When George Will is not wasting his WaPo column singing praises for the latest long-shot GOP candidate in the media spotlight, he can lyrically voice the truth of a matter like few other pundits. His latest column is a pitch perfect observation on how President Obama’s State of the Union address betrays a longing for an “unfettered executive” branch by his administration and among his supporters:

“Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not “consumed with personal ambition,” they “work together” and “focus on the mission at hand” and do not “obsess over their differences.” Americans should emulate troops “marching into battle,” who “rise or fall as one unit.

Well. The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer — this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society…

To enact and execute federal laws under Madison’s institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges…

Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.”

Will’s column is not without false notes.  He implies by omission that the desire for an unfettered executive branch is unique to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  Not so. The executive privilege, unitary executive definition and war power assertions of the Bush/Cheney Presidency is still fresh in my mind, even if forgotten or minimized by Mr. Will. The single greatest disappointment of the Obama Presidency has been his willingness to use the Bush/Cheney Unitary Executive definition as a jumping off point to further expand the power of the presidency.

This appetite for expanded executive authority is also clearly evident in all of the current batch of Republican Presidential hopefuls save Ron Paul.  None more so than “Big Government Conservative” Newt Gingrich,  who would also like to remove any judicial constraints on both the executive and legislative branch. I am not sure which is more frightening…

New Gingrich claiming authority to disregard or dismantle the judicial branch:

“I decided that if you had judges that were so radically anti-American that they thought ‘one nation under God’ was wrong, they shouldn’t be on the court.”

- or –

President Obama dismissing the joint session of congress in his SOTU address:  with “You won’t act, so I am.”  

Both sentiments represent a depressing prospect for all but closet monarchists.

Today, the Republican House of Representatives, divided government, and the Supreme Court are the only meaningful constraints on the Democratic executive branch. This election cycle the GOP is likely to maintain their majority in the House and take majority control of the Senate. Senate control will add one more fetter to a Democratic president but, if recent history is a guide, will put no additional limitation on the power of a Republican president. This should give pause to George Will and anyone else who purports to care about Madisonian democracy and the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.

There is a real risk that we will return to One Party Rule under the Republicans in 2013. If that still looks likely in the fall, I would hope that anyone as concerned about executive branch overreach as George Will would endorse the re-election of Barack Obama. At least this would prevent loosening the remaining tenuous legislative fetters still constraining the expanding executive branch beast.

While ever hopeful, I will not be holding my breath.

^{Cross-posted from “The Dividist Papers“}

Just over an hour…

Let me know what you think in the comments below!

More as it develops…

As promised in his last State of the Union speech…

From Politico:

Stepping firmly onto Republican turf, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that he will ask Congress for the power to merge agencies to streamline government and improve efficiency.

First up on his list: the elimination of the Commerce Department and the Small Business Administration, which will be merged with the Office of the U.S. Trade representative and other independent business agencies into a new, unnamed Cabinet agency to create a more efficient experience for businesses.

“The government we have is not the government we need. The last reorganization of the whole government was done by Herbert Hoover,” Jeff Zients, deputy director for management and chief performance officer at the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters. “Since then, agencies have been layered on top.”

But will Republicans get on board?

They seem to be signaling they might…

“Americans want a government that’s simpler, streamlined, and secure. So after presiding over one of the largest expansions of government in history, and a year after raising the issue in his last State of the the Union, it’s interesting to see the President finally acknowledge that Washington is out of control,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “And while we first learned of this proposal this morning in the press, we’ll be sure to give it a careful review once the White House provides us with the details of what it is he wants to do.”

Rep. Darrell Issa, another frequent critic of Obama’s, said he stands “ready to work with President Obama on proposals to reorganize federal agencies.” Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which oversees governmental reorganization, added: “While I have been disappointed that the White House has not embraced earlier bipartisan Congressional efforts seeking collaborative engagement on proposals to reorganize government, I hope this announcement represents the beginning of a sincere and dedicated effort to enact meaningful reforms.”

We shall see…

Maybe Newt isn’t quite out of it yet…

From WashPost:

Gingrich and Romney are each favored by 30 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Running behind them is Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), whose libertarian philosophy has attracted a strong following. He stands at 15 percent, about double his tally in an early November poll. All other active candidates are in the single digits.

