Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing great -- greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our great natural resources. - FDR's First Inaugural Address

Open Thread.

Via Digby, how Republicans propose "concessions" and how Dems and the Media react:

[CNN's Jessica] Yellin: Senator Chamblis do you believe that Senate Republicans will agree to a package that includes any sort of tax changes?

Chambliss: Well, the fact of the matter is that you can't solve this debt problem just with reductions in discretionary spending. [. . .] You've got to look at the revenue side also. What we are looking at proposing is actually a reduction in corporate rates and personal individual income tax rates [. . .] Every time we've done that in years past whether it was under President Reagan or president Bush we have seen revenues increase.

Yellin: Senator Warner, that's a big concession by Republicans. [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) Digby reports that Warner basically agreed with Chambliss. So the big GOP concession on taxes is that they will cut them for the rich and for corporations. Classic.

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein:

Obama will throw his support behind the bipartisan effort in the Senate to turn the Simpson-Bowles plan into legislation.

I'm shocked!

Speaking for me only

Yesterday, Jed Lewison wrote a post titled White House calling Republican bluff on debt ceiling. It seemed an premature interpretation of events to me, as I commented. Today, via Ezra Klein, it seems that Lewison's rosiness was misplaced, as the WSJ reports that President Open to Deal on Debt Cap:

Softening the administration's earlier insistence that Congress raise the so-called debt ceiling without conditions, officials now say they won't rule out linking an increase of the borrowing cap with cuts aimed at reducing the deficit—even though they'd prefer to keep the issues separate.

Again, I think this is bad bargaining. Of course, in the end, a deal will likely be made. But folding before there is even an offer on the table is simply bad bargaining. Instead, the White House should have been working on unveiling a contingency plan against GOP intransigence on the debt ceiling.

Speaking for me only

The latest on Trump from Mediate. As Mediate writes, the Fox and Friends' segue from Trump's attacks on President Obama to Gary Busey's activities on Celebrity Apprentice was classic.

Previously, there was a Trump/Gail Collins dispute, after Collins delivered a Gail Collins' Daily News era style skewering of the "thousandaire."

Vanity Fair, where Graydon Carter (who created the great Spy magazine, coiners of the Short Fingered Vulgarian moniker) runs the show, also get in the act.

Open Thread.

Back when there were discussion about what the Democratic Congress could do to require President Bush to end combat operations in Iraq, one of the main arguments I made was that the Democrats needed to announce a date certain when they would no longer fund combat operations in Iraq. (It goes without saying that no one listened to me. They never do.) So I am intrigued by Matt Yglesias' strategy proposal for the coming debt ceiling "hostage situation:"

It’s a two pronged strategy. The first one is a credible, repeated commitment not to surrender anything in exchange for getting congress to agree to the debt ceiling being increased. After all, why should anything be given up. [. . .] The second prong, important for credibility, is to move to thinking about what happens as we reach the ceiling.

This isn’t a sudden “shutdown.” Nor is is true that we have to default on obligations to our bondholders. Rather, it means that government outlays are now limited by the quantity of inbound tax revenue. But for a while, the people administering the federal government [. . .] will be able to selectively stiff people. So the right strategy is to start stiffing people Republicans care about. When bills to defense contractors come due, don’t pay them. Explain they’ll get 100 percent of what they’re owed when the debt ceiling is raised. [. . .]

I like this strategy. Chances of it being adopted? Precisely zero. The confidence fairy must be fed after all.

Speaking for me only

The Attorney General of Missouri has filed an amicus brief (PDF) in the case before the Eleventh Circuit, State of Florida, et al. v. Department of Health andHuman Services, et al.. While it repeats the litany of arguments seen previously (and ignores the import of the Necessary and Proper Clause I discussed in this post), it places a great deal of emphasis on the supposed invasion of federal power on state police power:

Can the United States Congress employ an enhanced Commerce Clause authority to mandate expectant mothers undergo amniocentesis testing in order to identify and treat individuals, yet unborn, whose extraordinary medical expenses may someday be cost-shifted onto the society-at-large? To each of these questions, the state of Missouri answers “No.” Such federal authority would require a generalized police power or a separately enumerated power, but is not cognizable under the Commerce Clause.

I agree that the Constitution does not permit the Congress to enact such a law, but for reasons different than those articulated by the Attorney General of Missouri. Indeed, I believe the Attorney General's argument begs the question - does he believe a State could enact such a law? I believe neither a State nor the federal government could do so. The reason is that the constitutional right to privacy and liberty preclude such governmental action, absent a compelling state interest, whether the attempt is by a state government or a federal government. The question I have for the Missouri Attorney General is this - does he believe the State of Missouri has the power to effect such a law? More on the flip.

Open Thread.

Bob Dylan finally got to Vietnam this weekend, where he performed in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon.)

The set list was vetted by the Government but none were rejected. Dylan also played in Shanghai and Beijing.

I'm putting aside the budget fight today to finish my outline on "The New War on Pain Meds and Criminalization of Doctors and Patients" for the upcoming NORML Aspen Legal Conference (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, June 2-4. )

The full agenda is here. If you'd like to attend, you can register here. This annual seminar is very popular, and unlike NORML's annual legal seminar in Key West, it is open to non-lawyers at a reduced rate.

As in past years, there will be a dinner banquet/benefit at Gerry and Chris Goldstein's home, prepared by Cache Cache chef Chris Lanter and his staff, and on Saturday afternoon, we'll be having an afternoon cookout at Hunter Thompson's Owl Farm, courtesy of Anita, with live music, great food and lots of comraderie.

Here's a video I made of the Aspen 2006 event.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.