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

Chris Brown, who "finished 2008 as the fourth-best-selling artist in the digital realm," and his girlfriend Rihanna, whose song "Disturbia" was the "sixth best-selling digital track of the year," canceled their performances at yesterday's Grammy awards. Brown's absence can be explained by his rather more pressing appointment with LAPD where, accompanied by his attorney, Mark Geragos, he surrendered for booking before posting $50,000 bail.

Brown is suspected of threatening and battering Rhianna. According to this story, Rhianna suffered visible injuries.

That is the damning reply delivered by an Obama Justice Department official today in the oral argument in the Jeppesen extraordinary renditions flights case. The NYTimes reports this exchange:

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied. “The change in administration has no bearing?” she asked.

“No, your honor,” he said once more.

The Obama Administration, trying to deflect the stain of this exchange, stated that:

Ann Althouse on the Obama press conference:

8:00: He ends exactly on the button. We hear a stomp as he steps off the podium, and his walk back into the White House is noticeably different from Bush's. How can I describe the different feeling I get from that walk? You can object to this if you want. It's just my feeling. I think Bush would walk away in a ritual fashion that said: I am the President and I have accomplished what the President must do. Obama's walk said: I'm a man who has this job and now I've done it and I'm out of here.

I read this over a few times and my interpretation is that Althouse thinks Bush was more "Presidential" than Obama. [UPDATE - It turns out Teresa was right and I was wrong on what Althouse meant. My apologies to Ms. Althouse.] A pretty remarkable reaction in my opinion. I thought, whatever else we might disagree on, we could all agree that President Bush was as awful a President as we have ever seen perform at press conferences. I guess not all of us then.

Speaking for me only

Three federal judges, after hearing evidence of California's ongoing failure to provide adequate health care (including mental health care) to state inmates, told the State it had lost the lawsuit and had better settle quickly if it didn't want to face an order requiring it to release as many as 58,000 prisoners over the next two to three years.

Everyone (except maybe the correctional officers' union) agrees that overcrowding is the problem.

Because prisons are jammed beyond capacity, they lack medical facilities, doctors and nurses, can't make sure inmates are taking medications or receiving treatment, and are triple-bunking inmates in gyms and other locations, the panel said. Such overcrowding increases the risk of spreading diseases among prisoners and staff, the judges said.

[more ...]

Here's how forfeiture works in Texas: The cops take your money and property. They make you sign a form that if you relinquish the property, they won't file criminal charges against you.

As one lawmaker says:

“The idea that people lose their property but are never charged and never get it back, that’s theft as far as I’m concerned,” he said.

One mayor, in an attempt to justify the policy, says the cities need the money -- they may get an extra police car out of it.

The Obama press conference is on. You'd have to be on Mars not to be seeing it online or on tv, so I'm not going to live blog.

Speech part is over. (Text here.) Shorter version: This is the worst economy since the Depression. If we don't act now, we'll be in dire straits.

In answer to first question, he backtracked of an earlier statement today implying we'll never get out of it if we don't act now. He says he meant it will be difficult to get back on track. Shorter version: He avoids Doomsday scenario.

He seems very presidential and in control. Good for him and us.

Here's a thread for reactions.

Via Grits for Breakfast:

You're a lot more likely to wind up in a federal prison if you're arrested on a drug charge, according to the US Sentencing Commission, than you are for engaging in larceny, fraud, or white collar crime. According to a new report by the USSC titled "Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System" (pdf), a whopping 92% of drug convictions resulted in a prison sentence, compared to 39% of convictions for larceny, 60% of convictions for fraud, and just 57% of convictions for white collar crime.

There should be more alternative sentences for everyone, whether convicted of theft or drugs, since by themselves, both are non-violent crimes. (If violence is involved, jail is always available as an option.) The point is, as Law Prof Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy notes, there's hope in the Sentencing Commission's final paragraph:

Yankees star Alex Rodriguez admitted to ESPN today he used steroids from 2001 to 2003 while playing for the Texas Rangers.

The news tonight reports this is very sad and will adversely impact his career forever. It's not deterring the University of Miami from naming a baseball complex after him: [More...]