But looks like Romney is gaining converts…

Romney has edged higher in the GOP contest, breaking out of the 20s for the first time since July. Gingrich has jumped greatly since early November, in part because of businessman Herman Cain’s decision to suspend his candidacy.

Here are all the numbers…

But the most surprising number in this poll? Obama’s approval rating…

The survey shows President Obama receiving his highest approval rating since March, with the exception of a brief rise after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Although most Americans continue to disapprove of the president’s performance on the economy, the number who disapprove of his overall performance has dipped below 50 percent for the first time this fall.

Sure, not exactly a ringing endorsement, but remember how unpopular Bush was leading up to his reelection bid? Seems like Republicans have a lack of enthusiasm and an opponent who may be on the upswing just in time.

More as it develops…

From the department of “The more things CHANGE…”

What does this sound like to you? – A high risk “bet the company” culture, huge leverage, “smarter than you” corporate arrogance, regulators asleep at the switch, a”rock star” CEO cozying up to the President of the United States, questionable accounting, bankruptcy, investigations, and criminal prosecutions.

Most of the mainstream media coverage of the MF Global failure has focused on the leverage and the highly speculative bad business bets made by CEO Jon Corzine. But with the SEC and FBI looking under the covers, Dan Primack of Fortune Magazine goes where the NYT fears to tread:

Video of CNBC interview with Primack linked HERE.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Dipping into MF Global client funds to backstop the firm’s heavily leveraged high risk bets on European debt is about as serious as it gets. We’re talking – Federal Felony / Criminal Fraud / Grand Theft / Go To Jail / Do Not Pass Go / Do Not Collect $200 / Throw Away The Key / – that kind of serious. If tapping segregated client funds at a broker dealer is not criminal fraud, then it at least rises to criminal negligence on the part of the CEO of that firm.

Then there is the special relationship with the President and the related special provisions of the “Investment Grade” debt offerings from MF Global only two months ago:

“The futures broker sold $325 million of five-year unsecured notes, the company said today in a statement. The notes will pay an extra percentage point of interest if Corzine is named to a federal post and confirmed by the Senate before July 2013, New York-based MF Global said yesterday in a regulatory filing.

“That seems crazy,” said William Larkin, a fixed-income portfolio manager who oversees $500 million at Cabot Money Management Inc. in Salem, Massachusetts, and has 22 years of experience. “I’ve never heard of something like this.”…

A Democrat, Corzine is among the biggest fundraisers for President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. He has been the subject of speculation about administration jobs such as Treasury secretary or White House economic adviser, said Christopher Allen, an analyst at Evercore Partners Inc. in New York…

Corzine’s employment contract is written with a view to future government service. It stipulates that he’ll be paid his $1.5 million retention bonus on a pro rata basis if he leaves to work for any “U.S. federal, state or local government” before March 31, 2014.”

I wonder if Corzine’s retention bonus and the bond interest kicker will be invoked if it turns out that Corzine’s federal employment is working in the laundry of a Federal Prison?

Meh – probably not worth worrying about that “Investment Grade” Bond Interest kicker. These bonds (which were sold in August and have yet to pay a coupon) were trading at 40 cents to the dollar on Monday. BTW – Thank you S&P for another great call. In the same time frame that S&P was downgrading US Debt early this summer, they rated this MF Global bond offering “Investment Grade”. U.S. Treasuries have increased in value since that rating. The MF Global bonds? Not so much.

UPDATE:
Jon Corzine resigned this morning and lawyered up.

The Bush Justice Department prosecuted and convicted Ken Lay. Let’s see what happens to Jon Corzine.

^{X-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.}

Don’t know what Tumblr is? Ask your kids.

For everybody else, follow Obama’s Tumblr here. They’re using it as a way to tell a collaborative story about the campaign. Anybody can submit stories/photos/etc and a few will get picked for publication.

So while you probably won’t get any hard hitting news on this channel, you’ll be able to get a lot of personal stories about life on the campaign trail. The other campaigns would do well to follow suit.

