The Chief of Staff of a Democratic Senator writes to TPM:

[I]nstead of pressing our political advantage--which was also clearly the right policy choice [. . .] we flinched[.. . .] Voters could have had a last and important impression about who was on their side and who wasn't, but gracious to a fault, we didn't want to anger anyone, and the result was predictably awful.

Now it appears that we may well make the same mistake again[. . .] If that's what we do, it will make President Obama's many comments about fiscal responsibility an utter joke -- how can we talk about decimating Social Security, raising gas taxes (which hit low and middle-income folks disproportionately hard), raising fees for veterans' health care, messing with student loans, etc., when we're going to blow a $700 billion dollar hole in the budget because of our concern for folks who make $250k and over, who are doing more than fine? Or because those bad Republicans are just too mean? [MORE . . ]

In the mail this week: Steve Hendrick's "A Kidnapping in Milan: The CIA on Trial". It's detective vs. spy. From the inside cover:

A Kidnapping in Milan is at once a detective story, a history of the terrorist menace and an indictment of the belief that man's savagery against man can be stilled with more savagery yet.

The story focuses on the CIA's 2003 kidnapping of Muslim cleric, Abu Omar on the streets of Milan and his extraordinary rendition (via Ghost Air) to Egypt where he was tortured. Italian authorities, led by Magistrate Armando Spaturo, launched an investigation that exposed the embarrassing details of the covert CIA operation and indicted 26 CIA agents on charges of kidnapping. 23 were convicted and sentenced in abstentia.

Scott Horton at Harper's has an interesting interview with Hendricks about the book, which promises to be a great read.

In the bad old days of Clinton Triangulation, President Clinton signed the 1993 Omnibus Tax Reconciliation Act. Two provisions of that law:

(1) Raised the top marginal rate on the wealthy and corporations; and
(2) Lowered taxes for the working poor by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit.

As Brad DeLong notes, the Catfood Commission is proposing to "pay[] for reductions in the top income tax rate by cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit so that there are once again lots of families in America where a parent works full time and yet the kids are still in poverty[.]"

Evan Bayh Democrats like Kent Conrad love this proposal. Does President Obama?

Speaking for me only

I'll add my thanks to all who served. On Veterans' Day, I try to concentrate on those who served and are alive. Otherwise, there would be no difference between Veteran's Day and Memorial Day.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Bernie Sanders:

If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.

With the richest people in this country getting richer and the middle class in decline, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the Social Security system as someone who earns $106,800.

Kent Conrad won't like it though.

Speaking for me only

Senator Kent Conrad says:

I would agree with what the president said. Instead of shooting [the Catfood Commission proposal] down, propose an alternative — but one that does as good of a job as this one does at getting us back on a sound fiscal choice[.]

I can think of a few things but let's start with this one - NO TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! How does Kent Conrad feel about that? Oh wait:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)[. . .] said Wednesday that Congress should not allow taxes on the wealthy to rise until the economy is on a more sound footing.

STFU Kent Conrad.

Speaking for me only

In the dark days of "triangulation," President Clinton delivered his 1998 State of the Union Address:

If we maintain our resolve, we will produce balanced budgets as far as the eye can see. We must not go back to unwise spending or untargeted tax cuts that risk reopening the deficit. Last year, together, we enacted targeted tax cuts so that the typical middle class family will now have the lowest tax rates in 20 years.

My plan to balance the budget next year includes both new investments and new tax cuts targeted to the needs of working families: for education, for child care, for the environment. But whether the issue is tax cuts or spending, I ask all of you to meet this test: approve only those priorities that can actually be accomplished without adding a dime to the deficit.

Now, if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we will then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow. What should we do with this projected surplus? I have a simple, four-word answer: save Social Security first.

Tonight I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus, that is every penny of any surplus, until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century. Let us say, let us say to all Americans watching tonight, whether you are 70 or 50 or whether you just started paying into the system, Social Security will be there when you need it. Let us make this commitment: Social Security first.

(Emphasis supplied.) Next month, will President Obama be a Bill Clinton Democrat, intent on putting Social Security first? Or an Evan Bayh Democrat, cutting taxes for the rich and cutting Social Security. I'm not optimistic.

Speaking for me only

President Obama on his Catfood Commission:

"Before anybody starts shooting down proposals, I think we need to listen, we need to gather up all the facts[. . .] If people are, in fact, concerned about spending, debt, deficits and the future of our country, then they're going to need to be armed with the information about the kinds of choices that are going to be involved, and we can't just engage in political rhetoric.

President Obama's advisor David Axelrod on tax cuts for the rich:

Although the president "took the position he felt was the right position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week.

The GOP will insist on permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy and Obama will capitulate. This may be why:

This Human Rights Watch Ad urging President Obama to hold the 9/11 trials in New York is now playing in New York taxis.

Attorney General Eric Holder said today he's close to a decision on where to hold the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other detainees accused of participating in the 9/11 attack.

If you were a smoker, would this picture on your pack of cigarettes stop you from buying them? Or cause you to quit? That's what the FDA is hoping. Today, it unveiled 36 graphics depicting death and suffering that it proposes be carried on cigarettes, and is seeking public comment.

Comments are being accepted until January. The proposed FDA rule requires the graphics by June, 2011.

Another problem for the Catfood Commission - seniors vote.

Atrios writes:

The Democratic Party Self-Destruction Act

That's what Bowles and Simpson have submitted.

Conservative blogger Professor Bainbridge thinks Simpson and Bowles have submitted the Republican Party Self-Destruction Act:

Remember all those older tea party types who wanted the government to keep its hands off their Social Security and Medicare? Even setting aside opposition in the Senate and the White House, how does the House GOP cut old folk's entitlements without sending seniors running back to the Democrats for protection?

No sane political party will embrace the Catfood Commission. None ever would. It's DOA.

Speakng for me only

Krugman:

OK, let’s say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.

Most of us knew the Catfood Commission was a Clown Show. This makes it official.

Speaking for me only