While the official did not describe in detail how the new spending would be paid for, it will certainly include proposals to eliminate tax breaks that benefit the wealthy, as well as changes to mandatory programs, such as Medicare.

The blue-slip process is managed at the discretion of the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is currently run by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy. Essentially, nominees are only put forth if Senators from a given state return a blue slip indicating their approval. Different chairs have put different levels of emphasis on the process, but Leahy has been fairly strict about respecting the prerogatives of his Republican colleagues-and he told msnbc in November that won't change unless he believes Senate Republicans are abusing it.

Yet if Republicans aren't abusing the process, the White House's clash with the Georgia delegation's Democrats shows they're certainly using it to their advantage. According to The Daily Report, Obama struck a deal months ago with Georgia's two Republican Senators to put forth a group of judicial nominees to the federal bench in that state.  In September, five Democratic congressmen from Georgia-Reps. Lewis, David Scott, Hank Johnson, John Barrow, and Sanford Bishop - wrote a letter to the White House expressing alarm over the nominees.  

Oh, wait - that's right - Obama made a deal: he'd nominate someone after getting the approval of the state's Senators to guarantee that nominee a committee vote via the "blue slip" process.

For those not familiar with the blue slip process, which was started by Patrick Leahy:

Here's the process. When a nomination or potential nomination is brought forward, the senators from that state are given a blue slip of paper. Leahy's practice is not to put forth a nominee for a committee vote unless both of those senators return their blue slips, indicating their approval of allowing the nomination to go forward. Republicans have taken advantage of Leahy's deference to slow down judicial nominations-in some cases, even for names they have approved in advance.

[snip]

...Leahy won't put a nomination forward without both blue slips. Leahy says he will keep the current blue slip practice in place, but that he won't hesitate to change it if it's abused.

"I assume no one will abuse the blue slip process like some have abused the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees on the floor of the Senate," Leahy said in a statement to msnbc. "As long as the blue slip process is not being abused by home state senators, then I will see no reason to change that tradition."

Gotta love these deals that keep being made, dontcha?  Especially this one, since there's been exactly one nominee approved by the Senate since the nuclear option was eliminated.  One.  Of course, this is probably supposed to be seen as a thing of wonder, considering how little "work" gets done in the Senate.

Democrats keep being told they have to give up certain things, face certain realities, accept unpalatable compromises - but the one thing, the one thing we were told over and over and over: "it's the courts!"  From the Supreme Court right the way down to the lowest level federal court, electing a Democrat was supposed to mean filling vacancies with left-leaning judges.

Further, the population of the eastern half of Ukraine is predominantly ethnic Russian, and they speak the Russian language, not Ukrainian. By and large, they support President Yanukovich's efforts to steer the country away from western Europe and back toward the Russian orbit.

It's the ethnic Ukrainians residing in Kiev and the western part of the country (who constitute about 60% of the country's population) who first led the break from Russia in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's political demise. And they brought down Yanukovich once before, by taking to the streets ten years ago in the aftermath of a corrupted presidential election which many suspected Putin of engineering.

Putin is Yanukovich's trump card in this political conflict. I don't think Putin can or will tolerate seeing his friend and ally being ousted for a second time, and I believe that he will intervene militarily, should it come to that.

Further, that there is actually very little that the United States or the European Union can do to stop him should he choose to do so, other than to break off diplomatic relations and impose economic sanctions upon Russia itself. We are in no position militarily to forestall such a move.

Walmart is considering backing hiking the minimum wage. Seems that poverty is getting so bad people can't afford to buy even their cheap crap.

On Wednesday, Bloomberg's Renee Dudley reported that Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, is "looking at supporting an increase in the federal minimum wage, breaking with business and industry groups that oppose such a measure." (That same day, Gap Inc., made a surprise announcement that it's raising the minimum wage it pays its employees to $10 per hour by 2015.)

Wal-Mart is weighing the impact of additional payroll costs against possibly attracting more consumer dollars at its stores, David Tovar, a company spokesman, said today in a telephone interview. Increasing the minimum wage means that some of the 140 million people who shop at the chain weekly would "now have additional income," Tovar said.

...
...The reality is that the company doesn't only employ low-wage workers, it also relies on them for a decent chunk of its customer base. And with 95 percent of the income gains in the first four years of the recovery going to the top one percent of households, many of those customers are tapped out.
...
Adding to the company's problems is Washington's shortsighted policymaking. Wal-Mart offered investors a gloomy forecast today, and as Reuters noted, "it blamed sharp cuts in food stamp benefits and higher payroll taxes that will hit disposable income for its core customers." Wal-Mart gets over half of its sales from its grocery business. C&L

Basic economics

The question is do you want to improve the lives of some (higher wages) at the cost of others (fewer jobs and higher cost).

I'm in favor of increasing growth which ultimately leads to the creation of wealth and economic expansion.   You can not legislate your way to less economic inequality.   The only way to reduce that is for the economy to grow faster then 1 or 2%.

Right now the monetary policy of this administration and the regulations and restrictions it is putting on business is leading to the increase in inequality.   The elite are making money thanks to the expansion of money while the rest of us are seeing no increase in wealth or a decline.  

To counter this obvious problem the administration is giving political solutions instead of actual ones.   Unfortunately too many are willing to engage in this meaningless debate that will solve nothing.  

I actually think we should just peg the amount to inflation since my side lost ideological battle decades ago and the republicans would be smart to make this argument to count the administration.

I've got some free time on my hands lately (for personal reasons) and I enjoy the banter with you guys.