But…but…this goes against the Republican narrative!

American Jobs Act — Final

There really aren’t any controversial elements in here at all. Yes, Republicans are going to push back on any additional spending, but it’ll be hard for them to break this apart and only get the tax cuts through. So it’ll be up to them to go all or nothing. And that’s a risky move right now.

More as it develops…

From David Donar of Political Graffiti

Let’s see…we’re still in Afghanistan…we’re still in Iraq…we were never really in Libya…and yet that country has been liberated in near record time.

Lindsey Graham’s and John McCain’s opinion of the situation?

NOT FAST ENOUGH!!!

The end of the Qadaffi regime in Libya is a victory for the Libyan people and for the broader cause of freedom in the Middle East and throughout the world. This achievement was made possible first and foremost by the struggle and sacrifice of countless Libyans, whose courage and perseverance we applaud. We also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.

Yes, this thing stretched out a whole five months.

Seriously, what took them so long?

I’m off to pound my head against a wall…

Kabuki Theater – a traditional form of Japanese drama characterized by highly stylized poses and exaggerated gestures accompanied by familiar songs wrapped in a plot rooted in historical tragedy (or comedy). The audience knows the story and knows how it ends. The art is in the quality of the performance and not in the story itself. In the United States, this art form is more easily recognizable as “The Debt Ceiling Crisis.” A few weeks ago, I left a comment on the Outside The Beltway blog, describing the show we were about to witness:

“The only thing that provides political cover for a compromise for both sides is the the dire consequences of missing the deadline. So there will be a compromise. The compromise will include some formula for revenue increases, (probably in the form eliminating deductions while reducing rates), it will include cuts to the military, and it will include deep meaningful and substantial cuts in spending in the overall budget. And the compromise will be agreed on the brink of default to no one’s satisfaction. In the meantime, we have six weeks of Kabuki theater to enjoy while the eventual compromise is hammered out. Both tribes will have ample opportunity to point at the feckless hypocrisy of the other. Enjoy the show.”

I do not see any reason to change that prediction. We know the debt ceiling will be raised because all leadership on both sides of the aisle say it will be raised. There is no politician of consequence in Washington who is saying otherwise. We already know how this story ends. It is all about the performance that takes us to the final act.

This is not to say that the performance is unimportant. The performance will determine public opinion and the final shape of the compromise. Whether looking at the more recent temporary measures proposed by Reid, McConnell and Boehner, or the “Grand Bargain” that was being negotiated between Obama and Boehner – the fact is that the two sides are quite close, as Ezra Klein explains:

“Now, remember that the deal Obama offered Boehner about a week ago now, or maybe a little bit less than that was $1.2 trillion in tax increases for $4 trillion in deficit reduction total. Boehner walked from that. but Boehner did say he would be okay with an $800 billion tax increase if there were $4 trillion in debt reduction total. So in some strange way, the two aren’t as far apart as you would think, but they can’t bridge that final gap. so now Boehner’s arguing for no tax increases at all, but Obama is sort of held to that same deal and is trying to continue to offer it to Boehner.”

The “Grand Bargain” is still on the table. That became clear during the dueling press conference “arias” sung by the two principal actors Monday evening. Despite Harry Reid proposing a plan with no revenue increases earlier in the day, Obama ignored Reid’s plan in his speech and continued to make the case for his version of the “Grand Bargain” with revenue increases. Despite Boehner himself proposing a stopgap measure earlier in the day – he spent more time arguing the case for his version of how the “Grand Bargain” negotiation broke down. Conclusion – they are still negotiating the big deal in earnest.

Boehner is playing his supporting role exceedingly well in the shadow of Obama’s scene stealing dramatics, but the President has the edge, successfully portraying himself to the press and most of the public as the more reasonable party in the negotiation. Last week he attempted to press his advantage to push for full $1.2 trillion in revenue increases. That was when negotiations broke down. He pressed it again on Monday with a call for public support to apply pressure in the House. Boehner played his last best move, exiting stage right, proposing a stop-gap, knowing that Obama really wants the “Grand Bargain”. But Obama knows that Boehner wants it too. The plot thickens.

