"Compromise."

They're announcing it now, live, on FoxNews (and I imagine a lot of other stations).

National Journal laid out the basics:

Budget negotiators were tantalizingly close Tuesday afternoon to reaching a two-year deal that would set annual spending levels around $1 trillion and replace some automatic spending cuts with non-tax revenue, according to aides and lawmakers familiar with the situation.
s set to hold a press conference.

...

Even as a deal appears certain, significant hurdles remain to final passage. Some conservatives have recently voiced opposition to swapping out sequester cuts for "user fees," while liberals have criticized any deal that does not extend unemployment insurance or protect federal employees from paying more into their pensions.

As I understand it, the actual cuts of the sequester will be replaced by "future cuts," also known as "not cuts at all," and a host of new or increased taxes which aren't called taxes because they don't want to call them taxes.

Drew discussed the deal yesterday, or at least the hints that had been public as of yesterday.

It became clear months ago when the House only passed appropriation bills that increased spending and not the ones that actually cut spending that the fix was in.

And don't buy the nonsense about fees (aka "taxes") or higher pension contributions offsetting some of the spending. First, like almost all stopgap gimmicks they are...gimmicks. Second, in the case of higher pension contributions, that should happen even with the sequester in place to reduce costs, not to offset new ones.

The biggest problem with the "off-set" flimflam is that even if it helps offset hiking the budget and the debt, it does nothing to shrink the size and scope of government. I've said it before and I still mean it, I'd rather a federal budget that takes up 17-18% of GDP and was out of balanced than a budget that consumes 24% and is balanced. Size and scope of government matter more than perfectly balancing the books.

More Details: At the Washington Post.

Yes, you'll be paying more in "non-tax revenue," or, I call it, Ryan Taxes.

Sequester's out, and Ryan Taxes are in:

Those savings would be replaced by roughly $63 billion in other policies, including fee increases for airline travelers, cuts to federal-worker and military pensions and higher payments for federal insurance of private pensions, according to people familiar with the talks.

Ryan and Murray were rushing to file legislation before midnight so the House could vote as soon as Thursday and leave town for the year by the weekend. The Senate, which is scheduled to leave town next week, would vote thereafter.

The agreement would set the budget for the Pentagon and other federal agencies at $1.012 trillion for fiscal 2014 and $1.015 trillion for fiscal 2015, preventing a new $20 billion hit to defense spending from taking effect in January.

Domestic agencies would get a bump up of equal size, according to people familiar with the deal. The $63 billion pricetag would be covered with a mix of policies, roughly half spending cuts and half new non-tax revenues.

Posted by: Ace at 02:18 PM | Comments (270)
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

Wow.

Mark Steyn is aghast.

First, she has no idea what “Benghazi” is.

Then, pleading in mitigation that sheÂ’s there to talk about the Middle East, she reveals that she has no idea where Benghazi is.

Finally, when her constituents helpfully point out that Benghazi is in Libya, she turns to the side and gives that pitiful look that is the single thing I most loathe about American politics – the look a floundering empty suit gives to her minder when she needs him to come and rescue her. Which the minder immediately does.

This isnÂ’t an especially partisan point, but IÂ’m so weary of post-modern ventriloquistÂ’s dummies who canÂ’t be allowed near their constituents without the protection of a phalanx of aides. In this video, the voters are well-informed, but they have a low-information Congresswoman.

Wonk Gap, yo.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:05 PM | Comments (340)
Post contains 179 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, I was actually about to just do my typical "What are these assholes doing?" sort of post but then I watched the trailer.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:47 PM | Comments (282)
Post contains 1001 words, total size 6 kb.

38%, with 57% (!!!) disapproving.

Among Independents, he's at... 30%.

Today, Obama gets negative scores of 6 - 92 percent among Republicans, 30 - 62 percent among independent voters, 31 - 64 percent among men, 44 - 49 percent among women and 29 - 65 among white voters. Approval is 76 - 18 percent among Democrats and 85 - 9 percent among black voters.

