"You gets no bread with your one meatball."

This song has been around at least since the depression. Bing Crosby, the Andrews Sisters and Josh White sang it during WWII. I really like the versions by Baby Jane Dexter and Ann Rabson, but I couldn't find videos of them. Here's the lyrics: [More...]

While there are conflicting reports about the outlines of the debt ceiling deal being negotiated, I thought the most important factor was not reported on - who is expected to vote for this deal. Is House Speaker John Boehner cutting a deal counting on heavy Dem support and limited GOP support? Or is he applying a "majority of the majority" rule? I assume thew Senate is peeling off enough GOP votes for cloture but it will be an all Dem voting affair for passage.

If this is a "majority of the majority" deal, then expect the worst. If not, expect a little better. But it is all terrible.

Sen. Harry Reid has decided there's no more jams to kick out tonight for the Senate. The 1:00 am vote has been postponed until 1:00 pm Sunday to give everyone more time to make bad decisions.

Negotiators told National Journal that progress was made on the toughest remaining issue -- a so-called trigger to ensure that spending cuts of up to $2.4 trillion would, in fact, be instituted by a special committee the debt-ceiling bills in Congress would establish.

Here are the details on the 12 member Joint Commission proposal (Section 301 of H.R.2693.) The Commission must finish its report with spending cut recommendations by Nov. 23. They will be voted on by Dec. 23. No amendments will be allowed. Also, no motions to postpone or move on to other business, no motions for points of order.

Translation: Reid to Republicans:[More...]

President Obama joined the negotiations this afternoon. Now we can get ready for the deal we all knew was coming. Prediction: The gang of 12 that presides over the second round of cuts which will include cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and probably raising the Medicare eligibility age, will be filibuster-proof and for all intents and purposes, veto-proof given the Republican-dominated House.

In other words, the Democrats are about to sell us out, as we've known for the last two weeks they would.

I could care less about the debt ceiling. I care about the cuts coming less than a year from now that no one will be able to stop. Obama is opening the candy store and letting Republicans eat all they want.

Jed Lewison links to Ezra Klein describing the latest in a pattern of miscalculations by the Obama Administration in its negotiations with the Republicans. Ezra writes:

The White House proposed a balanced trigger in April: It would have automatically [increase] taxes and [cut] spending if America wasn’t on a path to balanced budgets by 2014. [. . . ] But privately, they’re less concerned about a spending-only trigger, which was seriously considered during their negotiations with Boehner. They point out that Republicans might want to cut spending, but they don’t want the blame for automatic, untargeted spending cuts that slash away at Social Security, Medicare and defense during an election year.

This is a monumental miscalculation. I'll explain why on the flip.

Baseball giant Roger Clemens has filed his motion with the Court asking for the charges against him to be dismissed permanently, and to prevent the Government, on double jeopardy grounds, from re-trying him after his mistrial a few weeks ago.

Clemens' lawyers argue the case fits squarely within the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Kennedy, which holds a retrial is banned if the Government deliberately provoked the mistrial because it thought it wasn't doing well and wanted a do-over. They write:

[T]he best evidence of the Government’s intent was provided in real time on July 14, 2011. In the heat of the moment when the misconduct was raised in court, the Government did not suggest, much less offer any evidence to support a suggestion, that the prosecutor’s misconduct was unintentional. Nor did the Government rebut the reasonable inference that the misconduct was intended to provoke a mistrial. Instead, the explanation that the Government provided—that the Government’s conduct was somehow excused because the defense did not immediately object—is entirely consistent with a finding that the prosecutors intended to “goad” the defense into asking the Court to start the trial over from scratch.

[More...]

Boehner's bill is already dead in the Senate.

What else is going on in the world besides the economic picture? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

The Boehner Bill has passed the House. 22 Republicans voted no. No Democrats voted for it.

Now it's on to the Senate where deal-making has begun.

The stock market is falling quick. I wonder if Republicans and particularly the Tea Partiers in Congress have checked their brokerage accounts today to see what their radical obstruction moves have cost them personally.

Even with my limited grasp of economics, I'm surprised more people aren't focusing on the danger of the second round of cuts, which seem to be a given. They will be made by a congressional commission, and not only don't we don't know the specific details of what they will include, they may be filibuster-proof and for all practical purposes, veto-proof.

By all accounts that I've read, the second round of cuts will include Medicare and Social Security. The writing is on the wall that in addition to losing Medicare for two years when the age is raised to 67 (since Obama doesn't object to that), there will be cuts to social security benefits. And now we can add losses in retirement savings caused by the stock market tanking. [More...]

Digby discusses the new Pew Poll findings on what Americans believe will help grow the economy:

I realize that the president has been more nuanced than the Republicans on the benefits of the massive spending cuts and contractionary nature of this whole debate. [. . .] But it is still the case that most Americans have come to believe that fixing the deficit will lead to jobs.

There's not much the President can do now to revive the economy. The GOP House will block any worthwhile initiative. But avoiding doing harm would be nice. Of course the President must do what's necessary to raise the debt ceiling but he should try to fashion a deal that does the least harm to the economy. Cutting the deficit now will be very harmful. Despite what Americans might think. And in November 2012, no one is going to be thinking about whether they were right or wrong about deficit reduction spurring economic growth. They'll look at the results and blame the guy in charge. Unless the guy in charge can blame someone else. Unlike the Obama team, and as the Pew poll demonstrates, "Independents" will not be won over by "reasonableness." Good policy is good politics. And not horrible policy is better than horrible policy politically. Yes, it remains "the economy, stupid."

Speaking for me only

Suppose that GOP House leadership won't allow a vote on a debt ceiling plan that can pass the Senate (imagine something like the Reid Plan with two votes.) I can imagine a bill that will lose all but say 25 House Republicans and getting all the House Dems passing in the House and the Senate. But what if House GOP leadership doesn't allow a vote on such a measure? How does that play politically? I'd like to think disastrously for Republicans, but I'm not sure.

The reason for my hesitation is that the GOP is making a flashing sign out of this cockamamie Balanced Budget Amendment. Let's be clear, there is zero chance of passage of such an amendment. It requires 2/3 votes in both houses of Congress. That's 290 in the House and 67 in the Senate. Not gonna happen. But no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Beltway Media. They might treat this as "reasonable" and then, given such signalling, the electorate might think 'what's wrong with that idea?' After all, didn't President Obama say the government is like a household and has to balance its budget? What's wrong with a balanced budget amendment then? In the short term, I could see the GOP not losing that debate. Of course in the long run, nobody is going to care, except with regard to the consequences in the economy. Thoughts?

Speaking for me only

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but this from Kevin Drum annoyed me:

If Obama had negotiated with nerves of steel, would he have gotten better deals throughout his presidency? I don't think so. Unlike labor bosses and Soviet bosses, who could be pressured because there were things they wanted that a president could provide, Republicans — and especially tea party Republicans — can't be. If Obama had been tough as nails, they would followed a path of total obstruction and nihilism anyway. Maybe some details here and there would have changed, but on the whole it just wouldn't have made any difference.

(Emphasis supplied.) In December, the President had his biggest bargaining chip - the Bush tax cuts. To pretend he did not is either wilful blindness or ignorance. Now you can argue for The Deal the President made, but don't pretend it was not a moment of maximum bargaining leverage. The debt ceiling increase is a moment of maximum bargaining leverage for Republicans. They are wringing out as much as they can from it (that the Tea Party is genuinely insane does not change that fact.) See my posts The Debt Ceiling Battle Was Lost Last December and Seeking Maximum Leverage In Political Bargaining. See also the Madman Theory of Political Bargaining.

Speaking for me only