The simple fact is that $400 billion difference is not all that significant in the context of the complete $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. These last few moves are about how that last $400 billion will be split. So far – advantage Obama – but it’s not a big advantage. My prediction – Boehner will move off of his $800 billion “revenue enhancement” cap, but it will stay under $1 trillion. I can hardly wait to see how it turns out.

The problem – both now and throughout this process – is that the “blink contest” negotiation cannot be settled except on the brink of a looming disaster deadline. Neither side can satisfy their constituency with the inevitable compromise. Our representatives on both sides take considerable political risk if they compromise too early – i.e. before a doomsday deadline. We’ve seen this every time the sides get close. Liberals and Democrats are furious at Obama and Reid. Conservatives and Republicans are furious with Boehner and McConnell.

Since a compromise solution of this scope requires a hard deadline, the only remaining variable is whether we agree the deadline actually exists and when it takes place. This is part of what we heard last Friday, with both sides upping the rhetoric to make the case that the deadline was really this last Monday. Nobody bought it. So we are back to the August 2 deadline, except that may not be a real deadline either. Boehner’s stopgap plan moves the deadline ahead another six months. Nobody wants that. I expect we will get a compromise by Monday.

A suggestion – Instead of assuming that one side or the other are intransigent hypocrites, consider the possibility that both sides are arguing from principle (i.e. sincerely believing they are fighting for a position that their constituency holds dear). If you accept this framing, then it follows that both sides must maintain the posture that they are willing to walk right up to the brink of a debt ceiling default rather than compromise their principles. To do otherwise would undermine their negotiating position and be a betrayal of the people who elected them.

Monday night the President said – “The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.” A good line, but it misses the mark.

We have a divided government because we have a divided country. There is a significant faction of the electorate who would like to see our country more closely emulate a European style social welfare democracy. There is an equally significant faction of the electorate who would like to see our country move back to the more limited government concepts on which it was founded. To a large extent the Democratic and Republican politicians we elected to represent us are doing exactly that – representing our views – just the way we want them to. Our government is not dysfunctional, it is behaving exactly as it was designed to resolve conflicts between large and opposed factions in the populace.

Oddly, I am filled with optimism and almost euphoric watching this performance. It reinforces my conviction that there is no need to put any faith in the motivations of the politicians of either party. It is enough to know that we have a system that was designed to anticipate this kind of political conflict – in fact – to insist on it and institutionalize it. As James Madison said in Federalist #51 when arguing for our Constitutional division of power: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Out of the conflict inherent in a government run by men and not angels we get a better result than we would in the absence of the checks they put on each other. Madison again in Federalist #10:

“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State. In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.”

The time to worry is when the factions are not fighting each other to a standstill. That usually means the system is not working as it should and power is too concentrated. Or it means we are going to war.

My primary rationale for supporting divided government is that it leads to more fiscal responsibility and spending restraint. I am interested in the result, not the histrionics that are necessary to get there – no matter how entertaining. The kind of giant cuts envisioned by the “Grand Bargain” can only happen when we are teetering on the brink and can only happen with a divided government in place. Pay attention to the result – not the performance. At this point it appears that divided government is winning and is winning big. It’s a good thing.

Bravo, gentlemen. Play on.

^{X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall”}

I’m not trying to lay blame, but context about who has added more to this problem is important. Because Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling every single time it came up under Bush 2.0 and now they’re not so cooperative.

NY Times has more:

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

Yes, we have a new class of Repubs in the Congress, but that doesn’t mean that simple logic should be thrown out the window. After all, Warren Buffett suggests that the debt ceiling should be removed entirely.

Listen, default or downgrade isn’t an option. Somehow they’ll get this figured out. But as far as my opinion goes…I’m for the Gang of Six’s plan.

How about you?

Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) just may have come up with something to bridge the gap between Dmes and the Repubs on the debt ceiling negotiations.

It even has Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) coming back to the table…

“The plan has moved significantly, and it’s where we need to be — and it’s a start,” Coburn said. “This doesn’t solve our problems, but it creates the way forward where we can solve our problems.” [...]

Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens.

He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.

What’s more Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) says she’ll back it…

“Likely 60 [votes],” she said. “The House should like this plan because it has spending cuts and I believe it will spur the economy.”

