More problems for News International, this time for the media Goliath’s flagship newspaper The Sun, whose deputy editor has today been charged with two counts of making payments to public officials in return for information. Geoff Webster allegedly made payments to two people, totaling the equivalent of $12,000, after information was passed on to journalists working for The Sun in 2010 and 2011. One of recipients is thought to be an employee with the Ministry of Defence.

Although the charges aren’t related to the phone hacking investigation involving News International’s now defunct News Of The World title and, most recently, the Sunday Mirror, Operation Elveden is closely linked with hacking investigation Operation Weeting. So far 60 people have been arrested by police working on Elveden, whereas Weeting has accounted for 23 arrests.

The post The Scandals Continue for British Newspapers appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

This has all come about following the Leveson Inquiry, set up to look into press ethics in the wake of phone hacking by News Of The World journalists. Phone hacking is illegal. Deal with the phone hackers like you would any other criminals. That’s what the laws are there for. If you enforce laws properly then the issue will no doubt be dealt with. People will get the message.

But instead we have politicians, and many others besides, deciding the best way to make the country ‘safer’ is to regulate the press. It’s troubling to say the least. The Times newspaper perhaps put it best by stating “the role of a free press is to hold government accountable. It should not work the other way round”.

Some will say the media only has itself to blame on this one. That they go too far at times and are now getting what they deserve. It’s an understandable reaction, if not slightly knee-jerk in the wake of the hacking scandal. But it should be pointed out that the law worked (eventually), people were brought to account (eventually), and the industry hasn’t just been able to get away with it by issuing an insincere apology. If things fall right for the politicians on this, just imagine what they’ll be able to get away with.

The post You are Free to do as We Tell You appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

This time the publication in hot water is the Sunday Mirror, one of two Sunday titles run by News International’s main tabloid rival the Trinity Mirror Group. The more popular of Trinity’s Sunday editions, The People, is also affected, as editor James Scott was one of four ex-Sunday Mirror journalists arrested this morning. The People’s deputy editor Nick Buckley, and former editor Mark Thomas, were also led away by police in the early hours, as was the heavily pregnant former Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver.

The arrests, on suspicion of conspiracy to intercept voicemail messages, are linked to alleged incidents that happened in 2003 and 2004. The investigation is being conducted by officers from Operation Weeting, who have been looking into phone hacking by media outlets in the UK for the last two years. It is not yet known whether this new spate of arrests will lead to a News Of The World-style situation, or how many people may have been affected by it.

Jude Law, Hugh Grant and Cherie Blair were three of nearly 200 people targeted by the News Of The World as it sought to gain an edge over competitors with juicy stories. The initial fallout led to a “backlash” against the tabloids, and what I mean by backlash is everyone said “this is disgraceful”, and then carried on consuming regardless. A public inquiry into media practices was also setup, the Leveson Inquiry, which was all very nice, although a plus point for any tabloids watching was the list of witnesses, which was decidedly A-list.

The post Hacked Off: Tabloid Employees in Firing Line appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

The second edition of Pryce’s perverting the course of justice trial ended today with the replacement jury finding the economist guilty of taking speeding points for her then-husband in 2003. Her defense, that of marital coercion, obviously held little credence second time around.

Sentencing will take place in due course, as will further problems for Huhne’s political party, the Liberal Democrats, as reports surface about how much senior members of the party knew about Pryce’s revenge attack ahead of it becoming public.

Emails used in the case appear to show Pryce trying to warn the party’s hierarchy about the oncoming scandal involving Huhne. All those implicated deny anything was said, which is hardly surprising. No doubt the party would have hoped for a quick sentencing of the pair, so as to draw a line under the whole affair. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, their wait will also continue.

The post Huhne and Pryce Case Wraps Up. Verdict: Guilty! appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Quinnipiac (via Halperin):

New York State voters disapprove 49 – 45 percent of the job President Obama is doing, a huge drop from his 57 – 38 percent approval June 29 and the first time the president ever has had a negative score in New York, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Democrats approve 75 – 19 percent, down from 82 – 12 percent in June. Disapproval is 86 – 10 percent among Republicans, compared to a 74 – 23 percent disapproval in June, and 58 – 36 percent among independent voters, compared to a slightly positive 49 – 45 percent in June, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

Halperin notes: And: It’s the first time a president has ever received a negative score in New York.

