Bloomberg:

“The House bill will create more jobs and a stronger economy than the Senate bill,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, who was a campaign adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Zandi estimates that the $838 billion Senate package would create about 625,000 fewer jobs than the $819 billion House version over the next two years.

(Emphasis supplied.) 625,000 less jobs costing $20B more? Time to trim the fat, fry the bacon, and milk the sacred cows out of the Beltway "bipartisan" BSers Senate bill.

Speaking for me only

When you lie about steroid use:

All-Star shortstop Miguel Tejada has been charged with lying to Congress about steroids, with the baseball player scheduled to appear in court Wednesday where he is expected to plead guilty.

When isn't it? When you are Bush DOJ official Brad Schlozman:

I am particularly disturbed about the findings that a senior Justice Department appointee, Bradley Schlozmann, made false statements under oath when appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We always look to baseball players to tell the truth, but not Justice Dept. officials.

Speaking for me only

AP:

President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan has passed the Senate and is on its way to difficult House-Senate negotiations. Just three Republicans helped pass the plan on a 61-37 vote and they're already signaling they'll play hardball to preserve more than $108 billion in spending cuts made last week in Senate dealmaking. Obama wants to restore cuts in funds for school construction jobs and help for cash-starved states.

(Emphasis supplied.) I like that the story says Obama wants to restore the state aid and school construction money. He should also press for removal of the AMT fix from the stimulus bill and other unstimulative tax cuts. By doing so, he can actually significantly reduce the cost of the bill while increasing its stimulative power.

Speaking for me only

New levels of absurdity in the Michael Phelps bong case. WIS News reports:

We've now learned that since investigators began trying to build a case, they've made eight arrests: seven for drug possession and one for distribution. These are arrests that resulted as the sheriff's department served search warrants.

We've also learned that the department has located and confiscated that bong. Sources say the owner of the bong was trying to sell it on eBay for as much as $100,000. The owner, who wasn't even at the party, is one of the eight now charged.

[Hat tip to Tom at LEAP]

Everyone likes Mark Blumenthal. Even me. But I take strong exception to his accepting Andrew Sullivan's false characterizations of the critiques from some of us of President Obama on the stimulus package. Blumenthal quotes Sully as follows:

As Andrew Sullivan summarizes this morning . . . Paul Krugman, who wants a partisan war on the GOP . . .

Sullivan has years of attacks on Krugman (all of them completely wrong) under his belt. He is not to be trusted when he discusses Krugman. Not surprisingly, he misstates Krugman's argument. Krugman is engaged in a policy debate on the stimulus package. Something Sullivan can not do, as a self proclaimed conservative Obama supporter. He has a problem now - he is a "conservative" but he really can not argue policy here as conservatism is a bankrupt ideology -especially in this moment. So he turns it into a discussion of "partisan war," in the finest traditions of David Broder. Unfortunately, Blumenthal gets taken in by this game. More . . .

Geithner is going to announce his TARP II plan today. Reports are pretty bad so far.

This is an Open Thread.

David Sirota writes:

I, and many others who supported Obama, weren't misled by him. I had my eyes wide open - [b]ut I did think - and continue to think - he was far and away the best and most progressive person for the job, among the serious contenders out there.

Not to restart the primary wars- but the "most progressive?" Come now David. I also supported Obama, in famously tepid fashion. Because he was the one I thought could best move a progressive agenda and was the most electable. But on the issues, stop me if you have heard this - there was not a dime's worth of difference between them (going forward, in the past -- on the Iraq Debacle, Obama was right and Clinton was wrong) except on health care, where Clinton's position was deemed much more progressive than Obama's. David still has his hate on for the Clintons and still is living in a fantasyland on Obama's trade positions. Sorry David, Obama agrees with me and the Clintons on trade, not you.

Speaking for me only

Politico notes:

With the revelation last week that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is suffering from pancreatic cancer, the political stakes for Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the next solicitor general were raised dramatically. President Barack Obama has nominated Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School, to become the 46th solicitor general . . . While her confirmation is widely expected by both sides, Democrats and Republicans consider the fight over Kagan’s nomination to be a dry run for a future Supreme Court nomination battle.

It makes watching Kagan's confirmation hearing more interesting today.

If Ben Nelson really wanted to "trim the fat, fr[y] the bacon and milk[] the sacred cows," why didn't he remove the alternative Minimum Tax "fix" from the stimulus package? Let's be clear - the Senate stimulus bill costs MORE than the House bill and does much less to stimulate job creation. As a NYTimes editorial points out:

Nearly $70 billion of the Senate bill is spent on providing a one-year reprieve from the alternative minimum tax. It . . . is a measure that passes easily each year on its own. A fair deal would be to take A.M.T. relief out of the package — contingent on a promise from Mr. Obama to champion a separate relief bill as soon as possible.

The first Media person to ask why the non-stimulative AMT fix is in the stimulus package will win respect as a competent journalist. UPDATE - Even Fred Hiatt's WaPo agrees:

[S]ince AMT relief was probably already factored into household plans for this year anyway, it's hard to see how this belongs in an economic stimulus bill.

Speaking for me only

Unlike some of his sycophants, President Obama seems open to learning from his mistakes. In response to yet another question about "bipartisanship" in last night's press conference, this one from Mara Liasson, President Obama said in part:

Now, just in terms of the historic record here, the Republicans were brought in early and were consulted. And you'll remember that when we initially introduced our framework, they were pleasantly surprised and complimentary about the tax cuts that were presented in that framework. Those tax cuts are still in there. I mean, I suppose what I could have done is started off with no tax cuts, knowing that I was going to want some, and then let them take credit for all of them. And maybe that's the lesson I learned.

(Emphasis supplied.) Indeed Mr. President. It is good to see President Obama does not believe the press clippings from his sycophants and is willing to learn. Now that is change I can believe in from the previous 8 years. Also, Faiz Shakir at Think Progress had it last night.

Speaking for me only

I have been joking about how Obama defenders will tell us how his every move is President Obama playing 11 dimensional political chess that we can not possibly understand. Well, now "11 dimensional chess" hits the pages of the NYTimes Op Ed page, from Bob Herbert:

Mr. Obama is like a championship chess player, always several moves ahead of friend and foe alike.

All righty then. How did you like that Senate stimulus package Mr. Herbert?

I’d personally like to see a more robust stimulus package, with increased infrastructure spending and fewer tax cuts.

Sooooo, how did that 11 dimensional chess work out? Next assignment for Herbert - explaining how Obama's following President Bush's lead on the "state secrets" privilege is just 11 dimensional chess that we can not possibly understand.

Speaking for me only

Via Krugman, CAP explains in basic terms why the House stimulus bill is superior to the Senate stimulus bill:

The Senate compromise recovery and reinvestment legislation provides for 12 to 15 percent fewer jobs created or saved than the House-passed Recovery and Reinvestment Act despite costing slightly more. The House-passed legislation creates or saves between 430,000 and 538,000 more jobs than the Senate compromise.

The Senate bill costs more and does less. It is indefensible. The House bill needs to prevail in the coming House-Senate conference. See also the NYTimes editorial on the subject.

Speaking for me only