Hutchison said she would vote for it and urged House Republicans to back it as well.

“It think that they have produced something that has mechanisms that are concrete, and that’s what I think the House is looking for, and [so are we],” she said.

So…is this now a Gang of Seven?

And we just now hear that Obama is in favor…

In an appearance in the White House briefing room, Obama urged congressional leaders to embrace the proposal, which contains both significant cuts and a revenue component. The plan is, he said, “broadly consistent with the approach that I’ve urged: what it says is we’ve got to be serious about reducing discretionary spending, both in domestic spending and defense, we’ve got to be serious about tackling health care spending, and entitlements in a serious way, and we’ve got to have some additional revenue.”

In all, Obama said, the group’s plan amounts to “an approach in which there is shared sacrifice and everybody is giving up something.”

If you want to take a look at the proposal, check out a pdf here.

In other news, Republicans are set to vote on “Cut, Cap and Balance,” which is little more than a symbolic gesture to their base. After that, I’m sure many will start to fall in line with the Gang’s recommends.

Or at least let’s hope…

This is one of those times that I don’t know if this is a brilliant political move or absolutely foolish.

Wash Post has details…

It works like this: The plan “would give the President the ability to request smaller increases in the debt ceiling — coupled with proposed spending cuts of at least $2.5 trillion over the next year. It would provide for up to three separate sets of votes on a resolution disapproving of the increase — one later this month, the second in the fall of 2011 and the third in the summer of 2012. The plan is modeled on the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which established expedited procedures by which Congress may disapprove agencies’ rules by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval.”

The first set of votes would avoid the current default danger and ask the president for a $700 billion increase in the debt ceiling; two subsequent requests would be for $900 billion increases.

On the one hand, Mitch McConnell’s move makes it seem like Republicans won’t take responsibility for the mess they helped cause. In short, passing the buck because they wouldn’t agree to closing tax loopholes and expiring tax cuts that were set to expire anyway.

On the other hand, it may appear as if just Obama is raising the debt ceiling, which isn’t a very popular thing to get behind right now.

The opinion on the right…”NO!!!! Don’t let the debt limit be raised!”

The opinion in the middle…”NO!!!! Don’t let the debt limit be raised! And why haven’t you agreed to cut spending?”

The opinion on the left…”NO!!!! Don’t give any concessions on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security!”

Here’s some more analysis from the Wash Post:

The proposal would in effect be a way out of the current standoff, which was forcing Republicans to choose between infuriating conservatives with a revenue hike or continuing to flirt with the consequences of default, which was viewed as completely unacceptable by business leaders.

At bottom, McConnell’s proposal is the latest GOP line on the debt ceiling — it’s Obama’s problem, not ours — taken to its logical and legislative conclusion.

It’s unclear what the House GOP’s lack of open support for the proposal means in practical terms. And there’s been no reaction yet from the White House.

As I think about it a bit more, I think Americans will think Republicans are kicking the can down the road once again, especially since many agree with the tax increases on wealthy Americans and closing the loopholes Obama has proposes.

Your thoughts?

JinBmore tells me what I don’t want to hear:

I have two words for you: “President Bachmann”. They laughed about Reagan the same way they do about her.

My immediate feeling is that independents and centrists will never vote for her and they will decide the 2012 election.

After some consideration it seems that less-informed, conservative-leaning Independents might vote for her based on her Establishment creds (she’s been a Congresswoman since 2006), and well-informed, moderate Republicans might just ignore the Tea Party business, bite the bullet and vote for her.

She’s the only candidate thus far with a legitimate foot in each camp.

Great. Now I’m scared for America again.

I hadn’t gotten around to watching this until just now. Maybe you’re in the same boat, so I’m sharing the whole thing. 30 minutes worth. Some nice before bed content.

And by the way, the idea that the conservative blogosphere is floating that Obama didn’t want the Seals to take the shot is decimated in this video. He was involved in a very substantial manner and that’s all there is to it.

Thoughts?

I wouldn’t want to be Donald Trump today. Ouch.