The post New Yorkers & Obama appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

The problem, said the former Arkansas governor and 2008 Iowa caucus winner, is that Perry’s Saturday kickoff in South Carolina shows disrespect to the Iowa process. “It’s a tactical blunder … The people of Iowa work very hard to make the straw poll the biggest political moment in the summer,” Huckabee said. – Mike Huckabee: Rick Perry timing ‘bad form,’ ‘tactical blunder’

…and they’re off.

Bachmann one, Romney zip. …somebody obviously told him “people” liked the Mitt on the soap box.

Pawlenty enters a challenge that if you can find any plan from Obama, I’ll come cook you dinner or do your lawn, though it’s limited to 1 acre for Mitt Romney.

This is just weird.

…and Bret Baier, well, words escape me.

UPDATE: Okay, so Newt was on his game, plenty of make-up and might have even lost a couple of pounds. Tim Pawlenty is on the mat; that fit of his with Bachmann was brutal. Bachmann gave another strong debate performance, which should make her team fell good. Byron York’s question about being subservient was a doozy, but there were quite a few low blow questions. As for Mitt Romney, I hope Mr. Perry took a long, hard look, because he’s not going to walk away with the nomination if slick Mitt has anything to say about it. This guy wants this and he’s not going to go quietly. Jon Huntsman isn’t a Republican by today’s standards. Biggest loser: Bret Baier, who was way out of his league.

The post Romney: ‘I’m not going to eat Barack Obama’s Dog Food appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

“If you don’t like my answer, you can go vote for someone else,” he said. “If you want someone who will raise taxes, you can vote for Barack Obama.” – Romney gets in heated exchange with hecklers at Iowa State Fair

The exchange came on the same day as what’s being billed as a big Republican debate before the ridiculously overrated Ames straw poll. Now that Romney’s being defined as a “fragile” or “tentative” frontrunner, he’s going to have to take his campaign out of coast.

As he did so he ran headlong into a tree of the activist variety. They’re the Citizens for Community Improvement and they made Romney’s day a lot more complicated than he wanted it to be.

Democrats are rightly jumping all over Romney’s “corporations are people, my friend” line, which illustrates why the establishment hasn’t backed him yet. It’s not just tone deaf but an offensive thing to say with 10+ double-digit real unemployment. Anyone thinking sticking up for corporations in the current atmosphere is a winner is hopeless.

For any Democrat or progressive, what Romney said is red meat. It’s also fodder for the Obama campaign if Romney’s the nominee, but he isn’t yet.

However, if you’re a Republican who hasn’t quite warmed to Romney, I’m not so sure this clip is bad for slick Mitt.

It’s the first relaxed, un-weird and unscripted moment that comes with a pretty good punch line for Republican primary voters. He doesn’t come off as afraid to mix it up and commits himself strongly, even if he’s wrong about, well, just about every policy issue, unless you include his move to raise taxes as governor of Massachusetts to lure S&P to raise his state’s credit rating.

However, all of this is a great set up for Gov. Rick Perry’s entrance.

Still, Romney actually showed some life and real humanness today amidst it all, moments that have been very few for him.

I’m starting to think that what was missing from Romney’s campaign was a little healthy competition.

Rick Perry getting in the race may be the best thing that ever happened to Mitt Romney, because he clearly can’t be as nonchalant with Perry poised to enter. But all the hoopla with Perry is reminiscent of what Fred Thompson engendered before he jumped in and landed on his face. Perry’s not Thompson, but he’s also not Chris Christie, who fits the times much better.

Though why anyone would think Perry has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney is beyond me, though the “cowboy” thing in the era of Obama could seduce the neocons.

For Republicans outside the Perryverse, his approach to foreign policy and national security appear to be a natural extension of his personality: aggressive, unapologetic, and instinctive… all of the traits Republicans see as lacking in the Obama’s foreign policy.

“He’s a cowboy,” said Michael Goldfarb, former senior staffer on John McCain’s presidential campaign. “You have to assume he’d shoot first and ask questions later — which would be nice after four years of a leading from behind, too little too late foreign policy.”

Yee-haw.

