A little early, but what the hell.

Peruse this argument I make about a primary challenge to President Obama (I'm agin), won't post it here because Jeralyn's not feeling that way I'm thinking.

Open Thread.

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

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the United States economy had a net gain of 117,000 jobs, and upwardly revised job reports for May and June. The headline unemployment rate dropped by a tenth to 9.1%. The New York Times front page headline states that US Posts Solid Job Gains Amid Fear. It's story has the more accurate headline US Posts Stronger Job Gains Amid Fear.

Today the talk will be how things are not as bad they seemed. This is the Era of Diminished Expectations. While certainly a +117k jobs number in July is better than the May and June numbers, it is simply not good enough. Indeed, it is a sign, in my estimation of continued economic weakness. But because our expectations have been diminished, a number that would have been worrisome in May, now is cause for relief. This is bad for policy. It leads to government doing nothing about the jobs situation. It is bad politically for the President because people do not vote today on his reelection, or even this November. The President will come out today at 11 and tout this number. Sure, he'll say we have to do better, but he will say we are on the right track. We aren't. More. . .

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

The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 350 points this morning and 830 points in the past two weeks. Stocks are tumbling. The S&P Index is also down. More here. What's the cause? The LA Times says:

The debt ceiling debate, economic reports and Europe's government-debt crisis contribute to Wall Street losses.

Nice going, Congress and President Obama.

President Obama is turning 50. He celebrated in Chicago with friends, at parties that doubled as fundraisers for his re-election.

As to his first term, he told the crowd:

The thing that we all have to remember is, is that as much good as we’ve done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet. When I said, “change we can believe in,” I didn’t say “change we can believe in tomorrow."

Shorter version: His first term was such a dud, we should give him a do-over.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is meeting the next several days in Denver, and events kick off this evening.

For those of you online, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

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:

Nonsense:

The agreement removes the threat of default and lowers the prospect of using the debt limit as an instrument of coercion. [. . .]

Beneath all the bluster, the prospects for compromise on broader and deeper reforms are better than they have been in years. [. . .]

The government’s ability to make smart, long-term budget choices has long been broken. This gives us a chance to fix it. [. . .]

[B]y locking in long-term savings, Congress will have more room in the fall to pass additional short-term measures to strengthen the economy — such as extending the payroll tax cut, which provides an average of a thousand dollars to the after-tax incomes of working Americans; extending unemployment benefits; and financing infrastructure investments.

Fool? Knave? Both?

Speaking for me only

The ink isn't even dry yet on the horrid compromise budget bill which was supposed to shield Medicare beneficiaries, but already there's renewed talk of raising the eligibility age for Medicare, which now likely will happen since Obama has already said it's okay with him. It will probably be one of the first things the gang of 12 congressional henchman will agree on.

The Wall St. Journal today: [More...]