Obama’s part opened with the theme song “I Am A Real American,” and it just got worse for Trump from there. Trump jokes are at 9:45 in, but you’ll probably want to watch the whole thing.

And then SNL’s Seth Meyers weighed in. His Trump jokes are at 12 minutes in…and he shares the same feeling about Trump as I do…this is a joke, right?

What did you think?

The ironic thing about all of this is that Obama’s actual birth certificate isn’t even allowed for official use in Hawaii, but the Certificate of Live Birth, the document he has been using since the get go, is allowed.

The only reason Trump opens his mouth these days is to change shoes…

“Well I’ve been told very recently, Anderson, that the birth certificate is missing,” Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Monday. “I’ve been told that it’s not there or it doesn’t exist. And if that’s the case it’s a big problem.”

When asked from whom he received the information, Trump said he didn’t want to say and that he feels bad about the situation.

“I’d love for him to produce his birth certificate so that you can fight one-on-one,” Trump said in an interview set to air Monday. “If you look at what he’s doing to fuel prices, you can do a great fight one-on-one, you don’t need this issue.”

Huh?

CNN has the truth:

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, a former director of the Hawaii Department of Health and a Republican, told CNN in her most extensive comments to date that she has “no doubt” Obama was born in the state.

Obama’s 2008 campaign produced a certification of live birth, a document legally accepted as confirmation of a birth and routinely used for official purposes. Fukino went one step further, taking advantage of a state law that allows certain public officials to examine a person’s actual birth certificate if there is a “direct and tangible interest.”

The president’s certificate, she said, is stored in a vault in the building that houses the Department of Health. Ironically, unlike the certificate of live birth, it is no longer accepted for official usage.

Obama’s certificate is “absolutely authentic,” she said. “He was absolutely born here in the state of Hawaii.”

Seriously Donald…if Michele Bachmann is off the birther issue by now…don’t you think you should be too?

It was forceful, it was direct and it was very pointed in putting the lie to the Ryan’s budget cuts that don’t include any revenue plans.

And let me say this for the record…Ryan’s plans are cruel. He had a chance to lead on this, but he failed.

In any event, Obama said that EVERYTHING was on the table and he pulled no punches today. With good reason. The budget issue had gotten away from him and he was trying to reign it back in. He would reduce the deficit by $4T over the next 12 years, with 75% of that coming through spending cuts, and 25% coming from revenue generation.

So what is he cutting?

Discretionary, defense, and Medicare/Medicaid spending will be affected significantly over the next 10 years.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Check out the speech…

Your thoughts?

It’s pretty basic. Increase revenues and lower expenditures.

Here’s more from NY Times:

In his remarks, which come after Friday’s bipartisan deal to cut domestic spending by about $38 billion for the remainder of this budget year, Mr. Obama will not offer details but will set deficit-cutting goals, White House officials said. The numbers were still under discussion on Sunday.

“He’ll lay out his approach this week in terms of the scale of debt reduction he thinks the country needs so we can grow economically and win the future — a balanced approach,” David Plouffe, the senior White House political strategist, said on “Fox News Sunday,” one of four talk shows on which he appeared Sunday.

“Obviously, we need to look at all corners of government,” Mr. Plouffe said, adding, “We’re going to have a big debate.”

What are Republicans saying?

Republicans reacted skeptically to word of Mr. Obama’s speech. “I sit here and I listen to David Plouffe talk about, you know, their commitment to cut spending and knowing full well that for the last two months we’ve had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending,” Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said on Fox.

This even though Obama has said he wants to cut spending…but just doesn’t want to do that during one of the worst recessions in history. Oh well, par for course with the Repubs.

If something substantive comes out of this, will Obama get credit for tackling yet another tough issue? Probably not. Republicans have no reason to cooperate with him and ever reason to keep saying no to nearly everything this President proposes.

We shall see…

You have got be kidding me.

And yet…no.

No, Obama hasn’t shown anybody his birth certificate…

And how about this whopper…

Show me a picture. I’ve seen 14-year-old, I’ve seen 13-year-old. I haven’t seen early pictures.

Yeah, those don’t exist…

Nobody can find them…

Where are they?!?!?!?


He’s a fake!


Donald…you’re fired.