The post Romney Gets Into it in Iowa appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Mark Halperin has a very odd interview (including video) with Texas Gov. Rick Perry that doesn’t focus on one single issue. It’s all touchy, feely, are you okay with the Bushes insider nonsense, which doesn’t speak to Perry’s politics and his outlandish religiosity.

This is the guy who’s supposed to unify the establishment, jettison slick Mitt, pacify the Tea Party pack and go on to beat Barack Obama? In the 21st century, this is the best Republicans can do?

What’s the difference between Perry’s evangelical extremism and Michele Bachmann’s? What makes Perry the go to guy, while Bachmann is a little too crazy? Now, don’t get me wrong, Bachmann’s politics are crazy, but no worse than Perry’s. What makes Perry acceptable is the man thing. Evangelicals don’t take to women running things; they like them on their knees. Or maybe it’s Marcus Bachmann who’s even too much for the wingnuts?

Pres. Obama and his team couldn’t possibly get this lucky.

The post Perry: ‘…This is what I’m supposed to be doing…’ appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

As Republican presidential hopefuls descended on Iowa for their second major debate on Thursday in Ames, the return of Mr. Romney came at a turning point in his candidacy. His wait-and-see approach toward campaigning in Iowa has been complicated by the expected candidacy of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, whose strategy includes waging a full effort in the caucuses early next year that open the nominating battles ahead. – With Return to Iowa, Romney Heeds Call of G.O.P. Strategists

We’re headed into some busy Republican 2012 days of action, with Iowa the focus and no one wants to be left out, because even though the White House is preparing to run against Romney, anything can still happen.

What you’ve got to understand about Republicans as they make their case is how they lie to the working class, and have been doing so for decades, in order to convince people to vote against their interests, while utilizing Democratic ideas themselves when it suits them. Sam Stein reveals Michele Bachmann’s hypocrisy on this score today.

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by The Huffington Post with three separate federal agencies reveals that on at least 16 separate occasions, Bachmann petitioned the federal government for direct financial help or aid. A large chunk of those requests were for funds set aside through President Obama’s stimulus program, which Bachmann once labeled “fantasy economics.” Bachmann made two more of those requests to the Environmental Protection Agency, an institution that she has suggested she would eliminate if she were in the White House. Taken as a whole, the letters underscore what Bachmann’s critics describe as a glaring distance between her campaign oratory and her actual conduct as a lawmaker.

But Bachmann’s just a sideshow, though she looks a lot better than Sarah Palin these days, who is once again yanking the chain of her adoring fans. Ames may be overblown in importance, but Sarah isn’t going to let the circus pass her by (after all she needs her Fox contract).

Ronald Reagan could relate to what Mitt Romney did as governor of Massachusetts to impress S&P. Of course, like Romney, Reagan would have a lot of trouble winning the Republican nomination today, too. From Politico:

“When I was governor, S&P rewarded Massachusetts with a credit rating upgrade for our sound fiscal management and the underlying strength of our economy,” Romney boasted. “That didn’t happen by accident. The president’s failure to put the nation’s fiscal and economic house in order has caused a massive loss of confidence that resulted in an embarrassing downgrade.”

But Romney’s case to S&P is a far cry from the anti-tax absolutism of the Republican Party he hopes to lead. Indeed, it bears a far closer resemblance to the right-of-center grand compromise rejected by House Republicans this year — dismissed because it would include new taxes and end tax breaks President Barack Obama described as “loopholes” — or the more modest compromise that passed, than to the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan Romney “applauded.”

The presentation to the ratings agency reveals that Romney’s administration made the case to Standard & Poor’s that his state was creditworthy because of both spending cuts — the current preferred GOP method — and new revenues, including fees he imposed and tax “loopholes” he closed. The presentation also prominently cited a controversial set of tax increases in the summer of 2002, which Romney, then a candidate, had opposed.

This is sound fiscal policy compared to what we’re hearing from all other Republicans. The Tea Party hates Romney already, so this isn’t going to make them feel any cozier toward him.

What’s at the bottom of Romney and Bachmann’s hypocrisy is shared by most of their colleagues, though they won’t admit it, because they’ve tied themselves to a false premise and for whatever stupidity they’re going to allow everyone else to pay for it.

