes a central campaign message last year and the centerpiece of his budget. He dropped that and said he would accept -- with conditions -- an offer the GOP put forward on the eve of the shutdown to bring about $1.4 billion into the budget by delaying payments to schools and selling tobacco payment bonds.

Republicans agreed to his conditions, which included relinquishing a list of policy changes such as banning state aid for stem cell research and a plan to cut the state workforce by 15 percent.

A plan to cut spending, put caps on future expenditures and pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is certain to come up, lawmakers said. Also on the unofficial agenda of lawmakers are several bills to force the president to prioritize payments if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

In fact, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is one that's gaining steam on Capitol Hill. McConnell, who has become the subject of ire from the right in recent days, expressed support for the plan Thursday. His support could increase the likelihood that his legislation is coupled with the cut, cap and balance idea -- or something like it -- to attract enough support to avert an early-August catastrophe. GOP lawmakers hoped their leadership would put pressure on the president to bring along Democrats to pass their balanced-budget amendment. In its current form, most Democrats say they won't vote for the legislation because it sets a supermajority threshold to raise taxes. link

David Dayen:

The Justice Department will seek a short-term emergency stay to the bar on the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a puzzling twist to a court case that appeared to end the policy outright.

In the brief, DoJ seeks reinstatement of the policy by close of business today, July 15. It says that DoJ continues to defend the constitutionality of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which the President opposes and which was repealed by Congress late last year.

This appears to be a case about separation of powers and timing more than anything. The Pentagon is ready to certify repeal; all of the service chiefs, service secretaries and combatant commanders have submitted their final assessments. Repeal is scheduled to be certified by the end of the month or the beginning of next month, and after certification there is a 60-day Congressional review period (put in to earn Robert Byrd's vote).

But the Justice Department says that the injunction banning the policy, coming just weeks before the Pentagon's own certification process, will cause "real and immediate harm." If that's the case, why did the Pentagon meekly implement the injunction worldwide, allowing for the acceptance of gay and lesbian recruits, along with an end to all discharges? Maybe DoJ and DoD aren't speaking to one another, but ending the policy only to fight to start it up again will cause a supreme amount of confusion and could lead to actual harm to the lives of soldiers.

What's more, the Ninth Circuit denied the injunction because of the DoJ's own policies on the Defense of Marriage Act, where it calls for heightened scrutiny for discrimination based on sexual orientation. DoJ in its brief says that the court "misapprehended the significance" of their DOMA policy. I don't see how. Sexual orientation either gets heightened scrutiny or it doesn't, you cannot pick and choose when to scrutinize.

The meat of the DoJ order is right here:

In sum, the government argues that lifting the stay unjustifiably takes the authority for repealing DADT away from the executive branch and it does so, at least in part, because of confusion by the Ninth Circuit panel regarding the DOJ's view of whether DADT is constitutional after the passage of the repeal act and regarding the application of the DOJ's DOMA decisions to military laws like DADT.

The executive branch wants to defend its policy work and doesn't want the court bigfooting around finding its laws unconstitutional. Unless we're talking about DOMA, where that's precisely what DoJ has requested.

It looks like a question of who gets the power to overturn DADT. The President wants his signing ceremony.