This, of course, has impacted the Generic Ballot:

American voters say 41 - 38 percent that they would vote for a Republican over a Democrat for the U.S. House of Representatives, the first time this year the Democrats come up on the short end of this generic ballot. Independent voters back Republican candidates 41 - 28 percent. Voters also say 47 - 42 percent that they would like to see Republicans gain control of the U.S. Senate and the House. Independent voters go Republican 50 - 35 percent for each.

On to the personal ratings:

President Obama is not honest and trustworthy, American voters say 52 - 44 percent and is not a strong leader, voters say 51 - 47 percent. Voters are divided 48 - 49 percent on whether Obama cares about their needs and problems.

As for the "good news" for Obama: the public disapproves of the job Republicans in Congress are doing by an even higher percentage, and the public feels, by a 2:1 ratio, that the minimum wage should be hiked.

You can tell they don't really care terribly much about these feelings based on their wish that Republicans recapture Congress. Yes, they're down on the GOP, and yes, they say the Nice Media-Approved Thing with regard to the minimum wage, but if this were driving their voting preferences it would, well, actually drive their voting preferences.

Thanks to @slublog, or, as I call him, The Hot Air Meatball.

Posted by: Ace at 12:48 PM | Comments (242)
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

Because the media does not report on Afghanistan anymore -- much less report the Grim Milestones daily -- I believe that most of the American public believes the War in Afghanistan ended years ago. They don't remember precisely when it ended, but most probably think it did end.

It didn't end. Media coverage ended. The war stopped being newsworthy when it ceased being a useful political catspaw by which the media could agitate against a Republican Administration.

So even though three quarters -- 74%! -- of all US servicemen's deaths occurred under the leadership (and I use the term advisedly) of Barack Obama, the public still thinks that Bush, rather than Obama, is responsible for the deaths of our best and bravest.

Using the APÂ’s Afghanistan casualties database, Breitbart News calculated that between January 20, 2009, and the end of last month 1,595 U.S. soldiers lost their lives in the Afghanistan conflict. The total number of military deaths so far is 2,153.

That means that about 74 percent of all U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan have taken place under ObamaÂ’s watch. During the eight years of the previous administration there were only 558 fatalities, or about 26 percent of the deaths that have taken place from October 7, 2001, the start of the war, to November 30, 2013.

...

The information in the AP database is gleaned from AP news reports and confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).

There is some good news:

This year is shaping up to have the lowest death tally of any during ObamaÂ’s presidency. The 110 fatalities reported so far in 2013 are similar in number to those reported in 2007. Then there were a total of 110 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan, followed by 151 in 2008. Those were the two highest casualty counts under President Bush.

So a good year for Obama, in terms of casualties, was a bad year for Bush.

And yet the media no longer asks what we're doing in Afghanistan, or what the plan is, or what all this cost in American life is supposedly buying us. When now is precisely when they should be asking.

Posted by: Ace at 11:56 AM | Comments (166)
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.

Indeed! Not only is it permitted, it is encouraged.

This is actually an old story, dating from at least July of 2012. But I guess it's getting some new attention this slow-news week.

I don't know what exactly @benk84 was trying to find when this sexy little tidbit showed up in his search returns, and I'm not sure I want to. Let's just say it was a happy little accident. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:20 AM | Comments (256)
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

A few days ago, Kevin Glass wrote a story about the alleged "Wonk Gap" at Meatball Central, aka The Federalist.

His basic observation is this: The Progressive Left likes to flatter itself as a Party of Experts, making rational, scientific decisions about policy without regard to politics or tribal loyalty.

As a hack at the Washington Monthly put it:

[T]he left has an equally lopsided advantage when it comes to a different type of pundit: wonks. The leftÂ’s wonk bench is both wide and deep. These folks are ideologically inclined, certainly, but are also dedicated to study, empirical analysis, and informed debate. They argue mostly through evidence-based reasoning, sometimes shot through with a bit of sarcasm or anger, but theyÂ’re uncomfortable with abject partisanship.