It’s why if Pres. Obama and the White House has any game left they’d take Steve Benen’s advice, which has also mentioned by Chris Matthews.

Here’s the pitch: have the White House take the several hundred letters GOP lawmakers have sent to the executive branch since 2009, asking for public investments, and let President Obama announce he’ll gladly fund all of the Republicans’ requests that have not yet been filled.

This is perfect for Pres. Obama: he gets to give Republicans money for jobs programs that make them look good, with the threat of exposing them if they don’t ascent to creating jobs. It would also make the progressive case the best way possible and manifest what’s needed a lot more than anything else right now: economic growth through jobs.

There is no more important act needed today.

There are innumerable ways for Democrats and progressives to beat Republicans up on their risky economic schemes, but Benen’s is the best I’ve heard so far. However, it takes action to actually do something, not just give meaningless speeches.

The post Romney Raised Taxes to Get S&P to React

It’s panic at 1600. The daily Gallup is depressing by itself, but amidst the economic carnage and America losing our AAA status under Obama’s watch, which will make for a snappy negative GOP ad, everyone is girding their loins for the battle.

But really, folks, have people forgotten Alice Palmer? Remember Obama hinting Hillary was “Bush-Cheney lite”? ..and who can forget that South Carolina memo? If it takes scorched earth that’s what Obama will deliver, because he’s done it many times before.

Did people really believe Obama could get by this time on hope and change, the sequel?

I can’t believe people are shocked by the latest news, which comes in a politically titillating article at Politico:

In a move that will make some Democrats shudder, Obama’s high command has even studied former President George W. Bush’s 2004 takedown of Sen. John Kerry, a senior campaign adviser told POLITICO, for clues on how a president with middling approval ratings can defeat a challenger.

“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

The onslaught would have two aspects. The first is personal: Obama’s reelection campaign will portray the public Romney as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, “weird.”

[...] The second aspect of the campaign to define Romney is his record as CEO of Bain Capital, a venture capital firm that was responsible for both creating and eliminating jobs. Obama officials intend to frame Romney as the very picture of greed in the great recession — a sort of political Gordon Gekko.

I’ve always believed that Obama would have to go hard and go dirty, whether the GOP nominee is Mitt Romney or some other guy. Romney, however, is their worst nightmare, even give his innumerable flaws. The only difficulty for Obama would be if a woman rose to the top, which isn’t going to happen now that Rick Perry and his maleness is in the on-deck circle.

Let’s also not kid ourselves that Obama and Romney are all that different. Neither are ideologues. Both believe in nothing but their own fortunes and futures. Either would sell their soul to make a deal that makes them look good. And both are willing to do anything to get to live in the White House. They’re craven egotists who believe in their own persona and the preciousness of their own man self.

As an insider Dem told me months and months ago, Obama’s never run against a competent Republican, so Mitt Romney scares the crap out of them. But now that people have seen Barack Obama in action, revealing he isn’t all his marketing says he was (as I warned), well, they’re up against it now, because the old Axelrod-Plouffe bs won’t fly this time.

Besides the fact that the entire Politico piece is a gift to Mitt Romney and assumes he’s the nominee, let’s just accept that in 2012 these two unprincipled political chameleons, no insult meant to chameleons, are perfect for the times. Maybe we’ll all get lucky and they’ll tear themselves apart, making way for something novel in 2016: an independent progressive candidate who actually stands for something, but more importantly, is willing to go down fighting for it.

The post Scorched Earth is Nothing New for Obama appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Michele Bachmann’s intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek’s cover captures that. – Tina Brown

Female bloggers on the Right are pissed. Interesting that Elizabeth Flock from the Washington Post doesn’t even realize ignores that the picture of Palin in shorts came from Jon Meacham, via Runner’s World, though she does write it was before Tina’s time. She uses the Palin photo as an example of how differently she was covered than Bachmann.

Lois Romano’s piece in Newsweek about Michele Bachmann’s presidential run is not nearly as bad as this editorial cover. I felt like I was back watching “Sex and the City,” the episode where Carrie Bradshaw was on the cover of a magazine looking dreadful, because she didn’t show up on time for the photo shoot.

The title of Romano’s piece is even complimentary: Bachmann: Tea Party Queen – Why Michele Bachmann is riding high going into Iowa.

It’s a bad photo, but sexist? Hardly. As Politico reports, Mrs. Bachmann sat for the photo with Chris Buck, who’s also done George McGovern in a Speedo.

At Bachmann’s level, you never trust a photographer you don’t know, not ever.

Should Ms. Brown have run with it? That’s another question. But as her tweet reveals above, she was going for an editorial statement about Bachmann’s “intensity.” Its’ not like Newsweek readers don’t think of Bachmann as a bit wild-eyed.

Who knows, it might even give her a boost in Iowa with her fans who’ll sympathize with her against the lamestream media.

The post Cheap Shot, But It’s Not Sexist appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Former White House adviser David Axelrod on Sunday pinned responsibility for the recent U.S. economic downgrade on the Tea Party movement, arguing that the group’s political “brinksmanship” during debt ceiling negotiations “brought us to the brink of a default” — and that, subsequently, “this is essentially a Tea Party downgrade.” – CBS News

Absolutely. The Tea Party beat the White House on the debt ceiling, even though the Tea Party won’t claim it, so they’ll have to take the downgrade review, too.

Bob Schieffer got the White House bull’s eye talking point, which hits an easy mark, I know, but at this point it’s still welcome. It has the virtue of being true and something everyone can recognize because we all saw this play out.

It goes along with something else that’s manifested.

The Tea Party has overplayed their hand.

Greg Sargent pointed to something on Friday that works as a foundation to this after going through Friday’s New York Times internal polling numbers.

Tea Party i.d. has cratered.

Just 18% say yes they’re a supporter; 73% say no. All through the spectacle that masqueraded as debate and negotiations, their intransigence was on display. Never mind that their ideological zealotry comes with a fiscal policy that will only makes things worse.

You get held accountable for what you do in Congress, especially if you can’t compromise on what’s actually needed to fix our problem economy. Ideological fortitude is certainly principled up to a point, but legislators are sent to govern and Obama and the Democrats served up a lot (wrongly, in my estimation).

There’s no doubt Pres. Obama blew the set up and the negotiations, while refusing to wield the power he could have used to stop the deal, but there’s nothing to be done about that now.

So, if the White House can make the “Tea Party downgrade” stick it has the potential of being a 90s Newt Gingrich moment for the Tea Party, which actually is quite plausible. Heaven knows Democrats are eager to hear the line, which is a natural applause getter.

Unfortunately, this could help Mitt Romney a lot more than Pres. Obama, given his capitulation to Republican economics on the debt ceiling deal.

The post Axelrod Scores: It was a ‘Tea Party Downgrade’ appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As insults fly between political parties as well as the U.S. and S&P, with nations like China chirping in, all the rest of us are left to do is wait.

Republicans insisted on a disastrous debt ceiling deal, but it was Pres. Obama who allowed it all to play out as it did instead of demanding a clean debt ceiling and sticking to it or invoking the 14th Amendment. The White House showed no leadership at all.

But since what’s past is prologue…

It was a story entitled “Flying Blind” that drilled home the importance of funding our federal government properly to make sure lawmakers we elect have the information they need to run the place. As Lawrence O’Donnell lays out in the clip above, with help from Howard Fineman, as well as Robert Reich, when you don’t have the correct data it’s really hard to enact the proper policies. It’s what got Pres. Obama started on the economic path that is threatening to take down his presidency.

From The Economist earlier this month:

Output in the third and fourth quarters fell by 3.7% and 8.9%, respectively, not at 0.5% and 3.8% as believed at the time. Employment was also falling much faster than estimated. Some 820,000 jobs were lost in January, rather than the 598,000 then reported. In the three months prior to the passage of stimulus, the economy cut loose 2.2m workers, not 1.8m. In January, total employment was already 1m workers below the level shown in the official data.

We can’t know exactly how things would have played out in a world in which key policymakers had better data. If the true scope of the economic disaster in the fourth quarter had been clear, however, it seems certain that Ms Romer’s models would have shown a need for more stimulus, that the White House would have agreed to push for more (and perhaps a lot more), and that Congress would have been much more receptive to a bigger bill. A drop of 8.9% does seem much more terrifying, after all, than a 3.8% decline. Bigger stimulus would have reduced the economic deterioration in subsequent months. The Fed might also have been more aggressive.