This is directly contrasted with the Unreasoning Right, a group which has precious few "wonks," low collective expertise, and, to fill in the significant gaps of their knowledge, examines every policy question through the prism of ideology.

Here's the problem: None of that is true. Because the Left's Wonks have an embarrassing tendency to completely ignore all of their previously stated Expert Opinion the moment a political actor, Barack Obama, tells them that the Left's political interests will be served by doing so.

What good is being a "wonk" if you're going to say "F*** You, Science" the moment the Democratic Party needs you to?

Ever since President Obama endorsed a federal minimum wage hike in his State of the Union speech, progressives have lined up in lockstep support. Economists, bloggers, tv hosts all have come out saying that a minimum wage hike is clearly the right move. YouÂ’d be forgiven if you thought that itÂ’s been a very short while since the very existence of a minimum wage was considered controversial.

In the late 1980s, the New York Times advocated for an abolition of the minimum wage. With 25 more years of research, much of it showing that the minimum wage is an inefficient distortion of labor markets, the New York Times reversed position and advocated for a minimum wage hike to historic highs.

...

Even the TimesÂ’ progressive-and-proud columnist Paul Krugman has earlier had wise things to say about the minimum wage. In 1998, Krugman wrote:

So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. This theoretical prediction has, however, been hard to confirm with actual data. Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda–for arguing that living wages “can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America” (as this book’s back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor–unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments–can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects. This will to believe is obvious in this book: The authors not only take the Card-Krueger results as gospel, but advance a number of other arguments that just do not hold up under examination.

...

This earlier version of Paul Krugman had the right idea, writing that what a large minimum wage hike “is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality.”

The New York TimesÂ’ view has changed. Paul KrugmanÂ’s view has changed. Jason Briggeman of George Mason University took a dive into why these elite progressives have changed their opinions on the minimum wage. None of the possible reasons speaks well to the elite progressivesÂ’ thinking.

Yes, the sudden reversal on the minimum wage by left-wing academics is so abrupt and startling that other academics are writing papers to try to explain the volte face.

...

The intertwining of the left-wing intelligentsia with the Democratic Party has compromised the ability of many of these writers to actually think critically....

The result of this bandwagon-circling around the inherent rightness of progressivism is a rejection of the traits that they’ve associated with “being a wonk.” [W]hen the leader of the Democratic Party takes a side on an issue that the wonks may feel conflicted about, they tend to fall in line. When the progressive wonkocracy is a key leg of the Democratic Party, though, they’ll discard dispassionate analysis for partisan hackery.

Scott Linciome also discovers other "experts" now claiming to be surprised by the perfectly obvious -- that insurance companies, whose products are now mandated to be purchased, should be set to reap record profits.

And Krugman, meanwhile, continues to discover that all of his previous expertise on matters economic has now been rendered moot by the new discoveries made in the field-- discoveries announced by non-economist Barack Obama in political speeches.

"Here's the world as many Republicans see it: Unemployment insurance, which generally pays eligible workers between 40 and 50 percent of their previous pay, reduces the incentive to search for a new job. As a result, the story goes, workers stay unemployed longer."--former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, New York Times, Dec. 9

"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of 'Eurosclerosis,' the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries."--"Macroeconomics" by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, second edition, 2009

I should confess that Krugman does not explicitly endorse the "wide belief" that unemployment benefits cause longer-term unemployment in that quote. Nevertheless, just as he admitted the "centrist" view on the minimum wage is that it reduces employment by a small amount, here he confesses the "wide belief" of economists that longer-term and more generous unemployment benefits lead to, well, a more generous and longer-term spell of unemployment.

That belief is texbook-- literally. Krugman wrote about it in a macroeconomics textbook.

And yet, when he is in his firebreathing partisan loyalist mode -- a mode he has scarcely departed from lately -- he will instruct you that only stupid Republicans and non-wonks could possibly believe these silly little nostrums, and that no self-respecting Wonk could possibly credit them as true.