[...] What’s striking to me is that as new data have revealed the true dimensions of the 2008 collapse, the public’s perception of events hasn’t much changed. Critics still jeer the stimulus for its failure to deliver promised results, despite the now-obvious inadequacy of the package. Few in Washington seem willing to discuss how drastically officials underreacted in 2009, and how the results of that underreaction are still with us, waiting for a more appropriate policy response. I don’t know which tragedy is the more troubling: the failure to see the true scope of the disaster when accurate numbers weren’t available, or the failure to see it now that they are.

Stop and re-read those numbers in bold above.

The discrepancy is not only staggering, but would cause any White House to react much differently. Obama’s people had the wrong numbers, so they were operating under a horrifically frightening misconception.

George W. Bush had left the economy in a much worse state than anyone had previously known.

Of course, Obama and Democrats came into power in 2009 not wanting to look back and because of it Bush enjoyed a sort of rehabilitation when his memoir came out. It’s a tragic mistake made by amateurs.

The disconnect, however, is that Pres. Obama, Democrats and Republicans are willing to waste the entire month of August on vacation while our country heaves and gasps for economic leadership.

The lack of coherent, determined and fearless leadership, that’s the scariest part of this entire saga and no one has the confidence this element will change any time soon.

The post George W. Bush’s Economy was Even Worse than Obama Knew appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

“(Pres. Bill Clinton) beat the hell out of us first, for a year. He pummeled us for a year. … He didn’t roll over the second we walked in. … Then he out-negotiated us for a year. He brought us to our knees.” – Joe Scarborough

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Those were the days. A time when a Democratic president in the White House knew how to wage a political fight. Today, not only has Pres. Obama ceded our national economic policies to Republicans and Tea Party extortionists, but he’s managed to alter the entire debate forever.

What we have done, Larry, also is set a new template. In the future, any president, this one or another one, when they request us to raise the debt ceiling, it will not be clean anymore. This is just the first step. This, we anticipate, will take us into 2013. Whoever the new president is, is probably going to be asking us to raise the debt ceiling again. Then we will go through the process again and see what we can continue to achieve in connection with these debt ceiling requests of presidents to get our financial house in order. – Sen. Mitch McConnell

Joe Scarborough was there and explained it best back when the Gingrich revolution rolled into Washington, something I remember well. Joe also makes the Democratic argument starting at around 6:45, with the money quote at 11:45 on the video above.

Back in the ’90s, William Jefferson Clinton had many things going for him Obama didn’t have during the debt ceiling debacle. First, as Kara Brandeisky writes in TNR, there was a roaring economy, but there were also no Republicans willing to take the country over a financial cliff.

Pres. Clinton had something else too. Yes, he became a Third Way centrist hated by progressives, but Clinton drew a line in concrete on what he would accept and not accept. But more importantly, he didn’t let the Republican extortionists set the terms of goddam debate.

November 9, 1995, a senior administration official told the Washington Post, “Our position is it does not matter what they put on this legislation, we are not going to accept anything but clean bills because we will not be blackmailed over default. Get it? No extortion. No blackmail. What you hear are their screams of complaint as they realize we are not, not, not budging on this.” – How Clinton Handled His Debt Ceiling Crisis Better Than Obama

As Jonathan Chait notes as well, it’s not about looking at Bill Clinton’s centrist presidency, which was filled with compromises, with rose-colored glasses, which isn’t going to happen anyway.

Obama and his loyalists have gone overboard the same way George W. Bush did when he came in. Bush’s Anything But Bill strategy led to the demoting of the first terrorism export, then 9/11. Obama’s aversion to Bill Clinton’s politics, but also Obama’s arrogance in not learning the lessons of his presidency, especially his hardball tactics that go back to Lyndon Johnson, has now given Republican economics to America.

Worse yet, Obama has also told his adversaries that there isn’t anything he won’t do to avoid a confrontation, while simultaneously yielding the economic debate to Republicans.

Clinton may be a lot of things, but he wasn’t a political coward.

The post Bill Clinton Played Hardball and Won, Obama Paid Ransom and America Lost appeared first on Taylor Marsh.

I’ve been reading a lot about the Pentagon’s possible budget hit, with analysis all over the map. What this proves conclusively is that no one knows what will happen. That’s the real rub in Obama’s debt ceiling debacle. No one can possibly know the specifics in outlying years. There are too many unknown unknowables, to paraphrase big spender Rummy, which is proven by reading the myriad of opinions on what might manifest.

William Hartung, Director, Arms Security Project, Center for International Policy*:

“In the short-term, the budget deal crafted by the president and the congressional leadership gives the Pentagon virtually a free ride. It reduces projected Pentagon spending by less than one percent. These proposed reductions are further diluted by the fact that they will be counted against a broad ‘security’ category that will include the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies beyond the Pentagon proper. These miniscule reductions are unacceptable. Real cuts in Pentagon expenditures can be imposed without reducing our security. Any longer-term deal should reflect this reality.”

Andrew Bacevich, Professor, Boston University:

“The prospect of defense cuts ought to concentrate some minds in Washington. To avoid reductions that are arbitrary and capricious requires clarity of strategic purpose. The really big question is not how many billions should come out of the Pentagon’s bloated budget. No, the big question is this one: given our straitened economic circumstances and in light of the monumental catastrophes of the past decade, what is America’s proper role in the world? Simply reciting cliches about ‘global leadership’ won’t cut it. The time to make hard choices is at hand.”

Winslow Wheeler, head of the Strauss Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, via Josh Rogin:

…said that the whole notion of the cuts is misleading anyway, because the numbers are being compared projections that were inaccurate in the first place.

“There will be reductions … but the actual figure is also masked by the fact that the debt deal is compared to a ten year CBO ‘baseline,’ which is [the fiscal] 2011 spending levels adjusted according to arcane rules and inflated by a highly unreliable projection of long term future inflation,” he said.

“The debt deal kicks the defense budget can down the road for this and future Congresses. People should not read precision and certainty into a political deal specifically designed to be uncertain and indistinct.”

From McClatchy:

Rather than cutting $400 billion in defense spending through 2023, as President Barack Obama had proposed in April, the current debt proposal trims $350 billion through 2024, effectively giving the Pentagon $50 billion more than it had been expecting over the next decade.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, experts said, the overall change in defense spending practices could be minimal: Instead of cuts, the Pentagon merely could face slower growth.

“This is a good deal for defense when you probe under the numbers,” said Lawrence Korb, a defense expert at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research center. “It’s better than what the Defense Department was expecting.”

[...] But the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform — known as the Bowles-Simpson proposal, for its two chairmen — proposed far deeper reductions last fall, saying the military could still maintain its power.

Korb, who studies defense budgets, said Congress could cut the defense baseline budget by $100 billion annually over the next decade and still spend more than it did during the height of the Cold War, adjusted for inflation. He noted that the baseline defense budget has climbed every year for 13 years, a record increase.

Anthony H. Cordesman from CSIS on the debt ceiling deal:

There is good reason why anyone who cares about the current legislation on the budget deficit should care about its near-term impact on national security:

• The entire debate reflected a total disregard of the need for the State Department and other civil departments to play a major role in consolidating our victory in Iraq, supporting a transition to Afghan control in 2014, and preparing for the United States to play a major role in supporting democracy and political change in the Middle East.
• This pressure comes at a time when the Defense Department has had years of growth in real spending, does little or no realistic long-term force planning, cannot control its manpower and procurement costs, and was already seeking cuts in programs between $78 billion and $400 billion. Even before the president added the goal of cutting the budget by $400 million over the next 12 years (long before the present debate), the Defense Department had planned to eliminate all real growth in defense spending after FY2013—which would reduce the total defense budget from $708 billion in FY2011 to $661 billion in FY2016—even if one assumes that the United States will still be spending $50 billion a year on its wars.
• Not one word of the debate addressed the rise in the total interagency homeland defense budget to over $70 billion a year, a massive new effort that has grown with minimal efficiency and without adult supervision.
• The new legislation layers a whole new set of cuts over the existing cuts forced on the defense secretary in preparing the FY2012 budget submission, which means massive new short-term pressure to find cuts—any cuts—in defense spending.
• The debate that led up to the legislation produced a totally dishonest proposal for cuts in wartime spending amounting to $1 trillion dollars. This was matched by an equally dishonest Future Year Defense Program submission for FY2012 from the Defense Department, which claimed that the total cost of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terrorism would suddenly drop from $159 billion in FY2011 and $118 billion in FY2012 to a constant level of $50 billion in FY2013–2016. The real cost of our wars has to be over $75 billion in FY2013, and no one knows the out-year costs. As for the $1 trillion in savings, it would take 20 years to achieve a $1-trillion savings at a rate of $50 billion a year, and that would mean two decades in which the United States could not spend a dime on any overseas contingency.