Posted by: Ace at 10:22 AM | Comments (302)
Post contains 1220 words, total size 8 kb.

Fired from the restaurant where she served as a waitress and moonlighted as a Hate Crime Hoaxer.

At the New York Post:

Dayna Morales, 22, was finally canned from Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater — nearly a month after she made national headlines over what’s likely a hoax.

The restaurant announced her termination on Facebook Saturday shortly after it was revealed she was returning donations from supporters across the world.

Um... we'll see if that happens. Because the last thing she said would happen with the money, get this, didn't:

The purported incident created a media firestorm, with well-wishers sending Morales at least $3,000 in donations through a PayPal account. Morales claimed sheÂ’d send proceeds to the Wounded Warrior Project, but the group said it hasnÂ’t received anything.

Some donors say they have gotten their money back. Here's hoping they all do.

Posted by: Ace at 08:50 AM | Comments (437)
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

News from the GOP Senate primary front:

Congressman Steve Stockman announces he will take on John Cornyn in Texas.

The Senate Conservative Fund endorses Milton Wolfe against Pat Roberts in Kansas.

Let's look at each of these in turn.

Cornyn is the GOP's number 2 guy in the Senate. That means the top leadership of the Senate is being primaried by reasonable, if not likely, candidates. That's not good from a party perspective. Even if Cornyn and Mitch McConnell win in walks they will spend a lot of money doing it and the party will be subject to a lot of "civil war" stories. No matter the outcome of the races, the GOP is not a healthy party.

Stockman filed at almost the last minute and has almost no money (he's got $32K compared to Cornyn's $7 million). The Senate Conservative Fund hasn't made a decision yet but the Club For Growth has said they are staying out.

Stockman is giving up a safe House seat to take on what's clearly going to be a longshot race. What is hoping to tap into?

'Roots in TX wonders why, when the state has their Senators' backs, would a Senator communicate and act like a Senator from a mod state.

— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) December 10, 2013

There was a sense with KBH that she was representing DC's opinion to TX, not the other way around. Lots feel same way abt Cornyn.

— Melissa Clouthier (@MelissaTweets) December 10, 2013

Will it be enough?

People will point to the Cruz/Dewhurst race but there are some major differences.

That was a fight for an open seat, not with a long-term well connected DC incumbent. More importantly, there was a 3rd candidate who go ~13% of the vote keeping Dewhurst under 50% leading to the runoff which Cruz (like a lot of insurgents) won in a walk.

Stockman may not win but he's going to give Cornyn a headache.

The Roberts-Wolfe race is a total mystery to me.

According to Heritage Action's scorecard, Roberts is number 5 on their list of Senators with a 90% score (the same score as Stockman gets in the House).

What's the goal here?

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:52 AM | Comments (449)
Post contains 1092 words, total size 8 kb.

• Republicans Should Reject Paul Ryan's Budget-Busting Abomination
  
• How The ATF Manufactures Crime
  
• US Sells Of Last Of GM Stock For 10.5 Billion Dollar Loss
  
• Steve Stockman Will Challenge John Cornyn For Texas's Other Senate Seat
  
• Alan Grayson Lost 18 Million Dollars In Fraud Scheme
  
• John Podesta To Join Obama White House
  
• Obama Shakes Hands With Cuban Dictator
  
• Boehner Files To Run Again In 2014
  
• Tarano: What's The Matter With Alabama
  
• Obamacare Could Force Volunteer Fire Departments To Close
  
• MSNBC's Alternative Universe
  
• Obama Turns To Populism To Boost His Second Term Agenda
  
• 28 Santa Monica Police Officers Made More Than 200k Last Year
  
• The New York Times' Homeless Hooey
  
• One In Five In US Reached Affluence
  
• Megyn Kelly Appears On Jay Leno
  
• Dan Rather Still Won't Give Up His Fake Story
  

Follow me on twitter.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:33 AM | Comments (205)
Post contains 142 words, total size 3 kb.