But, the legislation is not going to survive in ways that have any real mid- or long-term impact. This becomes clear the moment anyone examines the real-world nature of the supposed longer-term plans for defense cuts in the legislation.

First, there is no way to usefully assess what the numbers involved actually mean or to regard them as politically credible. We are talking about making cuts to nonexistent plans and budget baselines some 12 years into the future.

Second, these cuts are to be made in undefined dollars, where no one can yet define current or constant dollars for the time period involved or estimate the extent to which the cost of defense rises faster than the average rate of future inflation.

Third, the cuts are purely political numbers that do not reflect any analysis of national security needs, where the cuts would come from, or the risk involved. They make no allowance for new contingency requirements. They are to be carried out over more than a decade without regard to future developments in the U.S. economy and competing needs for federal spending.

Fourth, the cuts are not based on any serious examination of the priority of national security spending relative to other discretionary spending and entitlements programs and sources of revenue. They do not look at the fact that national security—which everyone agrees is a legitimate priority for federal activity—costs less than 5 percent of a $14 trillion dollar economy even though we are still involved in two wars. They totally ignore the fact that it is the rising cost of medical treatment (rising from 5 to 6 percent of GDP in the past toward 19 percent) and the needs of an aging population (rising from 12 to 20 percent of the total) that is the key area that has pushed up our debt and deficit and where we need sound national programs—not simply budget cuts.

Fifth, the deadlines that could trigger the massive additional cuts are absurd. There is no credible way that the Special Joint Committee can really address the cuts that should be made in our national security efforts by November 23, 2011, or that the Congress as whole could properly evaluate the result for an up-or-down vote by December 23, 2011.

Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; former Assistant Secretary of Defense*:

 ”The proposed deal does not go far enough in reining in a military budget which in real terms is higher than at any time since World War II. In fact, the total reductions over the next decade are likely to be less than the $400 billion proposed by President Obama.”

Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director, National Security Network*:

“If a congressional commission includes a serious, bipartisan review of defense strategy and expenditures, and abides by its recommendations, this is an opportunity for all sides to show they’re serious about constructing an American defense strategy that is effective and affordable for our times.”

ABC News:

On first blush it appears the $2.1 billion debt ceiling compromise hits the Pentagon’s budget pretty hard in the next decade, but the reality is that in the short term the $350 billion in defense cuts is smaller than what Pentagon officials had been preparing for. However, the deal also holds out the possibility that in the long term there could be even deeper cuts in defense spending if a bipartisan committee is unable to come up with an additional $1.2 trillion in savings by the end of this year.

…and just in case you haven’t been paying attention, which plays into Pres. Obama’s hands on national security, as well as obliterates the line between Democrats and Republicans, secrecy still rules (n/t Noah Shachtman of Danger Room).

The Senate Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment that would have required the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to confront the problem of “secret law,” by which government agencies rely on legal authorities that are unknown or misunderstood by the public.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall, was rejected on a voice vote, according to the new Committee report on the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.

“We remain very concerned that the U.S. government’s official interpretation of the Patriot Act is inconsistent with the public’s understanding of the law,” Senators Wyden and Udall wrote. “We believe that most members of the American public would be very surprised to learn how federal surveillance law is being interpreted in secret.”

Finally, Adm. Dennis Blair, former United States Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration, for all you wonks (substance starts at 3 min. in). Blair starts with a terrific quote from John Cleese, which is pretty perfect considering the absurdity we’ve all had to endure the last weeks.

*TM Note: Attribution on this quote has been changed.

The post Pres. Obama’s Deficit Debacle, National Security, and Warmaking appeared first on Taylor Marsh.